Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🇮🇳 🇵🇸 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...

DropSiteNews's profile picture

Drop Site

467,429 subscribers

59,001 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & PolitikWissenschaft & Technologie
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

#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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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 popular digital creator RJRaunac, cyber security expert Amit Dubey highlighted how this incident exposed deep flaws in how big tech operates. PM Modi posted a video on July 23 addressing Gen Z students about the NEET paper leak controversy. The video was suddenly blocked and remained unavailable on Facebook for over five hours. Meta initially cited legal obligations, but later blamed an automated AI filter glitch for the accidental takedown. The Indian government and a parliamentary IT panel, led by MP Nishikant Dubey, heavily grilled Meta's global team. They rejected the "technical glitch" excuse, raising questions about potential algorithmic bias and systemic flaws. Loss of Safe Harbour Protection: The Parliamentary Committee warned Meta that it could lose its "safe harbour" immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act if accountability isn't met. This protection shields Meta from legal liability for user-generated content; losing it would expose the company to massive legal vulnerabilities. Demand for Zuckerberg's Apology: While Meta's Global Affairs chief Joel Kaplan conveyed an official apology to IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, the parliamentary panel has heavily pushed for a personal, written apology from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The incident has significantly damaged Meta’s standing in India its largest global user market reigniting intense national debates around digital sovereignty and the lack of human transparency in big-tech content moderation. Credit : TRP/RJ Raunac.
13:24

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 popular digital creator RJRaunac, cyber security expert Amit Dubey highlighted how this incident exposed deep flaws in how big tech operates. PM Modi posted a video on July 23 addressing Gen Z students about the NEET paper leak controversy. The video was suddenly blocked and remained unavailable on Facebook for over five hours. Meta initially cited legal obligations, but later blamed an automated AI filter glitch for the accidental takedown. The Indian government and a parliamentary IT panel, led by MP Nishikant Dubey, heavily grilled Meta's global team. They rejected the "technical glitch" excuse, raising questions about potential algorithmic bias and systemic flaws. Loss of Safe Harbour Protection: The Parliamentary Committee warned Meta that it could lose its "safe harbour" immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act if accountability isn't met. This protection shields Meta from legal liability for user-generated content; losing it would expose the company to massive legal vulnerabilities. Demand for Zuckerberg's Apology: While Meta's Global Affairs chief Joel Kaplan conveyed an official apology to IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, the parliamentary panel has heavily pushed for a personal, written apology from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The incident has significantly damaged Meta’s standing in India its largest global user market reigniting intense national debates around digital sovereignty and the lack of human transparency in big-tech content moderation. Credit : TRP/RJ Raunac.

Augadh

16,196 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!
4:56

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

131,422 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

It's All Much Worse Than I Thought The corporate media are all-in on government censorship Over the last three years, we have come to learn of the role that our own government officials have played in demanding censorship by social media platforms. Some of this censorship was overt, particularly as it related to COVID. However, some of it was also done in secrecy, as we discovered in the Twitter Files. Many of us thought that once we had uncovered the censorship, governments would be sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it. And to some extent, that has been the case. But now, governments around the world are stepping up their efforts to demand more censorship. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly announced it had resumed its outreach to social media companies. Scotland’s Police could even investigate comedians under a new hate speech law if someone complains about a joke. Major media outlets are currently working with government-funded censorship activists at the University of Washington and Stanford Internet Observatory to demand greater censorship in the name of “saving Democracy.” Without a doubt, those of us who have uncovered censorship have had an impact. On “60 Minutes” last Sunday, the government-funded advocates of censorship at the University of Washington said they have stopped demanding censorship of social media platforms. Simply drawing awareness to who is demanding censorship and who is funding them has weakened their power. But governments, government-funded NGOs, and the news media have been relentless in their demands for a crackdown on speech they deem hateful and false. At the Supreme Court last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed unironic concern that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to censor. And everyone from the New Yorker to the New York Times to NBC is suggesting that the only people who are worried about government censorship are Trump supporters, which is obviously false. The 60 Minutes segment was particularly shocking. Lesly Stahl never mentioned the mass censorship of accurate information about COVID’S origins, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. She falsely suggested that shining a light on the censorship activists was tantamount to persecution. And she suggested that if the government didn’t do more to censor misinformation, Trump supporters would overthrow the government, which is a form of disinformation aimed at scaring people into giving up our first and most fundamental freedom. There are many reasons why they are doing this....
2:48

It's All Much Worse Than I Thought The corporate media are all-in on government censorship Over the last three years, we have come to learn of the role that our own government officials have played in demanding censorship by social media platforms. Some of this censorship was overt, particularly as it related to COVID. However, some of it was also done in secrecy, as we discovered in the Twitter Files. Many of us thought that once we had uncovered the censorship, governments would be sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it. And to some extent, that has been the case. But now, governments around the world are stepping up their efforts to demand more censorship. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly announced it had resumed its outreach to social media companies. Scotland’s Police could even investigate comedians under a new hate speech law if someone complains about a joke. Major media outlets are currently working with government-funded censorship activists at the University of Washington and Stanford Internet Observatory to demand greater censorship in the name of “saving Democracy.” Without a doubt, those of us who have uncovered censorship have had an impact. On “60 Minutes” last Sunday, the government-funded advocates of censorship at the University of Washington said they have stopped demanding censorship of social media platforms. Simply drawing awareness to who is demanding censorship and who is funding them has weakened their power. But governments, government-funded NGOs, and the news media have been relentless in their demands for a crackdown on speech they deem hateful and false. At the Supreme Court last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed unironic concern that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to censor. And everyone from the New Yorker to the New York Times to NBC is suggesting that the only people who are worried about government censorship are Trump supporters, which is obviously false. The 60 Minutes segment was particularly shocking. Lesly Stahl never mentioned the mass censorship of accurate information about COVID’S origins, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. She falsely suggested that shining a light on the censorship activists was tantamount to persecution. And she suggested that if the government didn’t do more to censor misinformation, Trump supporters would overthrow the government, which is a form of disinformation aimed at scaring people into giving up our first and most fundamental freedom. There are many reasons why they are doing this....

