Reclaim The Net accepts no invasive advertising and is funded by the community. If you support free speech, the eradication of cancel culture, and restoring privacy and civil liberties, please become a supporter here. | In an age where the internet reigns as the ultimate tool of influence, capable of swaying economic and political tides through the dissemination of news, content, and communication, who truly holds the reins of power? As the digital landscape becomes a battleground for controlling narratives, a new breed of "professionals" has emerged: "fact-checkers" and "misinformation experts." However, revelation after revelation suggests a significant flaw in their foundation - their pronounced political biases.Today's exploration isn't just about who controls the internet - it's about who controls the truth in our increasingly online world...
Become a Supporter here.
Then get the post here. |  | Do as I say - not as I do. That's the essence of a leak that claims to expose high-ranked EU officials as more than simply politicking hypocrites when it comes to implementing the extremely controversial legislation affecting online privacy and encryption.
Namely, interior ministers from EU member countries reportedly want to exempt themselves - but not only - from the looming Child Sexual Abuse (CSAM) Regulation (aka, "chat control"), expected to be adopted as early as in June.
Pushed by supporters as being exactly what it says on the tin - the proposed new rules are at the same time criticized as a vehicle for indiscriminate mass surveillance of everyone's online communications, and a way to weaken true encryption deployed by platforms - a vital component of internet security, once again, affecting everyone who goes online, children included.
German member of European Parliament (MEP), Pirate Party member, and lawyer Patrick Breyer, who has been investing a lot of time and energy in drawing EU public's attention to the dangers that come with the regulation, is now quoting leaked documents published by the French site Contexte, which may or may not prove the context of the already troubled proposed rules, just got even worse.
That's because, according to Contexte, "EU interior ministers want to exempt professional accounts of staff of intelligence agencies, police and military from the envisaged scanning of chats and messages."
In addition to ministers, police, and spies, anything that's labeled as "professional secret" is also supposed to be exempt from this highly invasive (when it comes to everybody else in the EU) type of content scanning.
In a statement, Breyer's take on the revelations is that these officials are well aware that chat control scans are "unreliable and dangerous snooping algorithms" - and yet have no problem "unleashing (them) on us, citizens."
Regarding the "professional secrets" provision - Breyer calls it "a lie cast in paragraphs."
"No provider and no algorithm can know or determine whether a chat is being conducted with doctors, therapists, lawyers, defense lawyers, etc. so as to exempt it from chat control," he writes.
And he seems to think that what might be behind these exemptions is the EU interior ministers worried that military secrets with no connection to CSAM would become "readily available" to the US - likely, because of the broad and "leaky" nature of the regulation itself and the amount of data it hopes to access.
According to Breyer, this provision exempting various officials and their communication "makes a mockery" of the stated purpose of the legislation, i.e., protecting children online, while the EU, instead of looking into best ways to actually achieve that, is descending into "China-style mass surveillance, and not better protecting our children."
"We know that most of the chats leaked by today's voluntary snooping algorithms are of no relevance to the police, for example family photos or consensual sexting," the MEP says.
"It is outrageous that the EU interior ministers themselves do not want to suffer the consequences of the destruction of digital privacy of correspondence and secure encryption that they are imposing on us," Breyer concludes. | Reclaim The Net accepts no invasive advertising and is funded entirely by the community. If you support free speech, the eradication of cancel culture, and restoring privacy and civil liberties, get exclusive content, features, and more by becoming a supporter here.
Thank you for your support.
| | More details are emerging in the ongoing feud between X and its owner Elon Musk and Brazilian authorities over the latter's censorship policies - a public dispute in which the US House of Representatives is now formally involved.
X has been subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee regarding censorship orders the company has been getting from Brazil, and the X Global Government Affairs announced that the company has complied with the request.
"X Corp. has been formally subpoenaed by the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee to provide information on orders from the Brazilian Supreme Court regarding content moderation. To comply with its obligations under US law, X Corp. has responded to the Committee," the post reads. |  | Commenting on this development and a statement that noted X Corp responded in line with US law, Musk effectively remarked that there are other US laws his company is bound by: for example, those preventing participation in "corruption that violates the laws of other countries."
And that, according to Musk, is exactly what the face of Brazil's internet censorship, Alexandre de Moraes, is demanding of X.
Those now in power in Brazil don't refer to the court orders as part of a broader censorship effort, but as "content moderation"; however, Musk has in the past weeks revealed that these orders concern silencing sitting members of Brazil's parliament and prominent journalists, and others, while never providing reasons why their accounts should be suspended.
And there was previously a gag order preventing X from talking about any of this, which Musk clearly decided to single-handedly lift.
Moraes may be a Supreme Court (STF) Justice in Brazil, as well as president of the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), but when Musk decided to put his foot down on what seem to have been relentless censorship demands, the X owner had no problem referring to him as a "dictator" and the country's appeals mechanisms as a "farce," among other things.
In response, Moraes issued another order - to investigate X and Musk under something called "digital militias" rules, for "obstruction of justice."
The main thrust of Moraes' efforts seems to be to silence those voices who criticize or question the integrity of Brazil's 2023 presidential election.
To achieve that, the powerful Brazilian official wants to prevent X from reactivating banned accounts (something Musk said would be done) - and if done, Moraes said it will cost X $20,000 per what one might call, "a liberated account."
Meanwhile, Musk is promising "a full data dump" regarding this crisis - once X employees in Brazil, who are reportedly in danger of being arrested, are "in a safe space." |  | Stella Assange has once again urged the Biden White House to give up on prosecuting her husband Julian Assange, at the same time accusing the US authorities of resorting to "blatant weasel words" when addressing the issue of granting the WikiLeaks founder First Amendment protections.
In a post on X, Stella Assange said that a diplomatic note from the US that was supposed to provide assurances regarding Assange's future if extradited to the US did not succeed in doing that.
When it comes to the First Amendment, the note amounted to being "a non-assurance," Stella wrote, which did not override the prosecution's claim her husband had no rights guaranteed in this respect because he is not a US citizen. Instead it now only said that he can "seek to raise" the First Amendment if he finds himself in custody in the US.
At the same time, the note contained "a standard assurance in relation to the death penalty," the post said. (Reuters cited the document as stating that "a sentence of death will neither be sought nor imposed.") |  | The note "does nothing to relieve our family's extreme distress about his future - his grim expectation of spending the rest of his life in isolation in US prison for publishing award-winning journalism," Stella Assange wrote.
The "assurances" note she is referring to was requested by the British, as a court there is getting ready to issue its final decision regarding Assange's ability to again appeal extradition. The High Court in London previously said a new appeal would not be possible if the US side provided "certain guarantees."
Specifically, they are concerned about extending First Amendment free speech rights to Assange, if put on trial in the US, as well as the prosecution there refraining from adding more charges that carry the possibility of the death penalty.
These guarantees, such as they are, have now arrived, prompting Stella Assange to dismiss them as "weasel words."
Now it will be up to the UK court to interpret whether the US note provides satisfactory guarantees.
The US government accuses Assange of "putting lives at risk" and going "considerably beyond" what a journalist would do when classified documents concerning. most prominently. US wars in the Middle East were published some 15 years ago.
If extradited, Assange will be put on trial indicted on 17 counts of espionage and one related to computer misuse. | | The Trump Media & Technology Group revealed its latest venture this week, a streaming TV platform designed to broadcast a spectrum of content, including news and films, that the company believes is often overlooked by mainstream media and Big Tech.
The move to launch a streaming service is seen as a strategic play to attract a broad audience and, in turn, entice advertisers.
In terms of content, the forthcoming streaming service will initially be accessible through the Truth Social app, with plans to expand to home TV streaming setups. |  | | CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the initiative's commitment to freedom of expression. "We're excited to move forward with the next big phase for Truth Social," said Nunes said. "With our streaming content, we aim to provide a permanent home for high-quality news and entertainment that face discrimination by other channels and content delivery services. There is a lot of great content that simply can't find an audience for unjust reasons, and we want to let these creators know they'll soon have a guaranteed platform where they won't be canceled."
The service aims to include diverse offerings such as news networks, religious channels, family-friendly movies, documentaries, and other material that faces cancellation risks, suppression or struggles to be shown on mainstream media platforms. |  | Ken Paxton's investigation into Media Matters is on hold after a judge's ruling. Media Matters is currently involved in a legal situation with the Texas Republican Attorney General. Paxton, who has criticized the often pro-censorship group Media Matters as an "anti-free speech organization," initiated an investigation into the group alleging "potential fraudulent activity."
This investigation was recently paused by a court order that granted a preliminary injunction.
Media Matters for America had lodged a federal lawsuit against Paxton. The organization accused Paxton of violating First Amendment rights.
The dispute centers on actions taken by Paxton in the wake of Media Matters' scrutiny of Elon Musk's social media platform, X. The group had reported on advertising alongside contentious content on X, which led to significant advertiser withdrawals, including from major companies like Disney.
These reports triggered a backlash, with Paxton launching an investigation into Media Matters for alleged deceitful practices tied to the X probe.
Among his demands, the Texas Attorney General asked for the organization's internal and external communications about Musk and X CEO Linda Yaccarino, as well as an in-depth breakdown of their financing, with a focus on all direct and indirect sources of funding related to X research or publications.
Media Matters sued in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
The group insisted on its lack of relevance to Texas, stating it does not conduct business in, or bear any registration in the state as a charity organization. This lawsuit stopped Paxton from enforcing his investigative demands when DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta granted a preliminary injunction to Media Matters. Judge Mehta recognized the watchdog group's reporting as core First Amendment activities and suggested Paxton's intent was retaliatory.
We obtained a copy of the order for you here. | Reclaim The Net is funded by the community. Keep us going and get extra benefits by becoming a supporter. Thank you.
| | Thanks for reading,
Reclaim The Net
| | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment