Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Censorship Industrial Complex

New WEF report suggests leveraging ESG scoring to enforce globalist ideas on online platforms

Published

5 months ago

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

Unelected globalists like those at the World Economic Forum are attempting to associate ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ with human rights abuses to empower themselves and silence dissent online.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) says that environmental, social, and governance metrics (ESG) can prove valuable for evaluating platforms on their handling of disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material, in a new report.

Published on June 6, 2024, the WEF white paper, “Making a Difference: How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online,” says that, “In an increasingly interconnected world, it is essential to measure digital safety in order to understand risks, allocate resources and demonstrate compliance with regulations.”

If measuring digital safety is considered to be essential, what then are the actual online harms that would necessitate measuring digital safety?

The latest white paper only gives three examples: disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material – as if they were all equal under the banner of online harm.

“ESG metrics present another valuable perspective for evaluating online safety” — How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online, WEF, June 2024

One method for evaluating online safety described in the latest WEF white paper is to leverage ESG scoring, which is basically a social credit for companies to make them fall in line with unelected globalist ideologies, even when these ESG policies are detrimental to their bottom line.

“Within ESG investing, companies are assessed based on their environmental impact, social responsibility and corporate governance practices,” the report reads.

Similarly, online platforms could be evaluated based on their efforts to promote a safe and inclusive online environment, and the transparency of content moderation policies.

Online platforms can also be evaluated based on their processes, tools and rules designed to promote the ‘safe use’ of their services in a manner that mitigates harm to vulnerable non-user groups.

And who will be evaluating online platforms in this Orwellian dystopia? Why, the unelected globalists themselves, of course!

Best to leave these decisions and all the power to bureaucrats that have our best interests at heart for the greater, collectivist good.

“An increase in the speed of content removals may reflect proactive moderation efforts, but it could also hint at overzealous censorship that stifles free expression” — How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online, WEF, June 2024

The WEF considers disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material as all being online harms that need to be measured and rectified.

But why do they lump everything together under this vague, blanket term of digital safety?

It is so that unelected globalist NGOs like the WEF can have more power and influence over government regulators concerning what type of information people are allowed to access through their service providers.

According to the report:

Digital safety metrics reinforce accountability, empowering NGOs and regulators to oversee service providers effectively.

They also serve as benchmarks for compliance monitoring, enhancing user trust in platforms, provided they are balanced with privacy considerations and take into account differentiation among services.

For the unelected globalist bureaucrats, measuring digital safety is about empowering themselves and forcing people into compliance with unelected globalist ideologies (with the help of regulators), all while balancing privacy considerations that are antithetical to everything they’re trying to achieve with the great reset and the fourth industrial revolution.

WEF founder Klaus Schwab has stated on numerous occasions that the so-called fourth industrial revolution will lead to the fusion of our physical, biological, and digital identities.

Schwab openly talks about a future where we will decode people’s brain activity to know how they’re feeling and what they are thinking and that people’s digital avatars will live on after death and their brains will be replicated using artificial intelligence.

How’s that for balancing privacy considerations in the digital world?

“Digital safety decisions must be rooted in international human rights frameworks” — Typology of Online Harms, WEF, August 2023

While the latest WEF white paper only lists disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material, it builds upon an August 2023 insight report entitled “Toolkit for Digital Safety Design Interventions and Innovations: Typology of Online Harms,” which expands the scope of what constitutes online harm into various categories:

  • Threats to personal and community safety,
  • Harm to health and well-being,
  • Hate and discrimination,
  • Violation of dignity,
  • Invasion of privacy,
  • Deception and manipulation.

Many of the harms listed in last year’s report have to do with heinous acts against people of all ages and identities, but there too in that list of online harms, the WEF highlights misinformation and disinformation without giving a single, solitary example of either one.

With misinformation and disinformation, the typology report states that “[b]oth can be used to manipulate public opinion, interfere with democratic processes such as elections or cause harm to individuals, particularly when it involves misleading health information.”

In the same report, the unelected globalists admit that it’s almost impossible “to define or categorize common types of harm.”

The authors say that “there are regional differences in how specific harms are defined in different jurisdictions and that there is no international consensus on how to define or categorize common types of harm.

“Considering the contextual nature of online harm, the typology does not aim to offer precise definitions that are universally applicable in all contexts.”

By not offering precise definitions, they are deliberately making “online harm” a vague concept that can be left wide open to just about any interpretation, which makes quashing dissent and obfuscating the truth even easier because these “online harms,” in their eyes, must be seen as human rights abuses:

By framing online harms through a human rights lens, this typology emphasizes the impacts on individual users and aims to provide a broad categorization of harms to support global policy development

Once again, the authors are deliberately putting misinformation, disinformation, and so-called hate speech in the same category as abuse, harassment, doxing, and criminal acts of violence under this “broad categorization of harms.”

That way, they can treat anyone they deem as a threat for speaking truth to power in the same manner as they would for people who commit the most egregious crimes known to humanity.

The title of the latest white paper suggests that it’s all about measuring digital safety, but the title can be misleading.

It’s like what lawmakers do when they introduce bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, which had nothing to do with reducing inflation and everything to do with advancing the green agenda, decarbonization, and net-zero policies.

Similarly, the WEF’s latest white paper may have little or nothing to do with reducing risks online, as the title suggests.

But it does have a lot to do with making sure that misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech are associated with human rights abuses and other acts of real criminality.

In doing so, the ESG proponents can swoop in and consolidate more power for their public-private partnerships – the fusion of corporation and state.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 9 hours ago

Trump sues New York Times for $10 billion over ‘false and defamatory statements’

Business / 14 hours ago

It’s time to supersize charitable tax credits, not political ones

Brownstone Institute / 14 hours ago

The Revolution of 2024: A Rare Victory for Anti-Establishment Fury

Censorship Industrial Complex

CBC continues to push unproven unmarked graves claim, implies ‘denialism’ should be criminalized

Published on November 15, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The CBC has published yet another article implicitly promoting the unproven claim that former residential school sites contain the unmarked graves of Indigenous students, citing activist who want dissent from the official narrative criminalized.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is still pushing the unproven claim that unmarked graves have been discovered at former residential schools while implicitly calling for “residential school denialism” to be criminalized.   

In an October 31 article, the state-funded CBC highlighted former residential school attendees who called for punishments for “residential school denialism,” implying citizens should be punished for denying the existence of unmarked graves despite the fact that no bodies have been found.

“Residential school survivors are calling on Canada to criminalize residential school denialism, echoing one of the findings in a report about unmarked graves and burial sites associated with the institutions,” the government-funded outlet claimed. 

According to former students of the schools, those who oppose the mainstream narrative, by pointing out that no unmarked graves have been discovered or that some children benefitted from the schools, which some former students themselves have attested, should be silenced.    

Alarmingly, this suggestion to criminalize the denial of an unproven claim is supported by a New Democratic Party (NDP) MP who recently introduced a bill which would charge those who “promote hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying the Indian residential school system in Canada.” 

While the CBC report rigorously outlines the dangers of so-called “denialism,” it failed to mention the above discrepancies in the official narrative.

Residential schools, while run by both the Catholic Church and other Christian churches, were mandated and set-up by the federal government and ran from the late 19th century until the last school closed in 1996.        

While some children did tragically die at the once-mandatory boarding schools, evidence has revealed  that many of the children passed away as a result of unsanitary conditions due to underfunding by the federal government, not the Catholic Church.  

As a consequence, since 2021, when the mainstream media ran with inflammatory and dubious claims  that hundreds of children were buried and disregarded by Catholic priests and nuns who ran some of the schools, over 100 churches have been burned or vandalized across Canada in seeming retribution.

In fact, in 2021, Trudeau waited weeks before acknowledging the church vandalism, and when he did speak, said it is “understandable” that churches have been burned while acknowledging it to be “unacceptable and wrong.”     

Similarly, in February, Liberal and NDP MPs quickly shut down a Conservative motion to condemn an attack against a Catholic church in Regina, Saskatchewan. The motion was shut down even though there was surveillance footage of a man, who was later arrested, starting the fire.   

Additionally, in October 2023, Liberal and NDP MPs voted to adjourn rather than consider a motion that would denounce the arson and vandalism against 83 Canadian churches, especially those within Indigenous communities.    

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Betting Site CEO Slams FBI Raid and Device Seizures As Politically Driven After Site Correctly Calls Trump’s Election Win

Published on November 14, 2024

By

 By Rick Findlay

Early Wednesday morning, Shayne Coplan, CEO of the betting platform Polymarket, which has been popular for election betting, was awakened by a dramatic FBI raid on his Soho apartment. This event occurred shortly after the platform had accurately predicted Donald Trump’s overwhelming win in the recent election, according to The Post.

At around 6 a.m., federal agents demanded that Coplan hand over his phone and other electronics. Critics have called the raid an unnecessary display of force, meant to intimidate and influence public perception for political ends.

A close source expressed frustration, stating, “They could have asked his lawyer for any of these things. Instead, they staged a so-called raid so they can leak it to the media and use it for obvious political reasons.”

Coplan himself commented on the incident, expressing his disappointment with what he perceives as a politically motivated action by the Biden administration. “It’s discouraging that the current administration would seek a last-ditch effort to go after companies they deem to be associated with political opponents. We are deeply committed to being non-partisan, and today is no different, but the incumbents should do some self-reflecting and recognize that taking a more pro-business, pro-startup approach may be what would have changed their fate this election,” he stated.
He also highlighted Polymarket’s role in the election, serving tens of millions without causing harm, and reaffirmed his optimism about the future of American entrepreneurship.

No official reason has been provided for the raid, but the source, and Coplan himself, suspects political motives, particularly given Polymarket’s successful forecast of Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, contrary to most traditional polls.
Continue Reading

Trending

X