Michael Shellenberger

21,897,944 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

WATCH: FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley’s opening remarks on the threat of jawboning to the First Amendment to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Wednesday, October 29th, 2025: “I’ve spent nearly twenty years defending the First Amendment rights of speakers from every point on the ideological spectrum. At FIRE, we have one rule: If speech is protected, we’ll defend it. Typically, the censorship we fight is straightforward: The government punishes a speaker for saying things the government doesn’t like. That’s a classic First Amendment violation, a fastball down the middle. Unfortunately, that kind of textbook censorship isn’t the only way government actors silence disfavored or dissenting speech. Far too often, government officials from both sides of the partisan divide engage in “jawboning” — that is, they abuse the actual or perceived power of their office to threaten, bully, or coerce others into censoring speech. This indirect censorship violates the First Amendment just as surely as direct suppression. This isn’t new law. The First Amendment’s prohibition against coerced censorship dates back decades, to the Supreme Court’s 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court confronted a Rhode Island state commission that sent threatening letters, “phrased virtually as orders,” to booksellers distributing “objectionable” titles — with follow-up visits from police, to ensure the message had been received. The Court held the commission’s “operation was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions; they acted as an agency not to advise but to suppress.” And in the decades since, courts have consistently heeded Bantam Books’ call to “look through forms to the substance” of censorship, and to remain vigilant against both formal and informal schemes to silence speech. But government officials regularly abuse their power to silence others, so the lesson of Bantam Books bears repeating. And in deciding National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo last year, the Supreme Court unanimously and emphatically reaffirmed it. In Vullo, New York State officials punished the NRA for its views on gun rights by threatening regulatory enforcement against insurance companies that did business with the group and offering leniency to those who stopped. New York’s backdoor censorship was successful — and unlawful. This regulatory carrot-and-stick approach was designed to chill speech, and the Court reiterated that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” To be sure, the government may speak for itself, and the public has an interest in hearing from it. But it may not wield that power to censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it: The government is “entitled to what it wants to say — but only within limits.” Under no circumstances may our public servants “employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens.” So the law is clear: Government actors cannot silence a speaker by threatening “we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way,” as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission did last month. Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound: against private broadcasters, private universities, private social media platforms, and more. The First Amendment does not abide mob tactics. Despite the clarity of the law, fighting back against jawboning is difficult. Targeted speakers can’t sue federal officials for monetary damages for First Amendment violations, removing a powerful deterrent. And as a practical matter, informal censorship is often invisible to those silenced. That’s particularly true in the context of social media platforms, as demonstrated by another recent Supreme Court case, Murthy v. Missouri. Murthy involved coercive demands by Biden administration officials to social media platforms about posts related to Covid-19, vaccines, elections, and other subjects, resulting in the suppression of speech the administration opposed. But the Court held the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, because the causal link between their deleted posts and the administration’s pressure wasn’t sufficiently clear. Murthy illustrates a severe information disparity: Users whose speech is suppressed have no way to know if government actors put their thumb on the scale. Only the government and the platforms have that knowledge, and usually neither want to share it. That’s why FIRE authored model legislation that would require the government to disclose communications between federal agencies and social media companies regarding content published on its platform, with limited exceptions. But transparency is not enough. Federal officials must be meaningfully deterred from jawboning, and held accountable when they do. Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression. Congress should take action to stop it.” 🎥: CSPAN
5:05

WATCH: FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley’s opening remarks on the threat of jawboning to the First Amendment to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Wednesday, October 29th, 2025: “I’ve spent nearly twenty years defending the First Amendment rights of speakers from every point on the ideological spectrum. At FIRE, we have one rule: If speech is protected, we’ll defend it. Typically, the censorship we fight is straightforward: The government punishes a speaker for saying things the government doesn’t like. That’s a classic First Amendment violation, a fastball down the middle. Unfortunately, that kind of textbook censorship isn’t the only way government actors silence disfavored or dissenting speech. Far too often, government officials from both sides of the partisan divide engage in “jawboning” — that is, they abuse the actual or perceived power of their office to threaten, bully, or coerce others into censoring speech. This indirect censorship violates the First Amendment just as surely as direct suppression. This isn’t new law. The First Amendment’s prohibition against coerced censorship dates back decades, to the Supreme Court’s 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court confronted a Rhode Island state commission that sent threatening letters, “phrased virtually as orders,” to booksellers distributing “objectionable” titles — with follow-up visits from police, to ensure the message had been received. The Court held the commission’s “operation was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions; they acted as an agency not to advise but to suppress.” And in the decades since, courts have consistently heeded Bantam Books’ call to “look through forms to the substance” of censorship, and to remain vigilant against both formal and informal schemes to silence speech. But government officials regularly abuse their power to silence others, so the lesson of Bantam Books bears repeating. And in deciding National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo last year, the Supreme Court unanimously and emphatically reaffirmed it. In Vullo, New York State officials punished the NRA for its views on gun rights by threatening regulatory enforcement against insurance companies that did business with the group and offering leniency to those who stopped. New York’s backdoor censorship was successful — and unlawful. This regulatory carrot-and-stick approach was designed to chill speech, and the Court reiterated that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” To be sure, the government may speak for itself, and the public has an interest in hearing from it. But it may not wield that power to censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it: The government is “entitled to what it wants to say — but only within limits.” Under no circumstances may our public servants “employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens.” So the law is clear: Government actors cannot silence a speaker by threatening “we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way,” as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission did last month. Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound: against private broadcasters, private universities, private social media platforms, and more. The First Amendment does not abide mob tactics. Despite the clarity of the law, fighting back against jawboning is difficult. Targeted speakers can’t sue federal officials for monetary damages for First Amendment violations, removing a powerful deterrent. And as a practical matter, informal censorship is often invisible to those silenced. That’s particularly true in the context of social media platforms, as demonstrated by another recent Supreme Court case, Murthy v. Missouri. Murthy involved coercive demands by Biden administration officials to social media platforms about posts related to Covid-19, vaccines, elections, and other subjects, resulting in the suppression of speech the administration opposed. But the Court held the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, because the causal link between their deleted posts and the administration’s pressure wasn’t sufficiently clear. Murthy illustrates a severe information disparity: Users whose speech is suppressed have no way to know if government actors put their thumb on the scale. Only the government and the platforms have that knowledge, and usually neither want to share it. That’s why FIRE authored model legislation that would require the government to disclose communications between federal agencies and social media companies regarding content published on its platform, with limited exceptions. But transparency is not enough. Federal officials must be meaningfully deterred from jawboning, and held accountable when they do. Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression. Congress should take action to stop it.” 🎥: CSPAN

FIRE

10,488 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Governments Are Creating A Fake Hate Panic To Censor, Interfere In Elections, And Imprison Their Political Enemies It's alarming what's happening in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, Brazil, and the EU The US and other governments around the world are hyping hate in order to weaponize the government against their political enemies. Ever since the 2019 shooting in New Zealand, governments have been using so-called hate speech, fake news, and misinformation as justifications for censorship. In Ireland, the government is pushing hate speech legislation that would allow police to invade homes and seize phones and computers. In Canada, Justin Trudeau is pushing legislation that would allow the government to sentence individuals to life in prison for things they said. And it was recently revealed that the Biden White House worked with one of the leading groups that hype hate, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, to demand Facebook and other social media platforms to remove content and people they don't like. The Biden administration also endorsed the "Christchurch Call to Action to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online," which governments created in 2019 to justify censorship. This focus on so-called hatred, harmful content, and extremist content is extremely dangerous. What one person thinks is extreme, another person may view as common sense. For the government to decide what is extreme is a way of labeling someone as a potential terrorist threat. We saw this clearly with the Trudeau government's suppression of the Canadian trucker protests in Ottawa, in which people's bank accounts were frozen simply for supporting the anti-vaccine mandate. The same could happen in the United States. There is no reliable connection between people's beliefs and violence. Attempting to stop violence by censoring speech is totalitarian and Orwellian. It effectively criminalizes speech and creates a whole new category of pre-crime, like that depicted in the dystopian film, "Minority Report." So why are governments doing this?
1:54

Governments Are Creating A Fake Hate Panic To Censor, Interfere In Elections, And Imprison Their Political Enemies It's alarming what's happening in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, Brazil, and the EU The US and other governments around the world are hyping hate in order to weaponize the government against their political enemies. Ever since the 2019 shooting in New Zealand, governments have been using so-called hate speech, fake news, and misinformation as justifications for censorship. In Ireland, the government is pushing hate speech legislation that would allow police to invade homes and seize phones and computers. In Canada, Justin Trudeau is pushing legislation that would allow the government to sentence individuals to life in prison for things they said. And it was recently revealed that the Biden White House worked with one of the leading groups that hype hate, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, to demand Facebook and other social media platforms to remove content and people they don't like. The Biden administration also endorsed the "Christchurch Call to Action to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online," which governments created in 2019 to justify censorship. This focus on so-called hatred, harmful content, and extremist content is extremely dangerous. What one person thinks is extreme, another person may view as common sense. For the government to decide what is extreme is a way of labeling someone as a potential terrorist threat. We saw this clearly with the Trudeau government's suppression of the Canadian trucker protests in Ottawa, in which people's bank accounts were frozen simply for supporting the anti-vaccine mandate. The same could happen in the United States. There is no reliable connection between people's beliefs and violence. Attempting to stop violence by censoring speech is totalitarian and Orwellian. It effectively criminalizes speech and creates a whole new category of pre-crime, like that depicted in the dystopian film, "Minority Report." So why are governments doing this?

Michael Shellenberger

826,856 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Glenn Greenwald On Brazil's Alexandre De Moraes' Authoritarian Censorship Regime Targeting Elon Musk, Starlink, and 𝕏 Context and Situation: In Brazil, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has initiated aggressive actions against X, compelling the platform to comply with censorship orders targeting political figures. The orders demand the removal of elected senators and congress members from the platform, actions which X has resisted due to their political motivation and lack of due process. In response, de Morais has threatened to arrest X executives in Brazil and demanded that X appoint a legal representative in the country to enforce these orders. X’s Response: Elon Musk, owner of X, announced the closure of all X offices in Brazil and the relocation of its executives outside the country, citing safety concerns. Despite this, de Morais issued a 24-hour ultimatum for X to comply with the censorship orders or face being blocked in Brazil entirely, leaving the platform inaccessible to all Brazilians except those using VPNs. Legal and Political Maneuvers: De Moraes’ demands are part of a broader trend in which authoritarian regimes exert control over online platforms to suppress dissent. This has extended beyond X, with the blocking of financial assets of Starlink, another Musk-owned company, despite no wrongdoing on its part. De Moraes’ actions align with increasing censorship efforts seen in Brazil and other nations, where governments seek to maintain control over public discourse by stifling opposition voices online. Global Context and Implications: This situation is part of a global pattern where governments, both in democratic and authoritarian states, are increasingly imposing stringent controls over internet platforms. These controls are often justified by claims of national security or the need to prevent misinformation, yet they effectively limit free speech and the exchange of ideas. The trend began intensifying around 2016, following political events like Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, which demonstrated the power of the internet in shaping public opinion independent of traditional media gatekeepers. Conclusion: The actions by Brazil’s Supreme Court, particularly those of Justice De Moraes, represent a significant threat to internet freedom. They illustrate how governments can leverage legal and economic pressures to force compliance with censorship demands, thus curtailing the ability of platforms like X to serve as open forums for public debate. This reflects a broader, concerning trend of increasing censorship and control over online spaces by governments worldwide, undermining democratic principles and the free exchange of ideas. Glenn Greenwald Quotes: "The indescribably authoritarian judge on the Brazil Supreme Court, Alessandra de Morais, who essentially runs the country, threatened X's Brazilian executives that they would immediately be arrested if X did not instantly comply with censorship orders to censor elected members of the Senate and the Congress. "There's no due process provided, and these people have not been convicted of crimes. It's just this politically motivated judge ordering these people banned from the internet. X did not want to cooperate with that, so this threat was issued. We're going to arrest X executives inside Brazil unless you comply." "It's expected, especially for Western companies, that they're not going to comply with authoritarian regimes and shut down all opposition. That is considered immoral. All of the authoritarian countries that we are taught to hate have had a constant conflict with big tech over its refusal to censor dissidents or opponents of the government, and now this is contaminating the Western world." "In 2022, Elon Musk was awarded official commendations from Brazil's authorities for his benevolent act of providing free internet connections to many of the poorest areas in Brazil that the government hadn't been able to provide on their own. And yet, somehow, this judge, even though there's no finding that Starlink itself did anything wrong, has blocked Starlink's bank accounts in Brazil to punish X." "It is genuinely remarkable the lengths to which not just Brazil but countries throughout the democratic world are now willing to go to prevent the internet from being a free exchange of ideas where human beings can organize freely and privately because they recognize that is the one threat to establishment power and the status quo ruling class prerogatives." "This is happening in the ostensibly Western democratic world. I cannot do anything more in terms of words to express how extreme, how severe, and how dangerous this trend is." Follow -> Glenn Greenwald & System Update
20:56

Glenn Greenwald On Brazil's Alexandre De Moraes' Authoritarian Censorship Regime Targeting Elon Musk, Starlink, and 𝕏 Context and Situation: In Brazil, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has initiated aggressive actions against X, compelling the platform to comply with censorship orders targeting political figures. The orders demand the removal of elected senators and congress members from the platform, actions which X has resisted due to their political motivation and lack of due process. In response, de Morais has threatened to arrest X executives in Brazil and demanded that X appoint a legal representative in the country to enforce these orders. X’s Response: Elon Musk, owner of X, announced the closure of all X offices in Brazil and the relocation of its executives outside the country, citing safety concerns. Despite this, de Morais issued a 24-hour ultimatum for X to comply with the censorship orders or face being blocked in Brazil entirely, leaving the platform inaccessible to all Brazilians except those using VPNs. Legal and Political Maneuvers: De Moraes’ demands are part of a broader trend in which authoritarian regimes exert control over online platforms to suppress dissent. This has extended beyond X, with the blocking of financial assets of Starlink, another Musk-owned company, despite no wrongdoing on its part. De Moraes’ actions align with increasing censorship efforts seen in Brazil and other nations, where governments seek to maintain control over public discourse by stifling opposition voices online. Global Context and Implications: This situation is part of a global pattern where governments, both in democratic and authoritarian states, are increasingly imposing stringent controls over internet platforms. These controls are often justified by claims of national security or the need to prevent misinformation, yet they effectively limit free speech and the exchange of ideas. The trend began intensifying around 2016, following political events like Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, which demonstrated the power of the internet in shaping public opinion independent of traditional media gatekeepers. Conclusion: The actions by Brazil’s Supreme Court, particularly those of Justice De Moraes, represent a significant threat to internet freedom. They illustrate how governments can leverage legal and economic pressures to force compliance with censorship demands, thus curtailing the ability of platforms like X to serve as open forums for public debate. This reflects a broader, concerning trend of increasing censorship and control over online spaces by governments worldwide, undermining democratic principles and the free exchange of ideas. Glenn Greenwald Quotes: "The indescribably authoritarian judge on the Brazil Supreme Court, Alessandra de Morais, who essentially runs the country, threatened X's Brazilian executives that they would immediately be arrested if X did not instantly comply with censorship orders to censor elected members of the Senate and the Congress. "There's no due process provided, and these people have not been convicted of crimes. It's just this politically motivated judge ordering these people banned from the internet. X did not want to cooperate with that, so this threat was issued. We're going to arrest X executives inside Brazil unless you comply." "It's expected, especially for Western companies, that they're not going to comply with authoritarian regimes and shut down all opposition. That is considered immoral. All of the authoritarian countries that we are taught to hate have had a constant conflict with big tech over its refusal to censor dissidents or opponents of the government, and now this is contaminating the Western world." "In 2022, Elon Musk was awarded official commendations from Brazil's authorities for his benevolent act of providing free internet connections to many of the poorest areas in Brazil that the government hadn't been able to provide on their own. And yet, somehow, this judge, even though there's no finding that Starlink itself did anything wrong, has blocked Starlink's bank accounts in Brazil to punish X." "It is genuinely remarkable the lengths to which not just Brazil but countries throughout the democratic world are now willing to go to prevent the internet from being a free exchange of ideas where human beings can organize freely and privately because they recognize that is the one threat to establishment power and the status quo ruling class prerogatives." "This is happening in the ostensibly Western democratic world. I cannot do anything more in terms of words to express how extreme, how severe, and how dangerous this trend is." Follow -> Glenn Greenwald & System Update

KanekoaTheGreat

9,750,791 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

nothing is as important right now as materially supporting palestinians. as appealing as it is to put a watermelon emoji in your bio and declare support for palestine, that support is hollow if it is not followed by tangible action. right now, amidst a genocide, the most meaningful thing many of us can do is materially support palestinians and help them survive. over the past year and more, we've been in regular touch with palestinian families. they have been some of the kindest, most generous, and most resilient people we've ever met. long before we came to twitter, we were on instagram. long before we started making videos, we were involved in providing material support to palestinians through mutual aid networks. this work did not begin with content creation. one person spent a remarkable amount of time today attacking me over having a blue tick on x. so let me explain. one of our instagram accounts was already taken down for speaking about palestine. we have dealt with restrictions, harassment, mass reporting, and coordinated attacks. under india's increasingly restrictive digital environment, including broad government powers over online content and platform compliance, losing an account can mean losing years of work overnight. and the reality is that there is no large pro-palestine media ecosystem in india. there are no alternative mass platforms where palestinians can easily reach thousands of people, seek support, tell their stories, or connect with those willing to help. whether we like it or not, platforms like instagram, x, and meta-owned networks remain some of the few places where these connections happen. the blue tick was never about status. it was about access to support, account protection, and reducing the risk of being taken down through coordinated reporting campaigns, something many people speaking about palestine have experienced. while some people are busy auditing activists, palestinians are trying to stay alive. if you genuinely care about palestine, stay focused on palestinians. there is no competition here. no leaderboard. no prize for being the most righteous person online. genuine people in this movement know that. our priorities should remain exactly where they belong: with palestinians, and with providing whatever material support we can. shrishti
1:21

nothing is as important right now as materially supporting palestinians. as appealing as it is to put a watermelon emoji in your bio and declare support for palestine, that support is hollow if it is not followed by tangible action. right now, amidst a genocide, the most meaningful thing many of us can do is materially support palestinians and help them survive. over the past year and more, we've been in regular touch with palestinian families. they have been some of the kindest, most generous, and most resilient people we've ever met. long before we came to twitter, we were on instagram. long before we started making videos, we were involved in providing material support to palestinians through mutual aid networks. this work did not begin with content creation. one person spent a remarkable amount of time today attacking me over having a blue tick on x. so let me explain. one of our instagram accounts was already taken down for speaking about palestine. we have dealt with restrictions, harassment, mass reporting, and coordinated attacks. under india's increasingly restrictive digital environment, including broad government powers over online content and platform compliance, losing an account can mean losing years of work overnight. and the reality is that there is no large pro-palestine media ecosystem in india. there are no alternative mass platforms where palestinians can easily reach thousands of people, seek support, tell their stories, or connect with those willing to help. whether we like it or not, platforms like instagram, x, and meta-owned networks remain some of the few places where these connections happen. the blue tick was never about status. it was about access to support, account protection, and reducing the risk of being taken down through coordinated reporting campaigns, something many people speaking about palestine have experienced. while some people are busy auditing activists, palestinians are trying to stay alive. if you genuinely care about palestine, stay focused on palestinians. there is no competition here. no leaderboard. no prize for being the most righteous person online. genuine people in this movement know that. our priorities should remain exactly where they belong: with palestinians, and with providing whatever material support we can. shrishti

Prashant Pundir

75,962 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

They’re not backing down — Ireland is rising 🇮🇪 Alexandra Lavoie, alongside producer Efrain Flores Monsanto 🇨🇦🚛, has been dispatched to Ireland to document a growing grassroots uprising of truckers, farmers, and working people pushing back against punishing fuel and carbon taxes. In Dublin, anger is boiling over. For days, Irish citizens have blocked roads and key fuel infrastructure, sending a clear message to their government: enough is enough. What began as scattered protests has rapidly escalated into a coordinated national movement — one that many say has been ignored or downplayed by the mainstream media. Rebel News was already on the ground last weekend, with Ezra Levant and Efrain Flores Monsanto exposing what legacy outlets refused to show. Now, as tensions rise, Rebel News is coming back to continue that coverage — on the ground, and unfiltered. Because just like in Canada, critics say much of Ireland’s media landscape is tied to government funding — raising serious questions about whose voices are actually being heard. That’s where we step in. Just before our departure, Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin rushed out a last-minute concession: cuts to some carbon taxes on petrol and diesel, delays on future increases, and roughly €100 million in subsidies for farmers and hauliers — part of a broader package worth hundreds of millions. But for many protesters, it’s too little, too late. After nearly a week of sustained blockades, demonstrators say they are not backing down — and the movement is already beginning to spread beyond Ireland’s borders. Meanwhile, political pressure is mounting. A no-confidence vote over the government’s handling of the carbon tax crisis is now on the table in Parliament, with large crowds expected to gather outside. On the ground in Dublin, Rebel News is heading straight to the front lines — speaking directly to the truckers, farmers, and workers driving this movement. What do they want? And why do they believe their government has stopped listening?
7:11

They’re not backing down — Ireland is rising 🇮🇪 Alexandra Lavoie, alongside producer Efrain Flores Monsanto 🇨🇦🚛, has been dispatched to Ireland to document a growing grassroots uprising of truckers, farmers, and working people pushing back against punishing fuel and carbon taxes. In Dublin, anger is boiling over. For days, Irish citizens have blocked roads and key fuel infrastructure, sending a clear message to their government: enough is enough. What began as scattered protests has rapidly escalated into a coordinated national movement — one that many say has been ignored or downplayed by the mainstream media. Rebel News was already on the ground last weekend, with Ezra Levant and Efrain Flores Monsanto exposing what legacy outlets refused to show. Now, as tensions rise, Rebel News is coming back to continue that coverage — on the ground, and unfiltered. Because just like in Canada, critics say much of Ireland’s media landscape is tied to government funding — raising serious questions about whose voices are actually being heard. That’s where we step in. Just before our departure, Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin rushed out a last-minute concession: cuts to some carbon taxes on petrol and diesel, delays on future increases, and roughly €100 million in subsidies for farmers and hauliers — part of a broader package worth hundreds of millions. But for many protesters, it’s too little, too late. After nearly a week of sustained blockades, demonstrators say they are not backing down — and the movement is already beginning to spread beyond Ireland’s borders. Meanwhile, political pressure is mounting. A no-confidence vote over the government’s handling of the carbon tax crisis is now on the table in Parliament, with large crowds expected to gather outside. On the ground in Dublin, Rebel News is heading straight to the front lines — speaking directly to the truckers, farmers, and workers driving this movement. What do they want? And why do they believe their government has stopped listening?

Rebel News

12,073 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Thank you Mr President Donald J. Trump for exposing USAID and its funding to subvert Indian elections in the guise of increasing voter turnout out. You have said👇, “$21 million for voter turnout in India. What do we need to spend 21 million for voter turnout in India, wow $21 million. I guess they were trying to get somebody else elected. Well we ought to tell the Indian government. Because when we hear that Russia spent about $2 in our country it was a big deal right they took some Internet ads for $2,000. This is a total breakthrough, $21 million for India elections” Indeed we have been observing huge increase in voting percentage since General Election in 2014 which brought Narendra Modi as Prime Minister of India. Interestingly, Barack Obama was President Obama at that time. Elections in India are conducted by a constitutional body by name Election Commission of India (ECI). Though it is apparently independent of the Executive Government, there is much to be desired about its impartial functioning, of late. The ECI has been reporting huge increase of vote percentages post-polling so as to change the electoral fortunes. Unlike in the democracies elsewhere, in India voting is done NOT through paper ballot but electronically through Electronic Voting Machines (EVM). As a result, there have been huge concerns regarding the integrity of the poll process through EVMs. Importantly, more than alleged tampering with the EVMs which could be sporadic, there are serious allegations about vote percentages increased post-polling by ECI, which allegedly happens by inputting votes into the EVMs after the voting officially ended. Pertinently, there has been strong anti-incumbency against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party BJP in the later half of his second term of 2019-24. But to utter surprise, in General Elections held in May, 2024 his party won 240 seats. Though short of simple majority in Parliament, he stitched an alliance with other parties and became PM for the 3rd time. Likewise, in States of Haryana and Maharashtra there was a wave of anti-incumbency against the ruling BJP of Narendra Modi. But shockingly in the elections to these State Assemblies held in October/November 2024 his BJP won again. And the ECI had failed to satisfactorily explain the huge increase of vote percentages post-polling, which decisively alter the outcomes. Now the question, which is literally million dollars, is, “Is there a correlation between 'Increase voter turnout Program' of the USAID and 'the increase of vote percentages post-polling' as reported by ECI?” If there is any, it certainly means that the integrity and fairness, and thereby the outcome, of Indian Elections have been subverted, and to quote you, “I guess they were trying to get somebody else elected.” Secondly, India has a law that regulates foreign remittances to NGOs. Astonishingly, the Narendra Modi Government has stopped sharing information on its website about the foreign funds being received by NGOs, and thereby facilitating the workings of #DeepState in India without let or hindrance. Thirdly, it is public knowledge that Bill Gates has been not only a friend of Prime Minister Narendra Modi but also the unofficial Super Prime Minister of India who has unbridled access to every wing of the Narendra Modi Government and been dictating India’s public policies. In your speech you have said, “Well we ought to tell the Indian government.” For your information, in the past 11 years of Narendra Modi Government every institution of governance in India has been so badly undermined, subverted and sabotaged. And there is hardly any uncompromised agency left. Further, being partners and beneficiaries, the leaders of Indian government have all information about USAID activities in India available with them. As such, nothing would emerge from by your sharing of the same said information with the Indian government. Therefore, you may instead order investigation into USAID’s activities of criminally influencing electoral outcomes in India. Thank you. M. Nageswara Rao Former Director of Central Bureau of Investigation Government of India.
0:29

Thank you Mr President Donald J. Trump for exposing USAID and its funding to subvert Indian elections in the guise of increasing voter turnout out. You have said👇, “$21 million for voter turnout in India. What do we need to spend 21 million for voter turnout in India, wow $21 million. I guess they were trying to get somebody else elected. Well we ought to tell the Indian government. Because when we hear that Russia spent about $2 in our country it was a big deal right they took some Internet ads for $2,000. This is a total breakthrough, $21 million for India elections” Indeed we have been observing huge increase in voting percentage since General Election in 2014 which brought Narendra Modi as Prime Minister of India. Interestingly, Barack Obama was President Obama at that time. Elections in India are conducted by a constitutional body by name Election Commission of India (ECI). Though it is apparently independent of the Executive Government, there is much to be desired about its impartial functioning, of late. The ECI has been reporting huge increase of vote percentages post-polling so as to change the electoral fortunes. Unlike in the democracies elsewhere, in India voting is done NOT through paper ballot but electronically through Electronic Voting Machines (EVM). As a result, there have been huge concerns regarding the integrity of the poll process through EVMs. Importantly, more than alleged tampering with the EVMs which could be sporadic, there are serious allegations about vote percentages increased post-polling by ECI, which allegedly happens by inputting votes into the EVMs after the voting officially ended. Pertinently, there has been strong anti-incumbency against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party BJP in the later half of his second term of 2019-24. But to utter surprise, in General Elections held in May, 2024 his party won 240 seats. Though short of simple majority in Parliament, he stitched an alliance with other parties and became PM for the 3rd time. Likewise, in States of Haryana and Maharashtra there was a wave of anti-incumbency against the ruling BJP of Narendra Modi. But shockingly in the elections to these State Assemblies held in October/November 2024 his BJP won again. And the ECI had failed to satisfactorily explain the huge increase of vote percentages post-polling, which decisively alter the outcomes. Now the question, which is literally million dollars, is, “Is there a correlation between 'Increase voter turnout Program' of the USAID and 'the increase of vote percentages post-polling' as reported by ECI?” If there is any, it certainly means that the integrity and fairness, and thereby the outcome, of Indian Elections have been subverted, and to quote you, “I guess they were trying to get somebody else elected.” Secondly, India has a law that regulates foreign remittances to NGOs. Astonishingly, the Narendra Modi Government has stopped sharing information on its website about the foreign funds being received by NGOs, and thereby facilitating the workings of #DeepState in India without let or hindrance. Thirdly, it is public knowledge that Bill Gates has been not only a friend of Prime Minister Narendra Modi but also the unofficial Super Prime Minister of India who has unbridled access to every wing of the Narendra Modi Government and been dictating India’s public policies. In your speech you have said, “Well we ought to tell the Indian government.” For your information, in the past 11 years of Narendra Modi Government every institution of governance in India has been so badly undermined, subverted and sabotaged. And there is hardly any uncompromised agency left. Further, being partners and beneficiaries, the leaders of Indian government have all information about USAID activities in India available with them. As such, nothing would emerge from by your sharing of the same said information with the Indian government. Therefore, you may instead order investigation into USAID’s activities of criminally influencing electoral outcomes in India. Thank you. M. Nageswara Rao Former Director of Central Bureau of Investigation Government of India.

M. Nageswara Rao IPS (Retired)

28,938 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Our democracy is dying and we are rapidly descending into one party rule. We are left without a credible opposition and a Teal cross-bench with its mouth firmly shut on the slow removal of our right to question the government. The changes that Labor are planning to make in its Freedom of Information (FOI) amendments will further destroy what was already an imperfect system. Secrecy is the key to corruption. Intrinsic to the slow and deliberate removal of our rights, privileges and freedoms. So much happens under the cover of cabinet secrecy, of the quiet respect both sides of politics show each other in not exposing their worst deeds. Like the political class is more afraid of exposure than doing a poor job. It feels that way in Australia because it absolutely IS that way. Gone are the statesmen of old. Those that acted in the national interest. The current crop – Albanese and Ley – don’t deserve our trust. There has been more than enough evidence of corruption and cover-up from both sides, as they just have their turn, or wait for their turn, and nothing really changes. It’s baked in. By design. Ley did a little puff piece on the proposed imposition of a cost to access an FOI, which is a problem, but far from the biggest issue. The two major crimes being committed on the people by the passage of this bill will be the loss of the ability to request information anonymously, and provisions to deeply protect ministers from scrutiny through FOI. A bad convention formalised in law. Secrecy of any kind is abhorrent in a democracy. Without proper information, the public can’t make good electoral decisions. Without the ability to expose information by way of right, it is impossible to hold the government to account. As there is no opposition and scantly any capable media scrutiny. Those responsibilities now fall to members of the public, and in particular, whistleblowers from within the system. Whistleblowers, or anyone who does not toe the line in this country are absolutely pilloried. That rings true in all aspects of our government, and within the political parties that hold the system up. Losing anonymity in requesting documents from government, when paired with the pending loss of anonymity on social media is a one-two-punch that knocks out the last frontier of scrutiny. Our last hope to right the system through the system. Absolutely terrifying. Moreover, the biggest and most important decisions are made in cabinet, and by ministers. Without the ability to ask the big questions of the big players we are left up the proverbial creek, without a paddle. I am sure Sussan will be requesting some minor amendments to cost, but happy to waive the rest through, because she wants to have her turn at it later. We are poorly served by our parliament, we are right to question them, their integrity and intent. When we hear about our involvement in the bombing of Iran from the Americans, and negotiations with India to build 1 million homes here, from India… questions over the ISIS brides and everything else we learn by accident… we must shout our displeasure at this secrecy from the rooftops – while we still can. There must be a public outcry over this breach of faith. Our nation is slipping away from us, like sand through the hourglass. One grain of truth at a time. I just want Australia back.
0:58

Our democracy is dying and we are rapidly descending into one party rule. We are left without a credible opposition and a Teal cross-bench with its mouth firmly shut on the slow removal of our right to question the government. The changes that Labor are planning to make in its Freedom of Information (FOI) amendments will further destroy what was already an imperfect system. Secrecy is the key to corruption. Intrinsic to the slow and deliberate removal of our rights, privileges and freedoms. So much happens under the cover of cabinet secrecy, of the quiet respect both sides of politics show each other in not exposing their worst deeds. Like the political class is more afraid of exposure than doing a poor job. It feels that way in Australia because it absolutely IS that way. Gone are the statesmen of old. Those that acted in the national interest. The current crop – Albanese and Ley – don’t deserve our trust. There has been more than enough evidence of corruption and cover-up from both sides, as they just have their turn, or wait for their turn, and nothing really changes. It’s baked in. By design. Ley did a little puff piece on the proposed imposition of a cost to access an FOI, which is a problem, but far from the biggest issue. The two major crimes being committed on the people by the passage of this bill will be the loss of the ability to request information anonymously, and provisions to deeply protect ministers from scrutiny through FOI. A bad convention formalised in law. Secrecy of any kind is abhorrent in a democracy. Without proper information, the public can’t make good electoral decisions. Without the ability to expose information by way of right, it is impossible to hold the government to account. As there is no opposition and scantly any capable media scrutiny. Those responsibilities now fall to members of the public, and in particular, whistleblowers from within the system. Whistleblowers, or anyone who does not toe the line in this country are absolutely pilloried. That rings true in all aspects of our government, and within the political parties that hold the system up. Losing anonymity in requesting documents from government, when paired with the pending loss of anonymity on social media is a one-two-punch that knocks out the last frontier of scrutiny. Our last hope to right the system through the system. Absolutely terrifying. Moreover, the biggest and most important decisions are made in cabinet, and by ministers. Without the ability to ask the big questions of the big players we are left up the proverbial creek, without a paddle. I am sure Sussan will be requesting some minor amendments to cost, but happy to waive the rest through, because she wants to have her turn at it later. We are poorly served by our parliament, we are right to question them, their integrity and intent. When we hear about our involvement in the bombing of Iran from the Americans, and negotiations with India to build 1 million homes here, from India… questions over the ISIS brides and everything else we learn by accident… we must shout our displeasure at this secrecy from the rooftops – while we still can. There must be a public outcry over this breach of faith. Our nation is slipping away from us, like sand through the hourglass. One grain of truth at a time. I just want Australia back.

Matthew Camenzuli

13,891 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

My name is Naor Narkis. I am an opposition political candidate in Israel, a member of the Democrats party, currently running an active campaign to change the government. I am reaching out to you after my Facebook and Instagram accounts were both blocked 48 hours ago. These are not minor accounts. Together, they generate over 25 million views per month, making them among the most influential political voices on social media in a country of just under 10 million people. The suspension came just hours after Amit Segal, one of Israel's most powerful television journalists and broadcasters, known to be close to Prime Minister Netanyahu, publicly attacked my freedom of speech in a series of posts on X. He was joined by several journalists from major Israeli media outlets, all targeting my political activity and my campaign to change the government. His posts preceded the suspension of my accounts by just a few hours. At the very moment my campaign was at the center of Israeli public debate, my accounts on Facebook and Instagram were suspended. As of this moment, I have no access whatsoever to my accounts. Despite reaching out to official Meta employees in Israel, the issue remains unresolved. This is precisely the kind of intervention we have read about in 'Careless People' by Sarah Wynn-Williams, the ways in which powerful social media platforms have been used across different countries to interfere in democratic processes and tilt the balance of power in favor of autocratic and anti-democratic forces. At this moment, I am experiencing what I can only describe as political interference and the weaponization of the world's largest social network against free speech happening here, in Israel. In the coming hours, I will be taking legal action against this interference in Israel's democratic process by Meta. I call on international press freedom organizations, journalists, and media outlets around the world to cover and investigate this case. What is happening here is not just an Israeli story, it is a warning for every democracy in the world.
2:33

My name is Naor Narkis. I am an opposition political candidate in Israel, a member of the Democrats party, currently running an active campaign to change the government. I am reaching out to you after my Facebook and Instagram accounts were both blocked 48 hours ago. These are not minor accounts. Together, they generate over 25 million views per month, making them among the most influential political voices on social media in a country of just under 10 million people. The suspension came just hours after Amit Segal, one of Israel's most powerful television journalists and broadcasters, known to be close to Prime Minister Netanyahu, publicly attacked my freedom of speech in a series of posts on X. He was joined by several journalists from major Israeli media outlets, all targeting my political activity and my campaign to change the government. His posts preceded the suspension of my accounts by just a few hours. At the very moment my campaign was at the center of Israeli public debate, my accounts on Facebook and Instagram were suspended. As of this moment, I have no access whatsoever to my accounts. Despite reaching out to official Meta employees in Israel, the issue remains unresolved. This is precisely the kind of intervention we have read about in 'Careless People' by Sarah Wynn-Williams, the ways in which powerful social media platforms have been used across different countries to interfere in democratic processes and tilt the balance of power in favor of autocratic and anti-democratic forces. At this moment, I am experiencing what I can only describe as political interference and the weaponization of the world's largest social network against free speech happening here, in Israel. In the coming hours, I will be taking legal action against this interference in Israel's democratic process by Meta. I call on international press freedom organizations, journalists, and media outlets around the world to cover and investigate this case. What is happening here is not just an Israeli story, it is a warning for every democracy in the world.

Naor Narkis נאור נרקיס

17,479 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

There is nothing more disgusting than a government using a parent's grief as cover to ram through bad law. Emma Mason is being used. You can see just how cruel the government is, on this interview with Deb Knight on A Current Affair last night. Her grief is being abused by governments and the media in Australia to justify removing access to social media from all children under the age of 16. Worse than that, they are using her to justify the most draconian internet access rules in the world, and it’s not just for kids. Every adult in Australia will have to age verify to get online to use sites like YouTube, facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X. Emma’s story, and that of her daughter is tragic, but the truth is: banning selective social media access will not stop bullying. It will not save the lives of children, and it does not absolve parental responsibility. Outsourcing parenting to government is both cowardly and foolish. Anyone who caught the ABC Lateline piece from 1975 released on this platform by John Adams earlier this week, would know, the Australian Government does not care about our children. We’ve seen real harm perpetrated on kids at government and government regulated childcare facilities. We see a rise in juvenile crime and weak bail laws, encouraging kids to perpetrate more and more extreme crime, and we know there still exists a culture of coverup when it comes to child harm among the establishment elite. The people who have drafted and passed the social media age ban laws are either not au fait with technology, or worse, they are authoritarian bullies who do not want any criticism from the only outlet available to the public – social media. Most disturbing to me though, is this misconceived belief that parents need the government to ban social media so they can parent their children. That is most certainly not the case. Mason further calls on even more government to provide the resources to help parents copilot the law. Because even she can see that it is an absolute mess that will cause harm. The government is an uncaring and incompetent machine, and most Australians seem completely unaware of those facts. The law only impacts the law abiding, and silly laws make for more lawlessness. The social media age ban and the subsequent requirement for adult identification is a silly law. It is possible to circumvent, and it will be circumvented. It will also breed a culture of lawlessness among our youth, and when they start to get away with these smaller ‘crimes’, they will indeed feel emboldened to test other laws. I am tired of Australian governments using tragedy to take more of our rights and freedoms away. We don’t need the government’s help to parent our children or lull us into the false sense of security that they keep us and our children safe. Go shopping in Melbourne and see how safe you feel. Watching the heartless machine use a mother’s grief is painful. It is disgusting. Albanese, Ley and the rest of the Australian political establishment should be ashamed of themselves, because they know exactly what they are doing. We must not stand for this. We must resist, push back and not comply. It is nothing more than a government sponsored attack on our privacy and free speech. It has nothing to do with child safety. We must parent our own children and educate them on how much we have already lost in the name of security and safety. We must show them that we don’t support the government, and maybe by the time they have grown up and are voting, we can start to elect people who deserve to be in leadership positions. Because the people we have right now are a danger to our future prosperity. This is not Australia. I just want Australia back.
6:13

