Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Censorship Industrial Complex

2024 is Going to Give us All PTSD

Published

16 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Terry Etam

And while there are crazies on either side of the spectrum, the difference is that right wing crazies are right wing crazies, and CBS News is CBS News.

The lazy days of summer serve a useful purpose. A few weeks away from everything clears the head, if one can escape the global cacophony.  It works. Try it if you can; declutter the mind, step out of the fray. Upon returning, it seems possible to see the forest instead of the trees, to rejoin the info flow gradually from a disconnected, higher level.

Personally, it also helps to get disconnected from the energy world as well, and to travel to places far removed from the energy epicentre to take the pulse of people that have nothing to do with it.

Having said that, it can be a shock to realize how poorly energy is understood. It shouldn’t really be a shock, of course; it is a vast and complicated topic that almost no one understands in its entirety.

It’s not unreasonable though to ask that our leaders have a better grasp, but it is frightening to realize that they do not. We see senior policy makers and geopolitically-significant people/organizations/policy makers enacting suicidal energy policies (the examples are in the hundreds, but look at Germany’s decision to shut down much-needed nuclear power plants as the poster child).

The reason leaders are so eager to throw common sense out the window and embrace energy-ignorant policies is illuminated quite clearly when speaking with the average citizen about what everyone always talks about – the weather. Maybe it’s a Canadian thing but it’s a topic that can’t be avoided, and right there, right away, the wheels come off. Climate messaging has been so resoundingly successful that, in the public’s eye, any weather deviation whatsoever is proof of man-made climate change. The news cycle ramps this phenomenon up to a fever pitch. It’s so freaking draining; getting sidetracked in a weather conversation ruins my zen and I run away.

The attitude is so pervasive it is as though everyone has forgotten that heat waves/droughts/floods existed since time immemorial, and many ancient ones were far more severe than today’s events. But as we all know, once pop culture drills something into someone’s head long enough and loud enough, it becomes a truth (former Trudeau government bigwig Catherine McKenna, climate alarmist extraordinaire, was famously recorded explaining to an acquaintance in a bar how this works: “Just keep saying the same thing louder and louder and eventually they believe it.” (A not-dumb eastern Canadian lawyer explained to me that climate change was now so bad that the earth was actually heating up from the inside, which was her explanation for why the soil was dry some 6 feet down on her property. That kind of boldly asserted absurdity is not easily pounded into heads, but once it’s there, dynamite won’t get it out.)

It’s easy to point the finger at the general population and declare “they’re all stupid,” I hear that a lot, but it’s a bit unfair. They are energy ignorant, as are most, and when it come to alarmist messaging, well, when the government itself engages in scare tactics at the highest level, such as when federal leaders hint in their crazy way that extreme weather is something they can ultimately control through government policy, a lot of people kind of just sigh and accept it, they go with the flow.

The media machine, starved for attention, loves chaos and fear and flash. It encourages us to hate by zeroing in on the inflammatory. It encourages us to rage by taking positions, and draping itself in mock-innocence – “What? Us? Biased? Outrageous. We even have fact checkers!”

Yeah…about that… CBS News reports on the ‘no tax on tips’ idea. In June 2024, Trump proposed the idea of eliminating taxes payable on tip income. CBS news ran with the story on Twitter thusly: “Former President Donald Trump’s vow to stop taxing tips would cost the federal government up to $250 billion over 10 years, according to a nonpartisan watchdog group.”

In August 2024, two months later, Kamala Harris somehow came up with the exact same policy, and CBS News covered her theft thusly: “Vice President Kamala Harris is rolling out a new policy position, saying she’ll fight to end taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.”

They don’t even care any more. There is no shame, or self-reflection, no hesitancy. It’s pure peacock feathers.

And while there are crazies on either side of the spectrum, the difference is that right wing crazies are right wing crazies, and CBS News is CBS News.

While it is a generational thing to think that times have never been more crazy, it is hard to put today’s weirdness into any sort of historical context. “The News” is a relatively recent phenomenon in the big scheme of things, hardly more than a century or two old, and thus it is a living object, morphing over time as communications capabilities change, and as we become more interconnected at light speed. Fifty years ago we either waited for a daily or weekly newspaper to find out what was happening in the world, or tuned in to a nightly television program that chose the stories for us and read them aloud in some soothing voice.

We were told what the news was to the extent the news organizations could unearth or cover it, in a time when the ability to cover bigger events on the other side of the world was almost nonexistent. Crack reporters did great work speaking to people who either witnessed or participated in events, and politics covered what was known about what politicians were up to, and not much may have been known at all. In fact those politicians were acting in huge information vacuums as well.

Today, it’s wide open. We see everything. At least we do in the west, not so much in totalitarian states, but even there we can observe a lot. We have eyes on everything including live flight trackers doing their thing every minute of the day on social media, we can see a graphic of every trip Taylor Swift’s jets made over then course of a year (yes, she has two, apparently, another bit of trivia I have no justification or enthusiasm for knowing).

We also see an infinite assessment of government policy, how it comes to be, how it’s enacted, how it’s enforced, how it is playing out, like we never have before in history. The feedback loops are constant and detailed, and while the information is sometimes distorted for ideological purposes, the preponderance of analysis does tend to zero in on what is actually happening, shorn of much of the spin.

We can see the genesis of much of today’s craziness. One gets the feeling, from a high-enough thought plane, that some well-educated and well-funded people decided to make some very big tectonic moves that would put the world on a better path. Being God’s gift to central planning, this global who’s who fully embraced radical  – and I do mean radical – change as a prerequisite for human survival. (The IPCC for example said that, to achieve climate targets, there would need to be an unprecedented rewiring and rebuilding of pretty much the entire world, quickly. They offered no advice, just “do it or you all perish” and that was enough for the WEF crowd to pool their billions and buy the best politicians they could.)

Our western leaders, full of oats, delusions of grandeur, and a blank checkbook/chequebook – because they don’t understand the cold hard realities of how to run a successful economic enterprise – went for broke, looking to go down in history as visionaries that bent the trajectory of modern life as we know it. They burned bridges – no going back, no second guessing (any second-guessing is now deemed ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’).

What we see all around us is the detritus of their failure, on so many levels, and we don’t really know what to do about it. We’ve been conditioned to accept that the ‘experts’ know what they are doing, and that capable hands will guide us through whatever fate throws at us. We turn to the simplistic world of pop culture for explanations because the stone cold reality of things is just too hard to wrap our heads around, and we don’t want to spend our days trying to figure it all out.

We are still people, and it is dumb to expect a solid grounding of complex topics that the media distorts mercilessly to pander to the fear.

And yes there are of course flat out fools, across the political spectrum and beyond. Feel free to discount them entirely. Luckily, let’s be honest, no matter our political persuasion, they’re generally not hard to spot, which is why attempting to limit free speech is such a fool’s game.

On the other hand, it appears the world’s attention is going to be dominated by the upcoming US election, and it is going to be so freaking far out and insane that it will be hard to reach December without PTSD.

Some words to keep in mind when things become so crazy it seems like it isn’t real (if you think that’s hyperbole, consider that Russia’s war against Ukraine, a bonafide war with tanks and bombs and death and endless heartache, often sadly doesn’t even make the front page, pushed aside by madness in the US, UK, Middle East, Africa…).

We are in a period of turmoil where people don’t know where to turn. Most have been led to believe that they are fundamentally bad, either through their consumption choices or their preference for “what was good before” or if their belief system doesn’t line up exactly with the mainstream narrative.

As a wise friend recently pointed out, in times of trouble people seek out “messiahs”, they look for a jolt from an outsider, because the “inside”, the swamp, has let them down and left them disoriented. Remember that Trump is a symptom, not a cause. Many, many people, perhaps a majority, are willing to overlook his bombastic antics because he represents a hope that can only come from the outside. As proof of this notion, consider this quote from an astonishing source – John Lydon of the band Public Image Ltd., formerly Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols, the ultimate punk of all punks, speaking of Trump: “He’s a thoroughly unpleasant fellow, no doubt about it. But he’s not a politician and I hate politicians! Screw the lot of ‘em. I’d rather have a maniac…a real estate land shark. There will be no world carrying on as long as we keep enforcing dogmas.”

No matter what happens over the next year or two, we will find a new equilibrium just as the world did post WWII. What it will look like is a good question, but there will be some sort of stability.

Probably. What the hell do I know. Good luck.

Rest assured that the future of energy providers is as strong as it ever has been, no matter what you hear on the airwaves. Energy will be the last industry standing, no matter what happens.

Terry Etam is a columnist with the BOE Report, a leading energy industry newsletter based in Calgary.  He is the author of The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity.  You can watch his Policy on the Frontier session from May 5, 2022 here.

Business

The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.

Published on

logo

By

Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.

When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”
They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.
The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.
It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.
The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.
None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.
Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.
The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.
The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.
Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.
Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.
Become a supporter here.
However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.
The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.
Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.
Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.
Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.
The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.
The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.
They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.
Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.
The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.
The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.
The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.
That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.
The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”
That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.
Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.
TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.
The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.
It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.
In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.
And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.
Reclaim The Net Needs Your Help
With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.
If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.
You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

US Condemns EU Censorship Pressure, Defends X

Published on

US Vice President JD Vance criticized the European Union this week after rumors reportedly surfaced that Brussels may seek to punish X for refusing to remove certain online speech.

In a post on X, Vance wrote, “Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage.”

His remarks reflect growing tension between the United States and the EU over the future of online speech and the expanding role of governments in dictating what can be said on global digital platforms.

Screenshot of a verified social-media post with a profile photo, reading: "Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage." Timestamp Dec 4, 2025, 5:03 PM and "1.1M Views" shown.

Vance was likely referring to rumors that Brussels intends to impose massive penalties under the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a censorship framework that requires major platforms to delete what regulators define as “illegal” or “harmful” speech, with violations punishable by fines up to six percent of global annual revenue.

For Vance, this development fits a pattern he’s been warning about since the spring.

In a May 2025 interview, he cautioned that “The kind of social media censorship that we’ve seen in Western Europe, it will and in some ways, it already has, made its way to the United States. That was the story of the Biden administration silencing people on social media.”

He added, “We’re going to be very protective of American interests when it comes to things like social media regulation. We want to promote free speech. We don’t want our European friends telling social media companies that they have to silence Christians or silence conservatives.”

Yet while the Vice President points to Europe as the source of the problem, a similar agenda is also advancing in Washington under the banner of “protecting children online.”

This week’s congressional hearing on that subject opened in the usual way: familiar talking points, bipartisan outrage, and the recurring claim that online censorship is necessary for safety.

The House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade convened to promote a bundle of bills collectively branded as the “Kids Online Safety Package.”

The session, titled “Legislative Solutions to Protect Children and Teens Online,” quickly turned into a competition over who could endorse broader surveillance and moderation powers with the most moral conviction.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) opened the hearing by pledging that the bills were “mindful of the Constitution’s protections for free speech,” before conceding that “laws with good intentions have been struck down for violating the First Amendment.”

Despite that admission, lawmakers from both parties pressed ahead with proposals requiring digital ID age verification systems, platform-level content filters, and expanded government authority to police online spaces; all similar to the EU’s DSA censorship law.

Vance has cautioned that these measures, however well-intentioned, mark a deeper ideological divide. “It’s not that we are not friends,” he said earlier this year, “but there’re gonna have some disagreements you didn’t see 10 years ago.”

That divide is now visible on both sides of the Atlantic: a shared willingness among policymakers to restrict speech for perceived social benefit, and a shrinking space for those who argue that freedom itself is the safeguard worth protecting.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, join Reclaim The Net.

Fight censorship and surveillance. Reclaim your digital freedom.

Get news updates, features, and alternative tech explorations to defend your digital rights.

Continue Reading

Trending

X