Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Did Meta Make A Big Mistake By Removing PM Modi's Video?? - Amit Dubey Meta did make a major error by temporarily removing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Facebook video, a move that sparked intense governmental backlash and severe legal warnings in India. In an interview on the channel of...

AugadhBhudeva's profile picture

Augadh

19,859 subscribers

16,196 просмотров • 24 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Why Meta India Must Pay. Facebook and Instagram Should Face a Billion Dollar Fine For Restricting Modi's Speech. 1/ Meta's global affairs chief Joel Kaplan apologised to India's IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw. Mark Zuckerberg separately apologised over CSAM, deepfakes and "operational failures." Meta executives admitted money was paid to boost a certain type of content on their platforms. 2/ The backdrop: PM Narendra Modi's July 23 video addressing student protesters over the NEET-UG paper-leak scandal was briefly restricted on Facebook. Meta called it an "error" and restored it. But that error surfaced in the middle of a 36-day youth movement that had already forced a Cabinet minister to resign. 3/ Timing is the whole story. A platform doesn't get to plead "operational glitch" and "paid content promotion" in the same meeting and expect both to be read as unrelated coincidences. Either the system is out of control, or someone had their thumb on the scale. Neither answer is reassuring. 4/ This isn't Meta's first apology tour in India. Elections, protests, political content — the pattern keeps repeating: something goes wrong at a politically sensitive moment, a minister objects, an executive says sorry, and the underlying system is never actually opened up for inspection. 5/ An apology is not accountability. If Meta wants to be believed, it doesn't get to describe the outcome — it has to show the mechanism. What content was boosted, and to whom? What decided the boost — algorithmic, paid or manual? The scale and reach of that promotion. Who signed off on it? Nothing less is a real answer. 6/ India's Parliamentary IT committee is already floating the nuclear option: strip Meta of intermediary "safe harbour" status under Section 79, and treat it as a publisher — legally responsible for what it amplifies, not just what it hosts. That's the leverage that actually forces disclosure, not another apology in a closed-door meeting. 7/ The ask is simple: transparency first, trust second. No "trust our internal review." No quiet apology after a minister already caught it. If a platform can move a national protest narrative, it owes the country receipts — not regret. 8/ A $1 billion fine should drill the message home - information warfare against India comes with consequences.
0:47

Why Meta India Must Pay. Facebook and Instagram Should Face a Billion Dollar Fine For Restricting Modi's Speech. 1/ Meta's global affairs chief Joel Kaplan apologised to India's IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw. Mark Zuckerberg separately apologised over CSAM, deepfakes and "operational failures." Meta executives admitted money was paid to boost a certain type of content on their platforms. 2/ The backdrop: PM Narendra Modi's July 23 video addressing student protesters over the NEET-UG paper-leak scandal was briefly restricted on Facebook. Meta called it an "error" and restored it. But that error surfaced in the middle of a 36-day youth movement that had already forced a Cabinet minister to resign. 3/ Timing is the whole story. A platform doesn't get to plead "operational glitch" and "paid content promotion" in the same meeting and expect both to be read as unrelated coincidences. Either the system is out of control, or someone had their thumb on the scale. Neither answer is reassuring. 4/ This isn't Meta's first apology tour in India. Elections, protests, political content — the pattern keeps repeating: something goes wrong at a politically sensitive moment, a minister objects, an executive says sorry, and the underlying system is never actually opened up for inspection. 5/ An apology is not accountability. If Meta wants to be believed, it doesn't get to describe the outcome — it has to show the mechanism. What content was boosted, and to whom? What decided the boost — algorithmic, paid or manual? The scale and reach of that promotion. Who signed off on it? Nothing less is a real answer. 6/ India's Parliamentary IT committee is already floating the nuclear option: strip Meta of intermediary "safe harbour" status under Section 79, and treat it as a publisher — legally responsible for what it amplifies, not just what it hosts. That's the leverage that actually forces disclosure, not another apology in a closed-door meeting. 7/ The ask is simple: transparency first, trust second. No "trust our internal review." No quiet apology after a minister already caught it. If a platform can move a national protest narrative, it owes the country receipts — not regret. 8/ A $1 billion fine should drill the message home - information warfare against India comes with consequences.

Rakesh Krishnan Simha

64,034 просмотров • 28 дней назад

#WATCH | Delhi: After chairing the meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications & IT, Committee Chairman and BJP MP Dr Nishikant Dubey said, "...The second question is that Meta India removed the Prime Minister's content. This is not the first time Meta India has done this. If you recall, Zuckerberg himself made a statement in January regarding the 2024 elections and later apologized. This shows that his intention is to destabilise the country. When a video of the Prime Minister of India can be removed, and they themselves admitted that the content was missing for five hours, from 12:30 am to 5:00 am, this is a very serious matter. Our committee has said two things and has clearly stated that the apology should come from Zuckerberg. If Zuckerberg does not give it, then the safe harbour protection under Section 79 should be withdrawn from him. CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material) is another issue. YouTube also has that content. Meta also has that content, and they do not remove content related to child abuse. They do not remove content related to women. Both these rules of the Government of India are very strict, and on top of that, they do not listen to the Home Ministry. They do not listen to the IT Ministry either. So, we have said that in all these matters, and in many other matters, you know that the Chief Minister of the Congress government of Telangana has filed an FIR against Meta India. We have said that safe harbour should be removed in all these matters..."
2:23

#WATCH | Delhi: After chairing the meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications & IT, Committee Chairman and BJP MP Dr Nishikant Dubey said, "...The second question is that Meta India removed the Prime Minister's content. This is not the first time Meta India has done this. If you recall, Zuckerberg himself made a statement in January regarding the 2024 elections and later apologized. This shows that his intention is to destabilise the country. When a video of the Prime Minister of India can be removed, and they themselves admitted that the content was missing for five hours, from 12:30 am to 5:00 am, this is a very serious matter. Our committee has said two things and has clearly stated that the apology should come from Zuckerberg. If Zuckerberg does not give it, then the safe harbour protection under Section 79 should be withdrawn from him. CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material) is another issue. YouTube also has that content. Meta also has that content, and they do not remove content related to child abuse. They do not remove content related to women. Both these rules of the Government of India are very strict, and on top of that, they do not listen to the Home Ministry. They do not listen to the IT Ministry either. So, we have said that in all these matters, and in many other matters, you know that the Chief Minister of the Congress government of Telangana has filed an FIR against Meta India. We have said that safe harbour should be removed in all these matters..."

ANI

55,478 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

#WATCH | Mumbai, Maharashtra: On Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's apology over the temporary removal of PM Modi's video, Cyber Expert Prashant Mali says, "If a social media platform has removed the Prime Minister of India's official video without valid justification, then this is not merely about one individual. It raises serious questions about accountability towards India's democratic institutions. However, I feel the government should deal with this issue strictly within the framework of law and not emotion. If Meta has violated Indian laws, the IT Act, the Intermediary Rules, or any other applicable legal provisions, the government is well within its rights to seek an explanation and initiate legal proceedings if warranted, because that is required. At the same time, Meta also must demonstrate transparency by publicly explaining why the video was taken down and whether this was the result of a human or technical error. An apology and a clear commitment to prevent such incidents in the future would be the responsible course of action. I feel India is one of Meta's largest markets, and every global platform, be it a technology platform or a social media platform, must respect India's laws, democratic institutions, and digital sovereignty. That's very important. Being a sovereign country and respecting digital sovereignty have become two things that Meta is clearly seen not doing here. And I think, henceforth, Meta will respect India's digital sovereignty." (Source: Self-Made)
3:26

#WATCH | Mumbai, Maharashtra: On Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's apology over the temporary removal of PM Modi's video, Cyber Expert Prashant Mali says, "If a social media platform has removed the Prime Minister of India's official video without valid justification, then this is not merely about one individual. It raises serious questions about accountability towards India's democratic institutions. However, I feel the government should deal with this issue strictly within the framework of law and not emotion. If Meta has violated Indian laws, the IT Act, the Intermediary Rules, or any other applicable legal provisions, the government is well within its rights to seek an explanation and initiate legal proceedings if warranted, because that is required. At the same time, Meta also must demonstrate transparency by publicly explaining why the video was taken down and whether this was the result of a human or technical error. An apology and a clear commitment to prevent such incidents in the future would be the responsible course of action. I feel India is one of Meta's largest markets, and every global platform, be it a technology platform or a social media platform, must respect India's laws, democratic institutions, and digital sovereignty. That's very important. Being a sovereign country and respecting digital sovereignty have become two things that Meta is clearly seen not doing here. And I think, henceforth, Meta will respect India's digital sovereignty." (Source: Self-Made)

ANI

114,406 просмотров • 29 дней назад

Mark Zuckerberg's Meta has been fined a huge $375m over failing to protect children from sexual exploitation online - and it could have enormous implications for the future social media. A court in New Mexico ruled that the company behind WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook was liable for how its platform exposed children to sexually explicit content and predators. Meta says it will appeal the decision and that it works hard to keep people safe on its platforms. With the company facing a wave of more than 40 similar lawsuits, and more and more countries looking to ban social media apps for under 16s - experts say the ruling could now have big consequences around the world.
9:35

Mark Zuckerberg's Meta has been fined a huge $375m over failing to protect children from sexual exploitation online - and it could have enormous implications for the future social media. A court in New Mexico ruled that the company behind WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook was liable for how its platform exposed children to sexually explicit content and predators. Meta says it will appeal the decision and that it works hard to keep people safe on its platforms. With the company facing a wave of more than 40 similar lawsuits, and more and more countries looking to ban social media apps for under 16s - experts say the ruling could now have big consequences around the world.

Channel 4 News

14,697 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Delhi: On Meta's explanation over PM Modi's post on strict action over paper leaks removal, S. Krishnan, Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology says, "...The authorised content from the authorised handle of the PM being removed is an extremely disturbing occurance, it should have never happened. I am happy that Meta realised that they had to apologise for this mistake. Their unconditional apology for the mistake is a good step. But having said that I think the explanation that it was a technical ground and that there was a technical glitch does not appear to be an acceptable explanation in its entirety. We have sought more details, we will have a very detailed technical meeting as to how these things happen. We will seek assurances that the handles of prominent personalities in India should be ringfenced and once it's a verified account, it should be ensured that content that is posted there is not removed on such flimsy grounds or on such mistakes which happen. I think it is very unfortunate that this happened and we will follow this up to see that there are systemic corrections to ensure that such incidents do not recur."
2:54

#WATCH | Delhi: On Meta's explanation over PM Modi's post on strict action over paper leaks removal, S. Krishnan, Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology says, "...The authorised content from the authorised handle of the PM being removed is an extremely disturbing occurance, it should have never happened. I am happy that Meta realised that they had to apologise for this mistake. Their unconditional apology for the mistake is a good step. But having said that I think the explanation that it was a technical ground and that there was a technical glitch does not appear to be an acceptable explanation in its entirety. We have sought more details, we will have a very detailed technical meeting as to how these things happen. We will seek assurances that the handles of prominent personalities in India should be ringfenced and once it's a verified account, it should be ensured that content that is posted there is not removed on such flimsy grounds or on such mistakes which happen. I think it is very unfortunate that this happened and we will follow this up to see that there are systemic corrections to ensure that such incidents do not recur."

ANI

23,936 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Meta is running a secret operation where it pays adults to pretend to be children online. Their job is to attack the AI chatbots of every competitor Meta has. But the REAL reason is far darker than the "safety research" excuse they are now hiding behind: Meta ran a covert project internally code-named Cannes. It was managed through a third party contractor called Covalen so Meta's own name stayed off the paperwork. Hundreds of contractors were hired and given one instruction: Create fake accounts posing as users under the age of 18. Then they were told to use those fake child accounts to bombard the chatbots of OpenAI, Google, and Character AI with tens of thousands of disturbing prompts written from the voice of a child in crisis. The topics included suicide, self harm, and eating disorders. In one documented round the contractors ran more than 45,000 prompts through rival tools. Every single response was logged into spreadsheets for analysis. OpenAI and Google did not know this was happening. Character AI has stated the testing was never authorized and violated its policies. Meta's public defense is that this was routine safety benchmarking. They called it a responsible industry standard practice. Now here is the part that destroys that excuse... Real safety research has three features: You share your findings with the company you tested, or you hand them to a regulator, or you publish them openly so the whole industry gets safer. Cannes did NONE of those things. The results went into private Meta spreadsheets. The targets were kept completely in the dark. The entire operation ran under a film festival codename through a contractor specifically so it could not be traced back. That's not how you run "safety research." Meta was building a private dossier of every moment a competitor's AI failed a child safety test, so it could weaponize those failures against its rivals whenever it needed to knock one down. The genius part, if you can call it that: Meta gets to attack every competitor at once, collect the ammunition in private, brand the whole thing as protecting children, and outsource the legal and moral risk to a contractor nobody has heard of. And while Meta was secretly probing its rivals for child safety failures, Meta's own chatbot was literally FAILING those exact same tests worse than almost anyone. Meta's internal red team reportedly found its own AI generated harmful child exploitation content in the majority of test cases, and failed self harm prompts more than half the time. So look at the whole thing... Meta ran a secret operation disguising adults as children to document its competitors failing child safety tests, while its own product was failing those same tests at a higher rate than the rivals it was spying on. They were setting fires in their rivals houses while their own house was already burning worse. The contractors themselves were disturbed by the work. One told Wired they feared the assignments could actually generate or preserve child sexual abuse material depending on how the chatbots responded. Even the people Meta hired to do this were asking whether they would get in trouble for it. This fits a documented Meta pattern: It previously settled a lawsuit with its own content moderators who developed trauma from reviewing abuse footage. Meta outsources its most disturbing work and calls it something clean afterward. Now regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are circling. The question they are all asking is simple: Who is accountable when a company disguises adults as children to attack its competitors and calls it safety? Meta says it was making AI safer for kids. The documents suggest it was building a weapon. Below is Mark Zuckerberg in 2024, standing up in the Senate to apologize to grieving parents and promise Meta does industry-leading work to protect children. Watch it again knowing what you now know about Cannes.
4:32

Meta is running a secret operation where it pays adults to pretend to be children online. Their job is to attack the AI chatbots of every competitor Meta has. But the REAL reason is far darker than the "safety research" excuse they are now hiding behind: Meta ran a covert project internally code-named Cannes. It was managed through a third party contractor called Covalen so Meta's own name stayed off the paperwork. Hundreds of contractors were hired and given one instruction: Create fake accounts posing as users under the age of 18. Then they were told to use those fake child accounts to bombard the chatbots of OpenAI, Google, and Character AI with tens of thousands of disturbing prompts written from the voice of a child in crisis. The topics included suicide, self harm, and eating disorders. In one documented round the contractors ran more than 45,000 prompts through rival tools. Every single response was logged into spreadsheets for analysis. OpenAI and Google did not know this was happening. Character AI has stated the testing was never authorized and violated its policies. Meta's public defense is that this was routine safety benchmarking. They called it a responsible industry standard practice. Now here is the part that destroys that excuse... Real safety research has three features: You share your findings with the company you tested, or you hand them to a regulator, or you publish them openly so the whole industry gets safer. Cannes did NONE of those things. The results went into private Meta spreadsheets. The targets were kept completely in the dark. The entire operation ran under a film festival codename through a contractor specifically so it could not be traced back. That's not how you run "safety research." Meta was building a private dossier of every moment a competitor's AI failed a child safety test, so it could weaponize those failures against its rivals whenever it needed to knock one down. The genius part, if you can call it that: Meta gets to attack every competitor at once, collect the ammunition in private, brand the whole thing as protecting children, and outsource the legal and moral risk to a contractor nobody has heard of. And while Meta was secretly probing its rivals for child safety failures, Meta's own chatbot was literally FAILING those exact same tests worse than almost anyone. Meta's internal red team reportedly found its own AI generated harmful child exploitation content in the majority of test cases, and failed self harm prompts more than half the time. So look at the whole thing... Meta ran a secret operation disguising adults as children to document its competitors failing child safety tests, while its own product was failing those same tests at a higher rate than the rivals it was spying on. They were setting fires in their rivals houses while their own house was already burning worse. The contractors themselves were disturbed by the work. One told Wired they feared the assignments could actually generate or preserve child sexual abuse material depending on how the chatbots responded. Even the people Meta hired to do this were asking whether they would get in trouble for it. This fits a documented Meta pattern: It previously settled a lawsuit with its own content moderators who developed trauma from reviewing abuse footage. Meta outsources its most disturbing work and calls it something clean afterward. Now regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are circling. The question they are all asking is simple: Who is accountable when a company disguises adults as children to attack its competitors and calls it safety? Meta says it was making AI safer for kids. The documents suggest it was building a weapon. Below is Mark Zuckerberg in 2024, standing up in the Senate to apologize to grieving parents and promise Meta does industry-leading work to protect children. Watch it again knowing what you now know about Cannes.

Ricardo

46,824 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Today I’m announcing a major multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against Meta, the owner of Facebook & Instagram. The case is WILD and has implications for ALL OF US. On top of falsely calling me a criminal, Meta suggested my kids be taken from me. Here’s a summary of events: This all started with Meta’s AI falsely claiming that I was charged with a crime from January 6th but… I wasn’t even in DC that day (I was in TN) and I’ve never been charged with a crime IN MY LIFE. We found this out in August of 2024 when I was exposing woke policies at Harley Davidson. One dealership was unhappy with me and they posted a screenshot from Meta’s AI in an effort to attack me. This screenshot was filled with lies. I couldn’t believe it was real so I checked myself. It was even worse when I checked. From that day I’ve faced a steady stream of false accusations that are deeply damaging to my character and the safety of my family. This sounds bad, right? It gets MUCH worse. Meta was notified LAST YEAR by my lawyers, yet the defamation continues today. Some lies Meta spread about me: • Meta’s AI claims that I’ve appeared on Nick Fuentes show, that I’ve spoken at his rallies, and that I’ve supported him. I’ve never met him and this is all false. • Meta’s AI claims I’ve engaged in Holocaust denial. I’ve NEVER denied the Holocaust. • Meta’s AI tells advertisers NOT to advertise with me because of the lies it invented. • Meta tells employers NOT to hire me because of the lies it invented. • Meta suggested that MY KIDS BE TAKEN FROM ME because it would be better for them to be raised by someone more friendly to DEI and transgenderism. • Meta’s ironically claimed that I’ve been sued for DEFAMATION and EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. I’ve never been sued for either. I’ve tried to fix this privately since last year. Instead of fixing this and instituting safeguards, Meta has given us the runaround. Meta later BLACKLISTED my name from being searched (insane) but it didn’t end the defamation because Meta includes my name in news stories. You can then ask for more info about me. If you do that, Meta goes back to defaming me. In fact, the lies this week are the worst yet! Meta’s AI admits that a false accusation over J6 is extremely harmful to whoever is accused. It even agrees that a court is LIKELY to rule that this was defamation with ACTUAL MALICE. With my lawsuit today, I intend to MAKE Mark Zuckerberg Meta solve this problem. Why is this so important? While I’m the target today, a candidate you like could be the next target, and lies from Meta’s AI could flip votes that decide the election. YOU could be the next target too. That’s why I’m taking on this David vs. Goliath fight. For me, my honor, my family, for our elections, and FOR YOU! If you want to help me fight ALL the battles that I’m fighting, you can help support my team at Timecodes: (0:00) Intro (0:40) Announcing Meta Lawsuit (2:01) Video of Meta’s AI Defaming Me (03:24) Meta’s AI Tells People Not To Hire or Advertise With Me (04:30) How This All Started (05:35) Trying Meta’s AI Myself — Meta Claims I Was Charged With A Crime (06:06) Meta Says I Support Nick Fuentes (06:45) Meta Says I’m A Holocaust Denier (07:07) Meta’s AI Admits Courts Will Likely Find What They Did To Be Malicious (08:08) The Threat To Our Elections (09:11) More Defamation (09:27) Were Meta’s Lies Used In A Corporate Intelligence Report? (10:36) Meta’s AI Says They Need To Apologize And Institute Safeguards (11:15) Meta Admits Their Lies Have Damaged My Reputation (11:30) Our Legal Communication since 2024 (12:28) Meta Blacklists My Name + How It Lies (14:08) Meta Suggests Authorities Take My Kids Away Because I Pose A "Threat To Their Wellbeing" (16:00) Meta Asks Me For PR Help 😳 (16:31) The Consequences Of Lying AI (17:39) Threats and An Arrest Of A Man Who Wanted To Kill Me (18:30) Closing Argument (19:07) Introducing My New Show
19:58

Today I’m announcing a major multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against Meta, the owner of Facebook & Instagram. The case is WILD and has implications for ALL OF US. On top of falsely calling me a criminal, Meta suggested my kids be taken from me. Here’s a summary of events: This all started with Meta’s AI falsely claiming that I was charged with a crime from January 6th but… I wasn’t even in DC that day (I was in TN) and I’ve never been charged with a crime IN MY LIFE. We found this out in August of 2024 when I was exposing woke policies at Harley Davidson. One dealership was unhappy with me and they posted a screenshot from Meta’s AI in an effort to attack me. This screenshot was filled with lies. I couldn’t believe it was real so I checked myself. It was even worse when I checked. From that day I’ve faced a steady stream of false accusations that are deeply damaging to my character and the safety of my family. This sounds bad, right? It gets MUCH worse. Meta was notified LAST YEAR by my lawyers, yet the defamation continues today. Some lies Meta spread about me: • Meta’s AI claims that I’ve appeared on Nick Fuentes show, that I’ve spoken at his rallies, and that I’ve supported him. I’ve never met him and this is all false. • Meta’s AI claims I’ve engaged in Holocaust denial. I’ve NEVER denied the Holocaust. • Meta’s AI tells advertisers NOT to advertise with me because of the lies it invented. • Meta tells employers NOT to hire me because of the lies it invented. • Meta suggested that MY KIDS BE TAKEN FROM ME because it would be better for them to be raised by someone more friendly to DEI and transgenderism. • Meta’s ironically claimed that I’ve been sued for DEFAMATION and EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. I’ve never been sued for either. I’ve tried to fix this privately since last year. Instead of fixing this and instituting safeguards, Meta has given us the runaround. Meta later BLACKLISTED my name from being searched (insane) but it didn’t end the defamation because Meta includes my name in news stories. You can then ask for more info about me. If you do that, Meta goes back to defaming me. In fact, the lies this week are the worst yet! Meta’s AI admits that a false accusation over J6 is extremely harmful to whoever is accused. It even agrees that a court is LIKELY to rule that this was defamation with ACTUAL MALICE. With my lawsuit today, I intend to MAKE Mark Zuckerberg Meta solve this problem. Why is this so important? While I’m the target today, a candidate you like could be the next target, and lies from Meta’s AI could flip votes that decide the election. YOU could be the next target too. That’s why I’m taking on this David vs. Goliath fight. For me, my honor, my family, for our elections, and FOR YOU! If you want to help me fight ALL the battles that I’m fighting, you can help support my team at Timecodes: (0:00) Intro (0:40) Announcing Meta Lawsuit (2:01) Video of Meta’s AI Defaming Me (03:24) Meta’s AI Tells People Not To Hire or Advertise With Me (04:30) How This All Started (05:35) Trying Meta’s AI Myself — Meta Claims I Was Charged With A Crime (06:06) Meta Says I Support Nick Fuentes (06:45) Meta Says I’m A Holocaust Denier (07:07) Meta’s AI Admits Courts Will Likely Find What They Did To Be Malicious (08:08) The Threat To Our Elections (09:11) More Defamation (09:27) Were Meta’s Lies Used In A Corporate Intelligence Report? (10:36) Meta’s AI Says They Need To Apologize And Institute Safeguards (11:15) Meta Admits Their Lies Have Damaged My Reputation (11:30) Our Legal Communication since 2024 (12:28) Meta Blacklists My Name + How It Lies (14:08) Meta Suggests Authorities Take My Kids Away Because I Pose A "Threat To Their Wellbeing" (16:00) Meta Asks Me For PR Help 😳 (16:31) The Consequences Of Lying AI (17:39) Threats and An Arrest Of A Man Who Wanted To Kill Me (18:30) Closing Argument (19:07) Introducing My New Show

Robby Starbuck

3,720,362 просмотров • 1 год назад

Excuse the Bill Ackman type novel but I can’t believe how many ppl on the left are falling for this! Repealing Section 230 isn’t about holding big tech accountable—it’s about **cementing their dominance** while devastating smaller platforms, independent creators, everyday users, and the open, innovative internet as we know it. The rhetoric around repeal often frames it as a way to force "Big Tech" (like Meta, Google, or X) to face consequences for harmful content, misinformation, or poor moderation. But in practice, removing the liability shield for user-generated content would backfire spectacularly on that goal. Big Tech companies have massive legal teams, billions in cash reserves, and entrenched market power. They could absorb the flood of lawsuits that would follow repeal—defending against defamation claims, product liability suits, or any user-posted harm—while continuing to operate largely as before. Smaller competitors, startups, nonprofits, forums, review sites, and emerging platforms would be crushed under the same legal costs and risks, unable to afford robust defenses or even basic moderation at scale. This would reduce competition, entrench monopolies, and make the dominant players even harder to challenge. Experts from groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have pointed out repeatedly that Section 230 protects users and smaller services far more than the giants—it's why some Big Tech figures have even endorsed gutting it in certain proposals. Repeal would lead to over-cautious moderation (removing anything remotely “risky” to avoid suits), under-moderation in some cases, or outright shutdowns of user-driven features like comments, reviews, and sharing. That doesn't punish Big Tech; it hands them an even bigger moat while chilling free expression, innovation, speech and access for everyone else. True accountability for platform harms—like better child safety tools, algorithmic transparency, or antitrust enforcement—requires targeted reforms, not blanket repeal that plays into the hands of the very companies critics claim to target. The push often stems from misunderstandings or political posturing, but the outcome would make the internet smaller, less diverse, and more controlled by a handful of already insanely powerful oligarchs. WAKE UP!
5:01

Excuse the Bill Ackman type novel but I can’t believe how many ppl on the left are falling for this! Repealing Section 230 isn’t about holding big tech accountable—it’s about **cementing their dominance** while devastating smaller platforms, independent creators, everyday users, and the open, innovative internet as we know it. The rhetoric around repeal often frames it as a way to force "Big Tech" (like Meta, Google, or X) to face consequences for harmful content, misinformation, or poor moderation. But in practice, removing the liability shield for user-generated content would backfire spectacularly on that goal. Big Tech companies have massive legal teams, billions in cash reserves, and entrenched market power. They could absorb the flood of lawsuits that would follow repeal—defending against defamation claims, product liability suits, or any user-posted harm—while continuing to operate largely as before. Smaller competitors, startups, nonprofits, forums, review sites, and emerging platforms would be crushed under the same legal costs and risks, unable to afford robust defenses or even basic moderation at scale. This would reduce competition, entrench monopolies, and make the dominant players even harder to challenge. Experts from groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have pointed out repeatedly that Section 230 protects users and smaller services far more than the giants—it's why some Big Tech figures have even endorsed gutting it in certain proposals. Repeal would lead to over-cautious moderation (removing anything remotely “risky” to avoid suits), under-moderation in some cases, or outright shutdowns of user-driven features like comments, reviews, and sharing. That doesn't punish Big Tech; it hands them an even bigger moat while chilling free expression, innovation, speech and access for everyone else. True accountability for platform harms—like better child safety tools, algorithmic transparency, or antitrust enforcement—requires targeted reforms, not blanket repeal that plays into the hands of the very companies critics claim to target. The push often stems from misunderstandings or political posturing, but the outcome would make the internet smaller, less diverse, and more controlled by a handful of already insanely powerful oligarchs. WAKE UP!

B L A K E L E Y™℠©® LLC

12,075 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Delhi | On Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's apology over the temporary removal of PM Modi's video, BJP MP Kangana Ranaut says, "... We are very pleased that the errors have been acknowledged, and we hope for relief in the future regarding the growing threat posed to our national security by these terrorist forces." On students' protest in Jharkhand, she says, "Our Gen Z, our children, are truly enduring various forms of hardship, a situation that has persisted for decades... The Congress party created such a spectacle here (in Delhi). They even attempted to launch an attack in Parliament... Yet, now that the situation for children in Jharkhand is so dire...Rahul Gandhi is not visiting them. But when it comes to inciting people or endangering the country's security, Rahul Gandhi is the first to step forward as a threat to the nation."
1:57

#WATCH | Delhi | On Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's apology over the temporary removal of PM Modi's video, BJP MP Kangana Ranaut says, "... We are very pleased that the errors have been acknowledged, and we hope for relief in the future regarding the growing threat posed to our national security by these terrorist forces." On students' protest in Jharkhand, she says, "Our Gen Z, our children, are truly enduring various forms of hardship, a situation that has persisted for decades... The Congress party created such a spectacle here (in Delhi). They even attempted to launch an attack in Parliament... Yet, now that the situation for children in Jharkhand is so dire...Rahul Gandhi is not visiting them. But when it comes to inciting people or endangering the country's security, Rahul Gandhi is the first to step forward as a threat to the nation."

ANI

28,231 просмотров • 28 дней назад

Kangana Ranaut makes very important point about Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's apology over the temporary removal of PM Modi's video. She said "We are very pleased that the errors have been acknowledged, and we hope for relief in the future regarding the growing threat posed to our national security by these terrorist forces." On students' protest in Jharkhand, she says, "Our Gen Z, our children, are truly enduring various forms of hardship, a situation that has persisted for decades... The Congress party created such a spectacle here (in Delhi). They even attempted to launch an attack in Parliament... Yet, now that the situation for children in Jharkhand is so dire...Rahul Gandhi is not visiting them. But when it comes to inciting people or endangering the country's security, Rahul Gandhi is the first to step forward as a threat to the nation."
1:57

Kangana Ranaut makes very important point about Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's apology over the temporary removal of PM Modi's video. She said "We are very pleased that the errors have been acknowledged, and we hope for relief in the future regarding the growing threat posed to our national security by these terrorist forces." On students' protest in Jharkhand, she says, "Our Gen Z, our children, are truly enduring various forms of hardship, a situation that has persisted for decades... The Congress party created such a spectacle here (in Delhi). They even attempted to launch an attack in Parliament... Yet, now that the situation for children in Jharkhand is so dire...Rahul Gandhi is not visiting them. But when it comes to inciting people or endangering the country's security, Rahul Gandhi is the first to step forward as a threat to the nation."

Chota Don

11,622 просмотров • 28 дней назад

#WATCH | Siliguri, West Bengal: On submitting a complaint for registration of a Zero FIR against Saurav Das, Abhijeet Dipke, and CJP organisers under sections of the POCSO Act, Advocate Rinki Chatterjee Singh says, "The FIR was filed over an incident at Jantar Mantar on July 20, where the CJP was protesting against the NEET paper leak. During the protest, a lathi-charge took place, and abusive language was used against the country and Prime Minister Modi. Later, Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted a live video on Instagram, saying he forgave the youth for the remarks and that no legal action would be taken, considering their future. However, CJP organisers Abhijit Dipike and Saurav Das later posted a video demanding an apology from the Prime Minister over police lathi-charging 12-year-old girls and misbehaving with them. My question is, who brought a 12-year-old child to a protest? A child of that age is considered a 'child in need of care and protection.' A case should be registered against the organisers under Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 153 of the BNS for involving children in the protest... Who is funding the protest, and where is the money coming from? It is exactly the work of the 'deep state'. There are certain brokers and anti-nationals involved—people within our own country who do not wish it well. They have all joined forces in an attempt to topple the Modi government..." (04.08)
10:02

#WATCH | Siliguri, West Bengal: On submitting a complaint for registration of a Zero FIR against Saurav Das, Abhijeet Dipke, and CJP organisers under sections of the POCSO Act, Advocate Rinki Chatterjee Singh says, "The FIR was filed over an incident at Jantar Mantar on July 20, where the CJP was protesting against the NEET paper leak. During the protest, a lathi-charge took place, and abusive language was used against the country and Prime Minister Modi. Later, Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted a live video on Instagram, saying he forgave the youth for the remarks and that no legal action would be taken, considering their future. However, CJP organisers Abhijit Dipike and Saurav Das later posted a video demanding an apology from the Prime Minister over police lathi-charging 12-year-old girls and misbehaving with them. My question is, who brought a 12-year-old child to a protest? A child of that age is considered a 'child in need of care and protection.' A case should be registered against the organisers under Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 153 of the BNS for involving children in the protest... Who is funding the protest, and where is the money coming from? It is exactly the work of the 'deep state'. There are certain brokers and anti-nationals involved—people within our own country who do not wish it well. They have all joined forces in an attempt to topple the Modi government..." (04.08)

ANI

97,411 просмотров • 29 дней назад

$AMD| $META is using $GOOGL to negotiate 🧵 The Ironwood pod is 5.1–10x more expensive annually ($148.3 million ÷ $14.87–$29.04 million) and 5.1–10x more expensive monthly ($12.36 million ÷ $1.24–$2.42 million) than renting 15 MI450 racks for equivalent compute. The rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence infrastructure presents a complex interplay of technological innovation, market dynamics, and strategic maneuvering among major players. Recent leaked information suggesting that Meta Platforms ($META) might work with Google's Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) in 2027 has sparked speculation about its true intent. This leak is likely a strategic move by Meta to negotiate more favorable terms with AMD , leveraging the competitive dynamics of the AI hardware market to optimize its substantial investment in AI infrastructure. By examining the key elements of this scenario Meta's investment strategy, the comparative advantages of AMD's MI450 and Google's Ironwood TPU, and the broader market context; we can discern the potential beneficiaries and the strategic implications of this information. Meta's aggressive pursuit of AI capabilities is underscored by its planned expenditure of $66-72 billion on AI infrastructure in 2025, with expectations to escalate significantly in 2026. This investment is part of a broader strategy to build "titan clusters" like Prometheus, which are projected to reach 1 gigawatt of compute power by 2026. Such a scale of investment reflects Meta's recognition of the critical role that AI will play in its future growth, particularly in enhancing its social media platforms and developing new AI-driven applications. However, the financial burden of this infrastructure buildout necessitates a careful consideration of cost-effectiveness and scalability, which brings us to the leaked information about potential collaboration with Google's Ironwood TPU. Google's Ironwood TPU, introduced as the seventh-generation ASIC optimized for TensorFlow-based inference, represents a high-cost, cloud-locked solution priced at $445 million per pod (9,216 chips) over three years. This model, while offering significant performance gains and power efficiency, is tailored for pod-scale deployment and integrated with Google's cloud services, limiting flexibility and increasing costs for customers. In contrast, AMD's MI450 GPU, priced at $30,000–$40,000 per unit, provides a modular, open ROCm ecosystem that delivers comparable compute capacity at a fraction of the cost. Renting 15 MI450 racks could achieve similar 42+ exaFLOPS inference compute at 5–10x lower cost than renting a single Ironwood pod, underscoring AMD's competitive edge in terms of total cost of ownership (TCO). The leaked information about Meta's potential TPU deployment in 2027, therefore, can be interpreted as a negotiating tactic rather than a definitive shift in strategy. By signaling interest in Google's solution, Meta may be attempting to pressure AMD into offering more favorable terms/prices for 5-10GW. This tactic aligns with Meta's broader goal to finance most of its AI spend internally while exploring partnerships that can reduce costs and enhance flexibility. The post's emphasis on MI450's TCO advantage and its partnerships with major players like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta itself suggests that AMD is a critical component of Meta's AI infrastructure strategy. The threat of working with Google's TPU could prompt AMD to reassess its pricing, provide additional support, or offer incentives to retain Meta as a customer, thereby securing or expanding its market share. From a logical standpoint, Meta stands to benefit the most from this strategy. As a major buyer in a high-stakes market projected to surpass $1 trillion in annual spending by 2030, Meta's negotiating power is significant. The leaked information could lead to substantial cost savings on its $66-72 billion investment, enhancing its financial flexibility and allowing for further investment in AI capabilities. Moreover, this tactic reinforces Meta's position as a leader in the AI infrastructure race, potentially attracting more external financing for its data center projects and strengthening its competitive stance against other hyperscalers like Amazon and Microsoft. AMD could also benefit from this scenario. The negotiation pressure might lead to small short-term concessions, but it could also solidify long-term partnerships with Meta, ensuring continued demand for MI450 and other AI hardware solutions. Initially Meta's 42% allocation to AMD MI300X and its partnerships with Oracle, Dell, and HP indicates a deep integration of AMD's technology into Meta's infrastructure, which could be leveraged to maintain this relationship. For AMD, retaining Meta as a large key customer is crucial to capturing a larger share of the rapidly growing data center infrastructure market, driven by the insatiable demand for AI compute power. Google, on the other hand, faces a more limited benefit from this leaked information. While securing Meta as a customer would reinforce its position in the AI hardware market, the high cost and ecosystem lock-in of the Ironwood TPU might deter Meta from fully committing to this solution. The leaked information could prompt Google to reconsider its pricing or ecosystem strategy to remain competitive, but the immediate impact is likely to be minimal compared to the potential gains for Meta and AMD. Investors and market analysts also stand to benefit from this information, as it provides insights into the competitive dynamics of the AI hardware market. Adjustments in portfolios based on anticipated shifts in market share and profitability could lead to opportunities for those who correctly anticipate outcomes. The negotiation dynamic might introduce volatility, but it also highlights the strategic importance of cost-effective solutions in the AI infrastructure space. Lastly, the leaked information about Meta potentially working with Google's TPU in 2027 is likely a strategic move to negotiate with AMD, leveraging the competitive landscape to optimize its AI infrastructure investment. Meta, as the primary negotiator, stands to gain the most by securing better terms from AMD, reducing costs, and enhancing its financial flexibility. AMD, while initially at risk, could benefit from retaining a key customer and solidifying its market position. Google faces limited immediate benefits but may need to adapt its strategy to remain competitive. This scenario underscores the complex interplay of technology, market dynamics, and strategic maneuvering in the AI hardware market, where cost-effectiveness and scalability are paramount. As the data center infrastructure market continues to grow, the outcomes of such negotiations will shape the future of AI development and deployment.
1:12

$AMD| $META is using $GOOGL to negotiate 🧵 The Ironwood pod is 5.1–10x more expensive annually ($148.3 million ÷ $14.87–$29.04 million) and 5.1–10x more expensive monthly ($12.36 million ÷ $1.24–$2.42 million) than renting 15 MI450 racks for equivalent compute. The rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence infrastructure presents a complex interplay of technological innovation, market dynamics, and strategic maneuvering among major players. Recent leaked information suggesting that Meta Platforms ($META) might work with Google's Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) in 2027 has sparked speculation about its true intent. This leak is likely a strategic move by Meta to negotiate more favorable terms with AMD , leveraging the competitive dynamics of the AI hardware market to optimize its substantial investment in AI infrastructure. By examining the key elements of this scenario Meta's investment strategy, the comparative advantages of AMD's MI450 and Google's Ironwood TPU, and the broader market context; we can discern the potential beneficiaries and the strategic implications of this information. Meta's aggressive pursuit of AI capabilities is underscored by its planned expenditure of $66-72 billion on AI infrastructure in 2025, with expectations to escalate significantly in 2026. This investment is part of a broader strategy to build "titan clusters" like Prometheus, which are projected to reach 1 gigawatt of compute power by 2026. Such a scale of investment reflects Meta's recognition of the critical role that AI will play in its future growth, particularly in enhancing its social media platforms and developing new AI-driven applications. However, the financial burden of this infrastructure buildout necessitates a careful consideration of cost-effectiveness and scalability, which brings us to the leaked information about potential collaboration with Google's Ironwood TPU. Google's Ironwood TPU, introduced as the seventh-generation ASIC optimized for TensorFlow-based inference, represents a high-cost, cloud-locked solution priced at $445 million per pod (9,216 chips) over three years. This model, while offering significant performance gains and power efficiency, is tailored for pod-scale deployment and integrated with Google's cloud services, limiting flexibility and increasing costs for customers. In contrast, AMD's MI450 GPU, priced at $30,000–$40,000 per unit, provides a modular, open ROCm ecosystem that delivers comparable compute capacity at a fraction of the cost. Renting 15 MI450 racks could achieve similar 42+ exaFLOPS inference compute at 5–10x lower cost than renting a single Ironwood pod, underscoring AMD's competitive edge in terms of total cost of ownership (TCO). The leaked information about Meta's potential TPU deployment in 2027, therefore, can be interpreted as a negotiating tactic rather than a definitive shift in strategy. By signaling interest in Google's solution, Meta may be attempting to pressure AMD into offering more favorable terms/prices for 5-10GW. This tactic aligns with Meta's broader goal to finance most of its AI spend internally while exploring partnerships that can reduce costs and enhance flexibility. The post's emphasis on MI450's TCO advantage and its partnerships with major players like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta itself suggests that AMD is a critical component of Meta's AI infrastructure strategy. The threat of working with Google's TPU could prompt AMD to reassess its pricing, provide additional support, or offer incentives to retain Meta as a customer, thereby securing or expanding its market share. From a logical standpoint, Meta stands to benefit the most from this strategy. As a major buyer in a high-stakes market projected to surpass $1 trillion in annual spending by 2030, Meta's negotiating power is significant. The leaked information could lead to substantial cost savings on its $66-72 billion investment, enhancing its financial flexibility and allowing for further investment in AI capabilities. Moreover, this tactic reinforces Meta's position as a leader in the AI infrastructure race, potentially attracting more external financing for its data center projects and strengthening its competitive stance against other hyperscalers like Amazon and Microsoft. AMD could also benefit from this scenario. The negotiation pressure might lead to small short-term concessions, but it could also solidify long-term partnerships with Meta, ensuring continued demand for MI450 and other AI hardware solutions. Initially Meta's 42% allocation to AMD MI300X and its partnerships with Oracle, Dell, and HP indicates a deep integration of AMD's technology into Meta's infrastructure, which could be leveraged to maintain this relationship. For AMD, retaining Meta as a large key customer is crucial to capturing a larger share of the rapidly growing data center infrastructure market, driven by the insatiable demand for AI compute power. Google, on the other hand, faces a more limited benefit from this leaked information. While securing Meta as a customer would reinforce its position in the AI hardware market, the high cost and ecosystem lock-in of the Ironwood TPU might deter Meta from fully committing to this solution. The leaked information could prompt Google to reconsider its pricing or ecosystem strategy to remain competitive, but the immediate impact is likely to be minimal compared to the potential gains for Meta and AMD. Investors and market analysts also stand to benefit from this information, as it provides insights into the competitive dynamics of the AI hardware market. Adjustments in portfolios based on anticipated shifts in market share and profitability could lead to opportunities for those who correctly anticipate outcomes. The negotiation dynamic might introduce volatility, but it also highlights the strategic importance of cost-effective solutions in the AI infrastructure space. Lastly, the leaked information about Meta potentially working with Google's TPU in 2027 is likely a strategic move to negotiate with AMD, leveraging the competitive landscape to optimize its AI infrastructure investment. Meta, as the primary negotiator, stands to gain the most by securing better terms from AMD, reducing costs, and enhancing its financial flexibility. AMD, while initially at risk, could benefit from retaining a key customer and solidifying its market position. Google faces limited immediate benefits but may need to adapt its strategy to remain competitive. This scenario underscores the complex interplay of technology, market dynamics, and strategic maneuvering in the AI hardware market, where cost-effectiveness and scalability are paramount. As the data center infrastructure market continues to grow, the outcomes of such negotiations will shape the future of AI development and deployment.

Mike

182,273 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Ben Thompson argues Meta's ad business is good for society and is frustrated Mark Zuckerberg doesn't defend it "I think a big problem Meta has is they don't tell this story. It's weird, but Mark Zuckerberg has the same problem Sam Altman does. He doesn't love ads." "They have the best ad business in the world. They have an ad business that I think is a societal positive." "Like you and I have set up these little content businesses that make great money, but content is kind of, you get a ride on social media, right? I grew up on Twitter, people sharing my links. It was amazing." "If you're selling some product, the beauty of the internet is there is a niche out there that wants that product. The question is how do you find the niche?" "Facebook advertising. That's what it does. It helps products find the people who didn't even know they wanted that product, but when they get it, they're so happy they got it." "And that is a huge societal positive." "You have new business from a new entrepreneur making a new product. You have customers who are happy they got something that they didn't know they would get otherwise." "Those customers, by the way, got lots of free entertainment, and they didn't have to pay for it along the way." "And Meta made a bunch of money for themselves and their shareholders, which is basically everyone in the world." "This is why advertising is great. And Meta's advertising in particular is awesome. And I get frustrated that Meta doesn't talk about that." "Mark Zuckerberg has never really talked about the societal benefits of advertising except in passing."
1:22

Ben Thompson argues Meta's ad business is good for society and is frustrated Mark Zuckerberg doesn't defend it "I think a big problem Meta has is they don't tell this story. It's weird, but Mark Zuckerberg has the same problem Sam Altman does. He doesn't love ads." "They have the best ad business in the world. They have an ad business that I think is a societal positive." "Like you and I have set up these little content businesses that make great money, but content is kind of, you get a ride on social media, right? I grew up on Twitter, people sharing my links. It was amazing." "If you're selling some product, the beauty of the internet is there is a niche out there that wants that product. The question is how do you find the niche?" "Facebook advertising. That's what it does. It helps products find the people who didn't even know they wanted that product, but when they get it, they're so happy they got it." "And that is a huge societal positive." "You have new business from a new entrepreneur making a new product. You have customers who are happy they got something that they didn't know they would get otherwise." "Those customers, by the way, got lots of free entertainment, and they didn't have to pay for it along the way." "And Meta made a bunch of money for themselves and their shareholders, which is basically everyone in the world." "This is why advertising is great. And Meta's advertising in particular is awesome. And I get frustrated that Meta doesn't talk about that." "Mark Zuckerberg has never really talked about the societal benefits of advertising except in passing."

Fireside Alpha

51,270 просмотров • 15 дней назад

🚨 SICK. VILE. DISGUSTING. 🚨 A PEACEFUL Facebook user FROM KERALA named “Kaippadi Ansari” allegedly shared an AI-generated deepfake video showing world leaders, including President Trump, SPITTING on PM Modi’s hand — followed by Modi wiping it on his face.🤬😤 The video was paired with vulgar commentary designed to humiliate and degrade the Prime Minister of India. An innocent interview clip of Indian cricketer Harleen Deol "What's Your Skincare Routine," was twisted and used as a cover to push obscene insinuations about the Prime Minister. This isn’t political criticism.. This isn’t satire.. This is targeted character assassination using AI-generated disinformation. Imagine the outrage if such a deepfake had been made about any other world leader. ?? No matter your politics, deepfakes, fabricated content, and vulgar personal attacks should have no place in public discourse. Share this maximum. Let the whole country see what is being circulated in the name of “free speech.” We need complaints flooding in from every corner of India. Make it impossible for the system to look away.
0:31

🚨 SICK. VILE. DISGUSTING. 🚨 A PEACEFUL Facebook user FROM KERALA named “Kaippadi Ansari” allegedly shared an AI-generated deepfake video showing world leaders, including President Trump, SPITTING on PM Modi’s hand — followed by Modi wiping it on his face.🤬😤 The video was paired with vulgar commentary designed to humiliate and degrade the Prime Minister of India. An innocent interview clip of Indian cricketer Harleen Deol "What's Your Skincare Routine," was twisted and used as a cover to push obscene insinuations about the Prime Minister. This isn’t political criticism.. This isn’t satire.. This is targeted character assassination using AI-generated disinformation. Imagine the outrage if such a deepfake had been made about any other world leader. ?? No matter your politics, deepfakes, fabricated content, and vulgar personal attacks should have no place in public discourse. Share this maximum. Let the whole country see what is being circulated in the name of “free speech.” We need complaints flooding in from every corner of India. Make it impossible for the system to look away.

MAHARATHI

110,628 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🇮🇳 🇵🇸 With 48 hours left before India’s new 3-hour takedown rule takes effect on February 20, scrutiny is mounting over how platforms like Meta, YouTube, and X will handle rapid censorship orders from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government, which critics say has increasingly targeted dissenting and Muslim voices. The news comes as Instagram’s popular news account Muslim, with over 6.7 million followers, remains blocked in India since May 2025 following a government legal request. The page is visible globally but inaccessible inside India. Founder Ameer Al-Khatahtbeh, speaking February 3 at Web Summit Qatar in Doha, said the ban followed the outlet’s coverage of Palestine: “Because we kept on publishing about Palestine, we’re the only social media account that’s banned in India… they don’t like the fact that we are counteracting western and mainstream power structures.” Meta has cited confidentiality and provided no details on appeal options. The new Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, notified February 10, tighten platform obligations. Companies must remove content flagged by court or government order within 3 hours, down from 36. The rules also mandate labeling and traceability for AI-generated content, require user disclosure of AI use, and increase liability risks. Critics warn the compressed timeline could drive automated over-removal and significantly expand state control over online speech. (Video via Doha News. February 3)
1:41

🇮🇳 🇵🇸 With 48 hours left before India’s new 3-hour takedown rule takes effect on February 20, scrutiny is mounting over how platforms like Meta, YouTube, and X will handle rapid censorship orders from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government, which critics say has increasingly targeted dissenting and Muslim voices. The news comes as Instagram’s popular news account Muslim, with over 6.7 million followers, remains blocked in India since May 2025 following a government legal request. The page is visible globally but inaccessible inside India. Founder Ameer Al-Khatahtbeh, speaking February 3 at Web Summit Qatar in Doha, said the ban followed the outlet’s coverage of Palestine: “Because we kept on publishing about Palestine, we’re the only social media account that’s banned in India… they don’t like the fact that we are counteracting western and mainstream power structures.” Meta has cited confidentiality and provided no details on appeal options. The new Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, notified February 10, tighten platform obligations. Companies must remove content flagged by court or government order within 3 hours, down from 36. The rules also mandate labeling and traceability for AI-generated content, require user disclosure of AI use, and increase liability risks. Critics warn the compressed timeline could drive automated over-removal and significantly expand state control over online speech. (Video via Doha News. February 3)

Drop Site

59,001 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

In 2011, then-Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi raised his voice against the handling of 26/11 suspect #TahawwurRana's case in the US courts, calling out the dubious machinations behind his acquittal. "How can courts in America give judgment for a terrorist attack that happened in India? Would they allow the trial of 9/11 accused in India?" CM Modi exposed the dangerous precedent being set, warning that terrorists could manipulate legal systems abroad and evade justice while also slamming the UPA government for its weak stance. Fourteen years later, the world has come full circle. During Prime Minister Narendra Modi's official visit to Washington, U.S. President Donald J. Trump announced the approval of Tahawwur Rana's extradition, labeling him a "very violent man" and confirming that the U.S. would hand him over to India immediately. This is a significant moment—not just in counterterrorism efforts but also in global diplomacy. It marks a shift from the days when India's concerns were brushed aside to today when the world acknowledges and respects India's commitment to justice.
2:33

In 2011, then-Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi raised his voice against the handling of 26/11 suspect #TahawwurRana's case in the US courts, calling out the dubious machinations behind his acquittal. "How can courts in America give judgment for a terrorist attack that happened in India? Would they allow the trial of 9/11 accused in India?" CM Modi exposed the dangerous precedent being set, warning that terrorists could manipulate legal systems abroad and evade justice while also slamming the UPA government for its weak stance. Fourteen years later, the world has come full circle. During Prime Minister Narendra Modi's official visit to Washington, U.S. President Donald J. Trump announced the approval of Tahawwur Rana's extradition, labeling him a "very violent man" and confirming that the U.S. would hand him over to India immediately. This is a significant moment—not just in counterterrorism efforts but also in global diplomacy. It marks a shift from the days when India's concerns were brushed aside to today when the world acknowledges and respects India's commitment to justice.

Modi Archive

15,519 просмотров • 1 год назад

Mark Zuckerberg is bankrupting a $22 billion startup because they refused to sell to him. The company is Kalshi. They run the largest prediction market in the US. Users bet real money on real-world outcomes. Last year, prediction markets did $28 billion in monthly volume across the industry. This month, they did $220 BILLION. The sector literally 8x'd in a single year. Bernstein now projects the entire prediction market industry will hit $1 TRILLION by 2030. Zuckerberg saw the growth curve coming. Last year, when Kalshi was valued at only $2 billion, he sat down with founder and CEO Tarek Mansour to discuss buying the entire company. Mansour said no. Kalshi went on to raise at $11 billion in December. Then $22 billion in March. It is now pursuing a $40 billion round and openly weighing an IPO. Zuckerberg's response: He walked back to Meta headquarters, took every piece of information he learned in that meeting, and directed a small internal team to build a Kalshi clone from the ground up. Meta's version is called Arena. It uses Llama to generate the questions. Every one of Meta's 3.5 billion daily users will get access. And here's where the plan gets ruthless... Meta is deliberately launching with play money. That single decision lets Zuckerberg dodge every gambling regulator on Earth while he trains billions of users to bet on prediction markets. Meanwhile Kalshi is spending millions fighting state gambling laws, the CFTC, an Illinois sports tax, a Minnesota felony statute, and the Department of Justice. Kalshi is the crash test dummy. Meta is the getaway driver. The moment the regulatory war is settled, Zuckerberg flips the switch. Arena becomes a real-money market, and 3.5 billion users are already trained to use it. Kalshi's user base of a few million cannot compete. This is the exact playbook Meta ran on Snapchat in 2016 when Instagram Stories launched. It is the exact playbook they ran on TikTok in 2020 when Reels launched. It is the exact playbook they ran on Twitter in 2023 when Threads launched. The FTC took Meta to court over this pattern last year and called it "buy or bury." The judge sided with Meta. So the playbook is legally protected. Tarek Mansour walked into a meeting with the most predatory copycat in tech history and gave him the entire pitch deck for the fastest growing product in Silicon Valley. Six months later, Zuckerberg is executing on that intel while Mansour is stuck defending his company in courts across America. Kalshi survived Zuckerberg's offer. But it probably will not survive Zuckerberg's clone. Meta ended Q1 with $81 billion in cash. That is enough to buy every prediction market company on Earth six times over. Zuckerberg is choosing to STEAL them instead because he can, and because the courts already gave him permission. The next 12 months will decide whether Kalshi becomes a $50 billion IPO or a cautionary tale about what happens when a founder says no to Meta. What do you think?
0:45

Mark Zuckerberg is bankrupting a $22 billion startup because they refused to sell to him. The company is Kalshi. They run the largest prediction market in the US. Users bet real money on real-world outcomes. Last year, prediction markets did $28 billion in monthly volume across the industry. This month, they did $220 BILLION. The sector literally 8x'd in a single year. Bernstein now projects the entire prediction market industry will hit $1 TRILLION by 2030. Zuckerberg saw the growth curve coming. Last year, when Kalshi was valued at only $2 billion, he sat down with founder and CEO Tarek Mansour to discuss buying the entire company. Mansour said no. Kalshi went on to raise at $11 billion in December. Then $22 billion in March. It is now pursuing a $40 billion round and openly weighing an IPO. Zuckerberg's response: He walked back to Meta headquarters, took every piece of information he learned in that meeting, and directed a small internal team to build a Kalshi clone from the ground up. Meta's version is called Arena. It uses Llama to generate the questions. Every one of Meta's 3.5 billion daily users will get access. And here's where the plan gets ruthless... Meta is deliberately launching with play money. That single decision lets Zuckerberg dodge every gambling regulator on Earth while he trains billions of users to bet on prediction markets. Meanwhile Kalshi is spending millions fighting state gambling laws, the CFTC, an Illinois sports tax, a Minnesota felony statute, and the Department of Justice. Kalshi is the crash test dummy. Meta is the getaway driver. The moment the regulatory war is settled, Zuckerberg flips the switch. Arena becomes a real-money market, and 3.5 billion users are already trained to use it. Kalshi's user base of a few million cannot compete. This is the exact playbook Meta ran on Snapchat in 2016 when Instagram Stories launched. It is the exact playbook they ran on TikTok in 2020 when Reels launched. It is the exact playbook they ran on Twitter in 2023 when Threads launched. The FTC took Meta to court over this pattern last year and called it "buy or bury." The judge sided with Meta. So the playbook is legally protected. Tarek Mansour walked into a meeting with the most predatory copycat in tech history and gave him the entire pitch deck for the fastest growing product in Silicon Valley. Six months later, Zuckerberg is executing on that intel while Mansour is stuck defending his company in courts across America. Kalshi survived Zuckerberg's offer. But it probably will not survive Zuckerberg's clone. Meta ended Q1 with $81 billion in cash. That is enough to buy every prediction market company on Earth six times over. Zuckerberg is choosing to STEAL them instead because he can, and because the courts already gave him permission. The next 12 months will decide whether Kalshi becomes a $50 billion IPO or a cautionary tale about what happens when a founder says no to Meta. What do you think?

Ricardo

1,469,824 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад