YouTube CEO Neal Mohan Says YouTube is a “Bastion of Free Speech”
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 6, 2025
If you believe Neil Mohan, YouTube’s CEO, the platform is a modern-day Agora—a self-described “bastion of free speech” where the world’s most pressing debates thrive. Though, “just because it’s an open platform, it doesn’t mean that anything goes,” Mohan told The Financial Times in the last week. Translation: Free speech is alive and well—until it isn’t. Because on YouTube, the marketplace of ideas comes with a bouncer, a velvet rope, and an ever-expanding list of banned words and topics.
This month, YouTube is eager to remind everyone it’s “committed” to free expression, a sentiment as convincing as a fast-food chain promising “health-conscious dining.” Over the last five years, the platform has turbocharged its content moderation policies, leaning on AI overlords and human censors to police conversations ranging from vaccine skepticism to who gets to call a virus a “lab leak.”
It’s a delicate balance, they claim—one requiring the finesse of a trapeze artist. But if the past is any guide, the only thing YouTube’s balancing act reliably delivers is corporate doublespeak and a pile of censored creators.
Moderation or Muting?
Mohan, the relatively new captain of YouTube’s Titanic, insists that the company welcomes “broad views” but won’t tolerate “anything goes.” Consider their “community guidelines,” a vague, shape-shifting set of rules that could find your grandma’s knitting tutorial in violation if it dares question Big Pharma.
Behind this rhetoric is an algorithmic enforcement machine programmed to flag, demonetize, or outright remove content at lightning speed—accuracy be damned. And when the AI overlords fumble, the human moderators step in, wielding their own biases like blunt instruments.
Critics, including banned creators, point out that YouTube’s moderation seems to skew conveniently in one direction. Questioning the CDC? Misinformation. Broadcasting claims about ivermectin? Censored. But when a mainstream outlet gets caught peddling unverified or downright wrong information, it’s business as usual.
The COVID-19 Information Iron Curtain
Of course, nothing showcases YouTube’s free speech schizophrenia better than its pandemic policies. To combat “medical misinformation,” the platform instituted a strict purge of dissenting voices, silencing everyone from epidemiologists to concerned moms armed with anecdotal evidence and Facebook memes.
Let’s not forget the lab leak theory, a hypothesis once relegated to tinfoil hat territory. When early adopters of the theory dared to post about it, their content was struck down faster than you could say “gain-of-function research.” Fast forward a couple of years and the lab-leak theory is now a “credible hypothesis,” endorsed by experts and even government agencies.
Oops.
But don’t expect an apology or even acknowledgment from YouTube for playing arbiter of acceptable science. They’ve quietly updated policies and moved on, leaving censored creators wondering why their “misinformation” turned out to be, well, information.
Advertiser-Friendly Speech Only
The real driver of YouTube’s overzealous content policing, of course, is money. Back in 2017, a wave of advertiser boycotts over “hateful” and “controversial” content sent the platform scrambling. The solution? Stricter guidelines are needed to ensure that only the most sanitized, brand-safe content remains.
While no one would argue against booting child exploitation, the crackdown didn’t stop there. It extended into politically sensitive areas, conveniently targeting independent creators and smaller voices while leaving corporate media to do as they pleased.
What’s worse is the blatant double standard. Want to critique vaccine mandates or discuss alternative COVID treatments? Good luck. But if you’re a major network spouting unverified claims about weapons of mass destruction or “imminent threats,” go right ahead. After all, those ad dollars won’t chase themselves.
YouTube’s Legacy of Censorship
Mohan’s lofty rhetoric about fostering “broad views” might play well in interviews, but the reality on the ground is clear: YouTube’s commitment to free speech is as reliable as a politician’s campaign promise. The platform has repeatedly chosen corporate image over open discourse, advertisers over authenticity, and control over community.
And yet, it continues to parade as a defender of free expression. Perhaps Mohan and his team truly believe in their own doublespeak. Or maybe they’re banking on the fact that most users will never notice the glaring contradictions. Either way, YouTube’s hypocrisy isn’t an accident—it’s a business model.
The next time you hear Neil Mohan wax poetic about “free speech,” remember this: On YouTube, freedom comes with conditions, and the only real winners are the ones writing the checks.
Ohio Governor DeWine Vetoes “Medical Free Speech” Provision
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 7, 2025
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has vetoed a provision in House Bill 315 that sought to shield medical professionals from state disciplinary actions over medical opinions conflicting with state-sanctioned guidance. The measure, described as a “medical free speech” safeguard, was removed through a late-night line-item veto on Thursday.
The provision aimed to bar regulatory entities, such as the Ohio Medical Board, from disciplining or threatening to discipline medical practitioners for expressing opinions—whether publicly or privately—that deviated from those of the board or other state agencies.
However, DeWine justified his veto by warning of potential harm to public health. In his message accompanying the veto, the governor stated, “it is not in the public interest and instead could lead to devastating and deadly consequences for patient health.”
DeWine also elaborated to reporters on how such a measure might undermine the state’s ability to hold doctors accountable for malpractice. He expressed concern that the provision could allow practitioners to avoid scrutiny simply by framing negligent actions as personal medical opinions. “All the doctor would have to say in defense is, ‘Well, it’s my opinion,’” DeWine remarked in late December, signaling his intent to veto the provision. “This would totally gut our ability to regulate health professionals.”
The proposal has faced resistance from DeWine’s administration since its initial introduction in an earlier bill, House Bill 73.
That legislation, spearheaded by Representative Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester, sought to expand patient access to off-label prescriptions and grant legal immunity to pharmacists filling such prescriptions. According to a nonpartisan analysis of H.B. 73, the bill aimed to protect both patients and medical providers engaging in treatments outside conventional practices.
Gross, a nurse practitioner, has consistently advocated for medical freedom, testifying before the Ohio House Health Provider Services committee in support of shielding health professionals from retaliation when utilizing what she described as “life-saving treatments.” Her stance reflects a broader push to ensure that neither patients nor medical practitioners face punitive consequences for pursuing unconventional or off-label medical options.
Facebook Dumps ‘Fact-checkers’ One Day After CHD Asks Supreme Court to Hear Censorship Case Against Meta
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 7, 2025
Less than 24 hours after Children’s Health Defense (CHD) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its censorship case against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, Mark Zuckerberg announced the company is ending its third-party “fact-checking” program.
“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg told viewers in a press release video. Meta also owns Instagram.
CHD sued Meta in November 2020 over the social media giant’s censorship practices. The company de-platformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram in August 2022 and has not reinstated the accounts.
Commenting on today’s news, CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “It’s clear that Mark Zuckerberg is worried about new anti-censorship policies of the incoming administration — as he should be. The record in CHD v. Meta clearly shows Facebook’s close collaboration with the White House to censor vaccine-related speech, even pre-COVID.”
Holland added:
“CHD has taken its case to the Supreme Court, and Facebook doubtless realizes there are Justices there that are very dubious about Facebook’s role in censoring speech at the behest of the government in the new public square.
“Zuckerberg may imagine that by making this announcement he is mooting this case, or making it no longer significant. That’s not the situation — the country needs closure that this kind of fusion of state and industry to censor unwanted information will never happen again.”
CHD’s lawsuit against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and its founder and CEO, Zuckerberg, alleges that government actors partnered with Facebook to censor the plaintiffs’ speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment.
The suit also named “fact-checking” firms Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute and its PolitiFact website. On Aug. 9, 2024, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against CHD.
Lawyers with CHD urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. They wrote in their petition, filed Monday:
“This case goes to the heart of our constitutional design, raising critical questions in the Internet Age about the availability of open debate free from government censorship-by-proxy.
“The practical consequences of leaving the decision below intact are enormous: the levers of censorship on the mega-platforms will always be sore temptation for executive office-holders — and not just about vaccines or Covid.”
National healthcare and constitutional practice attorney Rick Jaffe called Meta’s announcement a “very big deal for the country and for CHD.”
Jaffe represents CHD in some of its cases, including cases involving doctors’ right to speak freely about COVID-19. He told The Defender :
“For the last five-plus years, CHD — largely through Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mary Holland, and the group’s supporters — have been at the forefront of defending free speech on social media … Meta’s action today shows the effect of the changing public’s view on censorship by social media companies which Meta could no longer ignore.
“So, congrats to CHD and its legal team who helped this happen. The work isn’t over yet, so onwards.”
Meta shifts to content moderation model used on X
Rather than turning to third parties to fact-check posts, Meta will use a “Community Notes model” in which social users themselves decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context, said Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan in a statement. “We’ve seen this approach work on X,” Kaplan said.
The change will take a few weeks to implement, Kaplan said.
Meta also will lift restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender identity. “It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,” Kaplan said.
The Defender asked Meta if it will lift restrictions on discussions about vaccine safety and COVID-19 but did not receive a response by deadline.
Meta is also changing how it enforces its policies. “Up until now,” Kaplan said, “we have been using automated systems to scan for all policy violations, but this has resulted in too many mistakes and too much content being censored that should haven’t been.”
Zuckerberg said there’s “legitimately bad stuff out there — drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.” The company will continue to take those things “very seriously” by using automated systems to scan for them.
However, for less severe violations, Meta will rely on a person reporting an issue before taking action against an account user.
Zuckerberg said he always cared about freedom of expression but that in recent years, his company responded to pressure for stricter speech restrictions. “Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more,” Zuckerberg said. “A lot of this is clearly political.”
He acknowledged that some of the “complex systems” Meta built to moderate content made mistakes. “We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.”
Will Meta’s policy changes stick?
Zuckerberg said Meta’s policy changes were also prompted by the recent U.S. elections that were a “cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing free speech.”
Jenin Younes, a civil rights attorney who represented some of the plaintiffs in the landmark censorship case Murthy v. Missouri, told The Defender she was “cautiously optimistic” about Meta’s announcement.
Meta appeared to be making the changes because of a new presidential administration, Younes said. “That means that Meta could change course in another four years under a different administration. We need major social media platforms — the modern public square — to adopt principled free speech positions that don’t change with the wind.”
If platforms don’t adopt strong free speech positions, public dialogue suffers, Younes said. “Censorship on Meta, especially during the COVID era, strangled public debate and even went so far as to prevent vaccine-injured individuals from corresponding with each other in private groups.”
Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel, told The Defender Meta’s announcement does not undo the years of the damage done to CHD and many other individuals and groups.
“What is important is not only that Meta is making these changes but also that steps are taken to make sure this cannot be repeated, which makes our ongoing cases — including the recently filed petition to the U.S. Supreme Court — critically important.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Top Trump Official Claims Iran Is the Problem in the Middle East, Vows Crackdown on Pro-Palestinian Protesters
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 6, 2025
The incoming National Security Adviser Mike Waltz said the Trump administration would target Iran in the Middle East and crack down on pro-Palestian protesters in the US to support Israel.
In an interview with Mark Levin, Waltz explained the “philosophy” of the incoming administration for the Middle East. “The problems in the Middle East by and large originate from Tehran, not from Tel Aviv. We’re going to stand by and support our greatest ally in the Middle East,” he said. “We’re aligned from a national security, intelligence and values standpoint.”
Waltz described this policy as instituting a “complete philosophical, wholesale national security shift.”
“We’re going to align with our ally Israel, we’re going to realign the common interests of the Gulf Arab states with Israel in opposing Iran’s aggression, we’re going to reinstate maximum pressure, we’re going to stop them from selling their illegal oil that has been funding terrorism,” he said. Adding that the US military is “getting worn out shooting missile after missile from this ragtag bunch of Houthis. We’re going to get that under control.”
President Joe Biden has provided Israel with $22 billion in military aid since the October 7 attack. On Friday, Axios reported that Biden was planning to approve a final $8 billion arms sale to Israel. The current White House has also protected Tel Aviv at the UN Security Council and fought a war against the Houthis in Yemen to defend Israel.
Additionally, the Biden administration increased the Trump-era sanctions on Iran and refused to return to the Obama-era nuclear agreement. The White House deployed its most advanced air defense systems to Israel to protect it from a potential Iranian missile attack.
Still, Republicans in Washington and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have attacked Biden for not providing Israel with enough support. The current administration has pushed Tel Aviv to allow most aid into Gaza.
However, Tel Aviv has largely defied Washington’s requests to allow more aid into Gaza. In December aid shipments sunk to 71 trucks per day, far below the number, 500, aid agencies say is needed to prevent deaths of deprivation in Gaza. Gazan children have begun to freeze to death at night as their families shelter in tents.
CNN reports that the incoming administration will be more amenable to Israel’s policies of further restricting aid shipments to Gaza and will further cut deliveries once Trump returns to office.
Waltz went on to say the Trump administration would crack down on pro-Palestinian protesters. The US government will “look at mosques, individuals, universities, professors – you name it – that post a threat to the United States and are radicalizing individuals to harm the United States.” He continued referring to pro-Palestinian campus protesters, people “here on a student visa, with the privilege to study in our universities – you don’t get to protest and radicalize. You’re going to go back home real fast.”
Some of Trump’s America First supporters may view doubling down on US support for Israel as a violation of that policy. Waltz said he believes Trump will be convinced to follow through on the policy points he explained to Levin.
Deals, such as expanding the Abraham Accords, is “what gets President Trump so excited and that’s what makes all of these historic disagreements that have perpetuated for decades, if not centuries, smaller and smaller,” he explained.
On Monday, Trump made remarks to radio host Hugh Hewitt that would suggest Waltz is correct. “Well, I’m the best friend that Israel ever had. You look at what happened with all of the things that I’ve gotten, including Jerusalem being the capital, the embassy getting built,” he stated, adding the provision of military aid to Israel would be “uninterrupted” during his administration.
The Authoritarian Legacy of Justin Trudeau
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 6, 2025
After nearly a decade in office, after attempts at photogenic diplomacy and tearful apologies, Justin Trudeau is stepping down as Canada’s Prime Minister, leaving behind a legacy as divisive as it is dramatic. To some, he was the poster child for progressive leadership, a leader who championed climate action and diversity while bringing Canada into the global spotlight. To others, he was an over-polished politician whose tenure was defined by censorship, economic mismanagement, and the weaponization of state power against his own citizens. His resignation marks the end of an era—one defined as much by lofty rhetoric as by policies that left a deep mark on civil liberties and public trust.
So, what’s Trudeau’s Canada after nearly ten years? A land of progressive aspirations or a dystopian Pinterest board?
Censorship: The Friendly Autocrat Edition
Few things capture Trudeau’s tenure better than his government’s legislative war on free speech. Let’s start with the dynamic duo of digital overreach:
Bill C-10: “Regulating the Unregulatable”
The saga of Bill C-10 began innocently enough. Trudeau’s government framed the bill as a noble effort to modernize the Broadcasting Act. After all, the law hadn’t been updated since 1991, back when Blockbuster was thriving and the internet was just a nerd’s dream. The goal, they said, was to “level the playing field” between traditional broadcasters and streaming giants like Netflix and YouTube.
Sounds fair, right? Not so fast.
The devil was in the details—or the lack thereof. The bill gave Canada’s broadcast regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), sweeping authority to police online content. Originally, user-generated content like vlogs, TikTok dances, or indie films were supposed to be exempt. However, midway through the legislative process, Trudeau’s government quietly removed those exemptions. Suddenly, your cat video could be classified as “broadcast content,” giving bureaucrats the power to decide whether it met Canadian cultural standards.
Critics, including legal scholars and digital rights groups, raised the alarm. They argued that the bill’s language was so vague it could allow the government to dictate what Canadians saw, shared, or created online. The specter of state-controlled algorithms choosing what gets promoted on platforms was too close to censorship for comfort.
But the government dismissed the concerns, painting critics as alarmists. In Trudeau’s Canada, wanting clear limits on government power apparently made you a conspiracy theorist.
Bill C-36: Hate Speech or Debate Killer?
Not content to merely oversee what Canadians could create, Trudeau’s administration went a step further with Bill C-36, a supposed weapon against online hate speech. If Bill C-10 was about controlling the medium, this bill was about controlling the message.
What Did It Do?
- Reintroduced a controversial section of Canada’s Human Rights Act, allowing people to file complaints over online hate speech.
- Allowed courts to impose hefty fines and even jail time for offenders.
- Gave the government the power to preemptively penalize individuals suspected of potentially committing hate speech—a sort of Minority Report approach to thought crime.
The problem? The bill’s definition of “hate” was so expansive that it could potentially criminalize unpopular or offensive opinions. The bill didn’t just target clear-cut incitements to violence; it targeted anything deemed likely to expose individuals to “hatred or contempt.” Critics feared that “hatred or contempt” could mean anything from political dissent to sharp critiques of government policies.
Even more alarming was the prospect of a “snitch culture.” The bill encouraged private citizens to report each other for suspected hate speech, potentially turning disagreements into legal battles.
David Lametti, Trudeau’s Justice Minister, defended the bill, claiming it struck the right balance between free expression and protection from harm. But when legal experts and civil liberties groups united in opposition, it became clear that balance was not the government’s strong suit.
The Financial Freeze Heard ‘Round the World
The Freedom Convoy protest of 2022
The Freedom Convoy—the moment when Canada went from polite protests and Tim Hortons to frozen bank accounts and police crackdowns.
In 2022, when truckers and their supporters descended on Ottawa to protest COVID-19 mandates, Trudeau didn’t meet them with dialogue or even his trademark smile-and-wave. Instead, he dusted off the Emergencies Act, something no prime minister had dared touch before. Overnight, financial institutions became Trudeau’s personal enforcers, freezing accounts of protesters and anyone who dared to support them.
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, Trudeau’s second-in-command at the time and a walking, talking LinkedIn connection to global elites, eagerly played bad cop. Under her direction, the financial clampdown turned Canada’s banking system into a political weapon. It wasn’t lost on critics that Freeland’s cozy ties to global financiers made the whole thing look like an international crackdown on dissent.
And what of the precedent? Trudeau’s message was clear: disagree with the government, and you might lose access to your life savings. It was a masterclass in how to turn financial systems into handcuffs, leaving civil liberties in tatters.
The Media Muzzle: Subsidizing Obedience
Also on the chopping block was journalistic independence. Trudeau’s government rolled out legislation forcing media outlets to register with a government body to qualify for funding. On the surface, this was marketed as a lifeline for struggling journalism. Because nothing says “press freedom” like reporters dependent on government handouts, right? It’s a classic move: offer financial aid with one hand and hold the leash with the other.
Critics were quick to point out the slippery slope. When the same entity paying the bills also sets the rules, the line between journalism and government PR gets blurry fast. Trudeau, of course, framed this as support for democracy, but the result was a media landscape nervously eyeing its next paycheck while tiptoeing around criticism of its benefactor.
Big Brother Gets a Twitter Account
Then came the surveillance. Under Trudeau’s watch, Canadian intelligence agencies dramatically expanded their social media monitoring. Initially, this was framed as a necessary tool against extremism. But “extremism,” much like “disinformation,” is a flexible term in the hands of those in power. Activists and protest groups—voices traditionally central to democratic discourse—suddenly found themselves under the microscope.
Imagine logging onto X to vent about a new housing policy, only to realize your tweet has been flagged by a government algorithm. The message was clear: dissent might not be illegal, but it was certainly inconvenient.
Disinformation: The Government’s New Buzzword
Trudeau’s pièce de résistance was his crusade against “disinformation.” This word became the Swiss Army knife of excuses, used to delegitimize critics and corral public opinion. Do you have a bone to pick with government policies? Disinformation. Questioning pandemic mandates? Disinformation. Unimpressed with Trudeau’s latest photo op? You guessed it—disinformation.
To hammer the point home, his administration launched a series of public awareness campaigns, ostensibly to educate Canadians about the perils of online misinformation. These campaigns, dripping with paternalistic condescension, often blurred the line between fact-checking and outright propaganda. The subtext was unmistakable: dissent, even if rooted in genuine concerns, was a threat to national cohesion.
Canada’s New Normal: The Fear of Speaking Freely
The cumulative effect of these policies wasn’t subtle. Everyday Canadians began censoring themselves, not out of respect for others but out of fear of stepping on the wrong bureaucratic toes. Content creators hesitated to tackle divisive topics. Activists wondered whether their next rally would land them on a government watchlist. What was once a robust marketplace of ideas began to resemble a sparsely stocked shelf.
And yet, Trudeau’s defenders remain loyal, arguing that his policies were noble attempts to safeguard society. However, as history has repeatedly shown, the road to censorship is paved with the promise of safety, but its destination is a society too scared to speak.
The Legacy of Controlled Speech
So what’s the verdict? Is Trudeau a misunderstood guardian of democracy, or is he the wolf who prowled under the guise of a shepherd? It’s hard to champion inclusivity and diversity when fewer voices are allowed to join the conversation. Canada may someday reckon with the full implications of these policies, but the damage is already visible.
And as Canadians tiptoe around their digital platforms, one question remains: how free is a democracy where everyone whispers?
Hoax Alert: Acker is Angry (2024)
Karl’s Substack | January 4, 2025
According to Jake Tapper writing for CNN there was a so-called ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ in Detroit, Michigan in December 2024.
We read how:
‘The home of a Jewish member of the University of Michigan’s Board of Regents was vandalized early Monday, in what the university described as “a clear act of antisemitic intimidation.”
The incident marks the third time Jordan Acker, a Michigan attorney elected to the board overseeing the university’s governance, has been targeted since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.
“The University of Michigan condemns these criminal acts in the strongest possible terms,” the school said in a statement. “They are abhorrent and, unfortunately, just the latest in a number of incidents where individuals have been harassed because of their work on behalf of the university. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”
The sound of shattering glass jolted Acker from his sleep just after 2 a.m. Monday, he told CNN. He went downstairs to find his front windows had been smashed and his wife’s car vandalized with what he described as “messages about Palestine with a Hamas upside triangle.”
The upside-down triangle has become a symbol of violent resistance to Israel, according to the Anti-Defamation League. Photos provided by Acker show someone scrawled “Divest” and “Free Palestine” on the vehicle.
Acker said his neighbors captured the incident on their ring camera and called the police. CNN has reached out to the Huntington Woods Police Department for comment.
“As a public official, you expect a certain level of criticism – even protests – but this is not protest, this is terrorism,” Acker said, adding the incident took place while his daughters were asleep upstairs.
“This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, has nothing to do with Palestine, nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with trying to harass and intimidate Jews,” Acker said, “And this Jew will not be intimidated by it.”’ (1)
Now before I get into the meat of this claim this is the ‘anti-Semitic’ vandalism:
Now while it can be reasonably described as politically motivated vandalism given the political message, damage to Acker’s car and the smashed window; ‘anti-Semitic’ is not only pushing it but ludicrous.
This is because it is clearly targeted at Israel – hence the BDS and ‘Free Palestine’ references in the graffiti on Acker’s car – and Acker while jewish has been a staunch and vocal pro-Israel supporter for quite some time who has had the police violently break up pro-Palestine protests of the University of Michigan campus (2) and as such as been the focus on anti-Zionist political protest stunts – such as the vandalising of the sign of his legal practice – (3) for quite some time.
Acker’s response has been exactly the same and has claimed that anyone protesting against him is ‘anti-Semitic’ and criticism of the jewish state is also ipso facto ‘anti-Semitic’. (4)
To quote Acker:
‘I was not targeted here today because I am a regent. I am a target of this because I am Jewish. This neighborhood is Jewish, and because some people, under the pretext of helping Palestinians, feel the obligation to single out Jews, especially liberal ones for an attack. It is unacceptable, it is un-American, and it must stop now.’ (5)
Given this and the fact – as Jacob Maggid has explained in the ‘Times of Israel’ – that:
‘The activists shouted various accusations and grievances at Acker, claiming that he “supports Israeli genocide” in Gaza and is behind the “persecution” of anti-Israel protesters who were recently indicted for trespassing and resisting law enforcement during the break-up of a pro-Palestinian encampment on campus.’ (6)
Or put another way: Acker is a jewish lawyer who is using his position as Regent of the University of Michigan to crack down on anti-Israel sentiment and protests on campus and thus limit the scope of intellectual inquiry as it pertains to Israel, but also uses his jewishness as a shield to enable him to label any resistance and/or criticism of him and his policies as ‘anti-Semitic’.
So thus, while this is a case of politically motivated vandalism it is not an ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ in any way, shape or form.
The War on Speech Is Turning into a Monty Python Sketch
Truthstream Media | January 3, 2025
Please help support us on Patreon, read our goals here: 
/ truthstreammedia or SubscribeStar here: subscribestar.com/truthstreammedia
As context is very important for all videos, this message is to confirm that the purpose of this video is reporting on or documenting the content. Note that we make an effort to research for context and cite our sources as appropriate.
Our First Series: Vimeo.com/ondemand/trustgame
Site: TruthstreamMedia.com
X: @TruthstreamNews
Backup Ch: Vimeo.com/truthstreammedia
DONATE: http://bit.ly/2aTBeeF
Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
State Department Rebrands Defunded Global Engagement Center into New Counter-Disinformation Hub
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | January 4, 2025
As we previously reported would be the case, the celebration about the shutting down of the US government’s most overt censorship unit would be short-lived. The State Department is moving forward with plans to reassign employees and resources from a controversial office accused of stifling media into a newly created internal unit, as revealed by documents obtained by the Washington Examiner. This maneuver is already drawing criticism, with some alleging it is a thinly veiled attempt to rebrand and continue the disputed activities of the defunct office.
The Global Engagement Center (GEC), established in 2016 to counter foreign disinformation, faced fierce scrutiny from Republicans over claims it collaborated with groups like the Global Disinformation Index to target and demonetize right-leaning US media outlets.
In late 2024, Congress defunded the GEC, effectively shutting it down. Yet, a December 6 communication from the State Department to Congress outlined a plan to “realign” 51 GEC employees and nearly $30 million in funding into a new “Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Hub.”
Republicans are expected to investigate the matter closely, with concerns that the new hub could replicate the GEC’s controversial operations.
A Legacy of Controversy
The GEC claimed its mission was to counter foreign disinformation, but allegations of domestic overreach cast a long shadow. It funded initiatives like the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard, groups accused of pressuring advertisers to blacklist certain US media outlets.
These actions prompted legal challenges, including a December 2023 lawsuit by conservative outlets The Federalist and The Daily Wire, alongside the State of Texas.
Despite its closure, top officials from the GEC have already found new roles in the State Department.
The hub will report to the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and will inherit significant resources. According to the documents, $69 million previously allocated to the GEC will be redistributed across the State Department, with $29.4 million designated for the R/FIMI hub. This funding includes salaries, contract staff, and operational support. However, a source noted that, unlike the GEC, the new hub would lack grantmaking authority.
New Censor Replacing Old Censor at Meta
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | January 4, 2025
Some people are optimistic that the promotion of Joel Kaplan to be Meta’s president of global affairs heralds the end of, or at least a big reduction in, censorship at Meta’s social media sites of Facebook and Instagram. This optimism springs from the fact that Kaplan leans Republican in the notoriously Democratic leaning company, and even was White House deputy chief of staff for policy in the Republican George W. Bush administration.
Yet, there is plenty of reason for skepticism. Support for free speech has become a rallying cry for many Republicans in response to censorship efforts by Meta, other companies, and governments over the last few years. However, many Republicans and Republican-leaning individuals still are keen on censoring people, though sometimes for different reasons than are many Democratic or Democratic-leaning individuals. Consider efforts by Republicans, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott a good example, to shut down very broadly defined “antisemitic” communication.
Also, Kaplan is not a hire from the outside. He joined Meta 13 years ago as vice president of United States public policy. Since 2014 he has been the company’s vice president of global affairs. In this job, Kaplan has worked with Nick Clegg — the person Kaplan will succeed. Are we to believe Kaplan has spent all this time itching to tear down the censorship implemented, with his help, by his boss? They have had some differences of opinion regarding Meta’s censorship, but let’s wait and see what change comes.
Clegg, in a Thursday Facebook post, profusely praised Kaplan ascending to Clegg’s job, stating:
And no one could pick up from where I’ve left off with greater skill and integrity than my deputy, Joel Kaplan. I am simply thrilled that Joel will now become Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer.
Hmmm. That is not suggesting a big change in policy on censorship is on the way.
Reporter Glenn Greenwald provided in a Friday Twitter post a fact that challenges the optimism that Kaplan’s promotion signals the end of, or even a large reduction in, censorship by Meta. Greenwald wrote, using “FB” to refer to Facebook: “Kaplan was the senior FB official who worked directly with the Israeli Government to ensure that Israel’s demands for censorship were honored.”
Backing up his claim, Greenwald linked in his Twitter post a September 12, 2016 The Times of Israel article that detailed Facebook’s, at the behest of the Israel government, then substantial and expanding clamping down on communication. This was years before the company’s name change to Meta.
The article identifies Kaplan as a Facebook employee who took part in a high-level meeting to carry out the arrangement with the Israel government:
Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan met Monday morning with senior Facebook officials in an effort to jointly stem online incitement that Israel claims leads to terror activities.
The Facebook officials included Joel Kaplan, vice president of Global Public Policy and a former deputy chief of staff for policy at the White House, and Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of product policy and counterterrorism.
And the censorship by Facebook at the Israel government’s request was ongoing before the meeting. Noted in the article:
In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, also on Monday, Shaked said that Facebook has already started removing 95 percent of content Israel has requested it to remove, while YouTube has complied with Israel’s requests 80 percent of the time, the Israeli news website Ynet reported.
But, that was just the start. The Israel government wanted even more censorship from Facebook. From the article: “In the meeting Israel requested that Facebook be more proactive in removing materials that could be seen as incitement to terror and the joint teams will study how to work together to serve the interests of both parties, a person familiar with the matter said.”
This man is the hope for stopping censorship? Hoping is fine, but it is often important to keep your feet firmly on the ground as well.
Journalist killed by Ukrainian drone strike
RT | January 4, 2025
Aleksandr Martemyanov, a freelance reporter with the newspaper Izvestia, has been killed in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic after the civilian vehicle he was riding in was attacked by a Ukrainian drone, Russian media reported on Saturday.
At least five other journalists, who were also in the car, including two RIA Novosti reporters, were injured in the attack, the news agency said. The vehicle was hit while traveling on a road away from the frontline between the town of Gorlovka and the regional capital city of Donetsk.
The car carrying the reporters was hit by a kamikaze drone. Martemyanov succumbed to his wounds shortly thereafter, Izvestia has confirmed.
At the time of the attack, the reporters were returning from Gorlovka after filming the aftermath of the strikes on the town, which has been coming under indiscriminate Ukrainian artillery, missile, and drone attacks on an almost daily basis.
The attack on the journalists’ car appeared to be deliberate, Maksim Romanenko, a reporter with RIA Novosti, suggested. Romanenko sustained relatively minor injuries – bruising on his face and a concussion – during the incident.
Last ditch media sanctions from the West against Russia are like a sick child crying for help
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 3, 2025
Many analysts will be wondering what Trump will do about Russian sanctions when gets into the Oval office, although there is some optimism that he will try and reverse them. He is cautious not to get into a debate about this subject, which leads me to suspect that this will be one of the bombshells he will drop on the Biden administration which left him the small gift of signing off over a billion dollars of military aid to Ukraine. What almost no Americans understand though, which is largely the fault of mainstream media, is that these military spending sprees are really all about feeding a dual-purpose racket which really has nothing to do with the actual war in Ukraine, which everyone now admits Russia is winning. On one hand, it is of course pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the 5 main arms manufacturers in the U.S. in a move which could arguably be called illegal state aid; on the other hand the kit which is sent to Ukraine from the U.S. – and the UK – is mainly being sold on a number of black markets, with only about 30 percent or thereabouts actually reaching Ukrainian troops. My own investigation has proved that the Zelensky cabal are selling off the heavy equipment like armoured personal carriers (APCs) and lorry loads of American made assault rifles to dealers in the international arms bizarre of Libya – where Middle Eastern terrorists, or their affiliates in the Sahel buy it at bargain prices.
And Trump certainly understands the racket and will want to stop it. Dropping the mother of all bombshells on the Biden legacy by scrapping the sanctions and blocking any more aid would be an effective way to do that.
But it’s the sanctions on Russia media which he should also give priority to, given that, with the state of western media being such a shambles, we had to rely on RT for example, in the UK and U.S., to ask the difficult questions and hold our administrations to account.
The recent news at the end of December that the EU is cracking down even further on Russia media and individuals who are active within it – journalists and others – is another parting shot which smacks of desperation. The West is under no illusions privately that it is losing the war in Ukraine and is wondering how it can tell a fairy tale story to its own voters so as to deflect blame with the sole purpose of staying in power. This is really what media sanctions are all about. Shutting down any narrative that could possibly hold you to account and expose the tawdry reality of the mess the West has made in Ukraine based on the military industrial complex gaining too much power and eating up elites in its path. The Biden administration will be remembered for this. A new dawn in just how much power these arms manufacturers have and what lengths they can go to, to get the big contracts. This will all come out in the Trump administration with documentaries about Biden and his son’s laptop and how Ukraine was a holiday camp for them to go to with empty suitcases and return with a few million dollars. Like a cash machine which keeps churning out cash due to a computer glitch. The lure of Ukraine and corrupt western elites is nothing new. But during Trump’s first term citizens of the West are going to see the dark side to the events which led up to Russia’s invasion. And it stinks.
Part of that racket, going back even to 2013 or 2014 was to try and shut down Russian media. In reality, it was simply RT which elites noticed was gaining popularity in many European countries from people who had lost all faith in their own media which had fallen into the grubby hands of the powerful elites and their dirty games long ago. It used to be the case that in Brussels, the hold that the powerful institutions had on journalists was so strong in such an abusive relationship that what we saw each day on TV and in the newspapers was pure EU propaganda on a scale that even the Soviet Union could not muster. There used to be however the contrast between Brussels and member states where the media were more robust and anti-establishment. But no more. Now the political journalists along with the defence correspondent in the UK for example are practically government propaganda agents who probably think they were journalists once. Their work is to keep the lies about Ukraine, as one example, flowing so that the public are distracted and can’t focus on what is under their nose. Sometimes the plain truth is so close to the person looking for it, that it can’t be seen. Distance is required. When RT operated in the UK, there was this certain environment which questioned more and provided an alternative viewpoint which was needed in any functioning democracy. Trump’s priority should be to finish the sanctions and adopt a more grown-up approach to resolving Ukraine as the Russians want a longer-term solution rather than quick fix buggerydoo. Ending the sanctions on Russian media would be a good message to western elites that have fed from the trough for so long with the lies which have been created that their time is up. Trump’s back.
Featured Video
America Racing to Strategic Defeat in Iran
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Should Europeans ‘Thank’ the Americans for Destroying Nord Stream?
By Robert Bridge | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 29, 2022
With an investigation continuing into the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline that provided energy supplies to Europe from Russia, there appears to be just one prime suspect, and that should surprise nobody.
Following the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski already seemed to know the identity of the perpetrator when he tweeted out: “Thank you, USA.”
At first glance, it seemed that Sikorski was speaking sarcastically, berating Washington for carrying out an attack that will have severe repercussions for the people of Europe. After all, how could anyone see any good coming from the termination of Europe’s primary source of gas reserves with winter just around the corner? It was Sikorski’s homeland of Poland, after all, that urged its citizens to collect firewood in the face of dwindling gas reserves.
In fact, the Polish diplomat was speaking one-hundred percent literally… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Growing insecurity, soaring prices fuel protests in north as regime bans evacuation: Sources
- Iran denies responsibility for ‘depraved’ attack on Kuwait desalination plant
- Bring The Troops Back. End This War Now!
- Can we please stop calling Israel the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ now?
- US should start removing its troops for Germany, proposes AfD co-leader Chrupalla
- Iran Red Crescent: 600 educational centers attacked in US-Israeli ‘war crimes’
- Russian Oil Tanker Arrives in Cuba Amid U.S. Blockade
- America Racing to Strategic Defeat in Iran: Lt Col Daniel Davis
- FTC Warns Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, Stripe Over Political Debanking
- Russian tanker approaches Cuba despite US oil blockade
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli police block Catholic cardinal from entering Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Palm Sunday
- Israel is assassinating journalists again, more than any other nation, anywhere, ever – Not a ceasefire Day 170
- Over 300 US service members wounded, majority have brain injuries – Not a ceasefire Day 169
- Researchers at Human Rights Watch Resign Over Blocked Report on Palestinian Refugee Return
- Jewish Groups Are Backing a War Americans Don’t Want
- Eric Fingerhut Thinks He’s the President of the Jews
- Top Jewish Philanthropists, Rabbis Urge Israeli President to Take Action Against ‘Jewish Extremists’
- Don’t Be Fooled. Zionist Leaders Have Always Wanted to Control Southern Lebanon
- Israel’s widespread use of torture is a core element of its genocide against the Palestinian people
- In Israel’s War on Iran, Many Middle East US Bases Rendered “All But Uninhabitable”
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
Aletho News 