There is nothing more disgusting than a government using a parent's grief as cover to ram through bad law. Emma Mason is being used. You can see just how cruel the government is, on this interview with Deb Knight on A Current Affair last night. Her grief is being abused by governments and the media in Australia to justify removing access to social media from all children under the age of 16. Worse than that, they are using her to justify the most draconian internet access rules in the world, and it’s not just for kids. Every adult in Australia will have to age verify to get online to use sites like YouTube, facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X. Emma’s story, and that of her daughter is tragic, but the truth is: banning selective social media access will not stop bullying. It will not save the lives of children, and it does not absolve parental responsibility. Outsourcing parenting to government is both cowardly and foolish. Anyone who caught the ABC Lateline piece from 1975 released on this platform by John Adams earlier this week, would know, the Australian Government does not care about our children. We’ve seen real harm perpetrated on kids at government and government regulated childcare facilities. We see a rise in juvenile crime and weak bail laws, encouraging kids to perpetrate more and more extreme crime, and we know there still exists a culture of coverup when it comes to child harm among the establishment elite. The people who have drafted and passed the social media age ban laws are either not au fait with technology, or worse, they are authoritarian bullies who do not want any criticism from the only outlet available to the public – social media. Most disturbing to me though, is this misconceived belief that parents need the government to ban social media so they can parent their children. That is most certainly not the case. Mason further calls on even more government to provide the resources to help parents copilot the law. Because even she can see that it is an absolute mess that will cause harm. The government is an uncaring and incompetent machine, and most Australians seem completely unaware of those facts. The law only impacts the law abiding, and silly laws make for more lawlessness. The social media age ban and the subsequent requirement for adult identification is a silly law. It is possible to circumvent, and it will be circumvented. It will also breed a culture of lawlessness among our youth, and when they start to get away with these smaller ‘crimes’, they will indeed feel emboldened to test other laws. I am tired of Australian governments using tragedy to take more of our rights and freedoms away. We don’t need the government’s help to parent our children or lull us into the false sense of security that they keep us and our children safe. Go shopping in Melbourne and see how safe you feel. Watching the heartless machine use a mother’s grief is painful. It is disgusting. Albanese, Ley and the rest of the Australian political establishment should be ashamed of themselves, because they know exactly what they are doing. We must not stand for this. We must resist, push back and not comply. It is nothing more than a government sponsored attack on our privacy and free speech. It has nothing to do with child safety. We must parent our own children and educate them on how much we have already lost in the name of security and safety. We must show them that we don’t support the government, and maybe by the time they have grown up and are voting, we can start to elect people who deserve to be in leadership positions. Because the people we have right now are a danger to our future prosperity. This is not Australia. I just want Australia back.

Matthew Camenzuli

29,745 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

ALL ROADS LEAD TO OBAMA & SOROS. In order to understand Samantha Power & the USAID connection we need to understand where she comes from and her husband Cass Sunstein. Sunstein also went to Harvard Law School like Obama. They were both Law professors and met at The University of Chicago. Obama made Sunstein the Czar of information in the Obama Administration from 2009-2012. Obama's "regulatory czar," Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" - a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure “diversity of view" on the airwaves. He was in favor of the “Chilling effect” which wanted to create guard rails to “hateful speech” and even looked to impose fines to create a “Chilling effect” which would create pause in people exercising the first amendment. He wrote the book “ Nudge” which is essentially a new age communist manifesto meaning government should nudge people to do better behavior..OR ELSE. Sunstein has been a speaker at ACS events, and ACS has received funding from Soros's Open Society Institute. For example, ACS received over $2.2 million from Open Society since 2002. His wife Samantha Power took control of USAID conveniently during the COVID 19 Pandemic. If you watch her on Maddow last night she is discussing the importance of funding for “independent journalists” to report on events that are enduring social unrest. In reality it is training and paying journalists to promote their propaganda and participate in regime change and has NOTHING to do with feeding hungry mouths. We have witnessed these practices permeate our own media institutions and tech companies with censorship since Obama took office. That’s why they fear Elon looking at the books and seeing the payments. Obama appointed Mark Lloyd as his “Diversity Czar” of the FCC and is on tape stating that Chavez did a great job by taking CONTROL OF THE MEDIA. These people are Bolsheviks and them and their minions have been entrenched in our government & media since 2009. Any attempt to pretend they are worried about feeding hungry mouths globally is morale high ground misdirection. And like Elon Musk said, “I care about the reality of goodness, not the perception of it. And what I see all over the place is people who care about looking good while doing evil. FUCK THEM!!” They were so close to complete tyranny and Obama’s 4th term would have finally ushered it in and that was the end game all along. President Trump winning in 2024 and all of America coming to together prevented that from becoming our reality.
2:23

ALL ROADS LEAD TO OBAMA & SOROS. In order to understand Samantha Power & the USAID connection we need to understand where she comes from and her husband Cass Sunstein. Sunstein also went to Harvard Law School like Obama. They were both Law professors and met at The University of Chicago. Obama made Sunstein the Czar of information in the Obama Administration from 2009-2012. Obama's "regulatory czar," Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" - a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure “diversity of view" on the airwaves. He was in favor of the “Chilling effect” which wanted to create guard rails to “hateful speech” and even looked to impose fines to create a “Chilling effect” which would create pause in people exercising the first amendment. He wrote the book “ Nudge” which is essentially a new age communist manifesto meaning government should nudge people to do better behavior..OR ELSE. Sunstein has been a speaker at ACS events, and ACS has received funding from Soros's Open Society Institute. For example, ACS received over $2.2 million from Open Society since 2002. His wife Samantha Power took control of USAID conveniently during the COVID 19 Pandemic. If you watch her on Maddow last night she is discussing the importance of funding for “independent journalists” to report on events that are enduring social unrest. In reality it is training and paying journalists to promote their propaganda and participate in regime change and has NOTHING to do with feeding hungry mouths. We have witnessed these practices permeate our own media institutions and tech companies with censorship since Obama took office. That’s why they fear Elon looking at the books and seeing the payments. Obama appointed Mark Lloyd as his “Diversity Czar” of the FCC and is on tape stating that Chavez did a great job by taking CONTROL OF THE MEDIA. These people are Bolsheviks and them and their minions have been entrenched in our government & media since 2009. Any attempt to pretend they are worried about feeding hungry mouths globally is morale high ground misdirection. And like Elon Musk said, “I care about the reality of goodness, not the perception of it. And what I see all over the place is people who care about looking good while doing evil. FUCK THEM!!” They were so close to complete tyranny and Obama’s 4th term would have finally ushered it in and that was the end game all along. President Trump winning in 2024 and all of America coming to together prevented that from becoming our reality.

Johnny St.Pete

254,111 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr