Censorship Industrial Complex
Newly Released Documents Reveal Big Tech Limited Millions of Posts During EU Elections
From Reclaim The Net
Ah, elections—the pinnacle of democracy where the common folk cast their ballots and, ideally, choose their fate. But hold onto your hats, because behind the grandeur of the European Parliament elections this year lurked a very different sort of governance, one executed not in the open streets but in algorithmic backrooms. Welcome to the Age of Censorship-as-a-Service, brought to you by our ever-dependable friends at Meta, Google, and TikTok.
Meta’s Mission: Make the Truth More… Manageable
Let’s begin with Meta. In a move that feels like something out of a dystopian satire, Meta proudly announced they had reduced the reach of tens of millions of posts across Europe. They wielded over 150,000 Facebook fact-checking articles to de-escalate the virality of 30 million pieces of content.
According to Meta, this wasn’t censorship—no, it was a mere “scaling of the work of independent fact-checkers.” The way they tell it, this was all in the name of maintaining “informed and reliable discussions.” Ah, reliable discussions, where only pre-approved, EU-certified opinions are allowed to flow freely.
Of course, official government statements and the edicts from the holy temples of global health organizations were entirely exempt from Meta’s moderating fervor. After all, why impede the credibility of those who are never wrong—except, of course, when they are, but let’s not get hung up on inconvenient details like that.
On Instagram, another Meta product, this brave new moderation mission persisted. The platform used 39,000 fact-checking articles to put the brakes on nearly a million posts. That’s right—one million “potentially hazardous” thoughts and opinions that, for the good of humanity, needed a little algorithmic throttle. And if you were wondering, it wasn’t just the memes of conspiracy theorists—they made sure that you, your grandma, and that neighbor with too many political opinions got the message too: “Play nice, or we’ll see to it no one hears you.”
TikTok: Suppressing, But Make It Fashionable
Meta wasn’t the only digital nanny keeping Europeans in line. Over at TikTok, the playbook got even hazier. The platform took pride in admitting that it restricted misleading posts—though, unlike Meta, TikTok kept the numbers conveniently vague. You see, their strategy was more about “awareness,” guiding content creators with a gentle algorithmic shove away from the tempting edges of disinformation. How thoughtful.
As if to prove their dedication to curated reality, TikTok also pointed Irish users in the direction of fact-checks from TheJournal.ie, an outlet that coincidentally receives EU funding. No conflict of interest there, right? Just an honest effort to “raise awareness.” And while TikTok didn’t offer up the numbers, we can be assured that plenty of thumbs danced across phone screens only to find their intended messages conveniently dulled down or disappeared.
Google: Where Terms of Service Are Optional
And then we have Google, that beacon of a supposedly neutral search engine—except when it isn’t. Reports show that YouTube, under Google’s magnanimous ownership, automatically deboosted videos that complied with their very own terms of service. Yes, you read that right. Even when content passed muster by their own rulebook, some unseen hand deemed it “unworthy.” Google tells us this was to curb the spread of misinformation. A noble aim, except for that pesky issue of who gets to decide what counts as misinformation—and why.
Critics, like Tom Vandendriessche, an MEP for Patriots for Europe, have not been fooled by the big, earnest proclamations of “integrity protection.”
Vandendriessche—whose party has fought and won against Big Tech’s silencing efforts—paints a stark picture of unchecked power: tech companies with unprecedented influence, deciding who gets heard and who doesn’t.
“This could lead to an era of ‘techno-communism,'” Vandendriessche argued to Brussels Signal, where an unelected cabal decides what constitutes reality for the rest of us. A “techno-communism” where, if your thoughts don’t align with the given narrative, they might as well not exist.
It’s not like Vandendriessche is shouting into the void, either. His criticism comes backed by experience, his party having already tasted the bitter fruits of deplatforming. If a democratically elected official can’t even get his voice out there without tech giants intervening, what hope is there for the average citizen with an inconvenient truth?
The EU’s Seal of Approval: Trust Us, We’re Here to Help
But let’s not forget the EU brass, who are, predictably, patting Big Tech on the back. Věra Jourová seems to believe they’ve stumbled onto some grand new way to “protect the integrity of elections.” Their stance on Big Tech’s secretive influence campaign was remarkably sunny—because nothing says “protecting democracy” like a few ultra-rich corporations quietly deciding what can or cannot be said during election season.
What’s fascinating is the conviction with which the EU spins this story. They genuinely believe—or want us to believe—that this centralized control is for our benefit, a way to combat the terrifying specter of “disinformation.” Clearly, the best way to fight misinformation is to silence millions of voices, all while exempting the officials and organizations whose statements are apparently beyond reproach. Trust us, they say: We’re only limiting the information you receive for your own good.
|
|
Since you’re here, it’s clear you value Reclaim The Net. Today, we’re inviting you to become a paid supporter. Although we rely on contributions, only a fraction of our readers—less than 0.2%—choose to contribute.
By becoming a supporter today, you can ensure Reclaim The Net thrives for years to come. There’s no requirement for ongoing support; you can control or cancel your yearly support from inside your own account without needing to get in touch.
Please take a moment to become a supporter of Reclaim The Net and get all of the extra benefits as a thanks.
|
Censorship Industrial Complex
WEF ranks ‘disinformation’ as greater threat to world stability than ‘armed conflict’
From LifeSiteNews
Misinformation and disinformation, along with societal polarization, are catalysts that amplify all other global risks, including armed conflict and climate change, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF).
On Wednesday, the WEF published its annual Global Risks Report with very few changes from last year’s edition.
For the second year in a row, the number one global risk over the next two years is misinformation and disinformation, which have cascading effects on other leading risks, according to the WEF “Global Risks Report 2025”:
Similar to last year, Misinformation and disinformation and Societal polarization remain key current risks […] The high rankings of these two risks is not surprising considering the accelerating spread of false or misleading information, which amplifies the other leading risks we face, from State-based armed conflict to Extreme weather events
According to the Global Risks 2025 report, polarization “continues to fan the flames of misinformation and disinformation, which, for the second year running, is the top-ranked short- to medium-term concern across all risk categories.”
“Efforts to combat this risk are coming up against a formidable opponent in Generative AI-created false or misleading content that can be produced and distributed at scale,” which was the same assessment given in the 2024 report.
Apart from inflation and economic downturn, there isn’t much of a difference in global risks between 2024 and 2025.
Compare the top 10 short-term and long-term global risks from 2024 with those for 2025 in the images below.
WEF Top 10 Global Risks 2025
WEF Top 10 Global Risks 2024
Rising use of digital platforms and a growing volume of AI-generated content are making divisive misinformation and disinformation more ubiquitous. — WEF Global Risks Report 2025
The Global Risks Report 2025 says that misinformation, coupled with algorithmic bias, leads to a situation where you and I should accept giving up some of our privacy for convenience, which subsequently makes it easier for us to be monitored and controlled:
Despite the dangers related to false or misleading content, and the associated risks of algorithmic bias, citizens need to strike a balance between privacy on one hand and increased online personalization and convenience on the other hand.
While data governance and regulation vary worldwide, it is becoming easier for citizens to be monitored, enabling governments, technology companies and threat actors to reach deeper into people’s lives.
Those with access to rising computing power and the ability to leverage sophisticated AI/GenAI models could, if they choose to, exploit further the vulnerabilities provided by citizens’ online footprints.
What else can we blame on misinformation?
I know! Climate change:
The accelerating spread of false or misleading information […] amplifies the other leading risks we face, from State-based armed conflict to Extreme weather events.
WEF Global Risks 2025
While the term “climate change” is mentioned several times in the Global Risks Report 2025, it does not appear anywhere in the actual list of 33 global risks.
Instead of using the term “climate change,” the full list of global risks uses several climate-adjacent terms, such as:
- Extreme weather events
- Pollution
- Critical change to Earth systems
- Natural resource shortages
- Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse
- Involuntary migration or displacement
The unelected globalists are now lumping terms like the ones above to push their climate policies and agendas, and they even go so far as to claim that misinformation amplifies extreme weather events, which actually might be true, just not in the way they imagined:
For example, on Tuesday WEF president and CEO Børge Brende blamed the California fires, which we may consider to be examples of extreme weather events or biodiversity loss, to climate change while not addressing how the state cut funding to fight fires, how the Los Angeles fire chief said the city failed her agency, or the role of arsonists.
By blaming the fires on just climate change while ignoring the rest, could Brende himself be engaging in disinformation?
WEF President and CEO Børge Brende blames California fires on climate change. Says global cooperation is needed to tackle bird flu, climate, and cybercrime. https://t.co/0vN997sdY6 pic.twitter.com/wMkiJE60fe
— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) January 14, 2025
Climate change is also an underlying driver of several other risks that rank high. For example, Involuntary migration or displacement is a leading concern. — WEF Global Risks Report 2025
The WEF Global Risks Report 2025 lumps many global risks together with the belief that they are all interconnected.
For example, it says that misinformation and polarization amplify armed conflict, extreme weather events, involuntary migration or displacement, and all the risks in-between.
It’s the same tactic the unelected globalists use when they conflate misinformation and disinformation with hate speech, so they can use one as an excuse to go after the other.
For the WEF and partners, global problems require global solutions with global governance through public-private partnerships – the merger of corporation and state, which is also known as fascism or corporatism.
In the end, the global risks report is just a survey, and the risks may or may not materialize.
In January 2023, the WEF announced the results of a survey of cyber leaders that said a “catastrophic cyber event” was likely to occur within the next two years.
Here we are exactly two years later and that never happened.
For the unelected globalists, misinformation and disinformation are words they throw out to try to crush narratives that don’t align with their own, and they will use any threat, whether real or perceived, to advance their agendas and policies.
Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Carbon tax tripping up Liberal leadership hopefuls
The Liberals and progressives everywhere were so close. At the height of their influence, no one, certainly anywhere in the English speaking world could make this claim: “Climate change IS NOT an existential threat to planet earth.” Those who did were immediately sidelined, ostracized by their cohorts, dismissed by corporate media and social media behemoths. Sure the battle still rages, but only in their information world where you still see phrases like “climate change denialist”.
You see their information world has not yet realized something new has happened. History writers will say Elon Musk stopped the progressives in their tracks by buying Twitter, releasing the Twitter files and eventually with Donald Trump, swinging the information world in the direction of X. If you have doubts just look at this picture. While the Twitter files reveal the new information world was under the, let’s say ‘secret influence’ of the White House, this photo shows those same tech power brokers are publicly, and happily celebrating the man they worked secretly to bring down. Or at least they’re not ashamed to publicly text their friends about it. The fact they’re not hiding probably reveals their eager support.
Sometimes we find it’s the people we look down our noses at who make all the difference. Like those overweight beer-guzzling hunter types who wear the red hats. (No not the Roman Cardinals, but the Appalachian trailer house occupants). These conspiracy theorists started to proclaim that the world would in fact not burn up by next weekend. Sure many of these seemed to be the same people who claim the world is flat and their neighbor is from another planet. But then more people stepped forward. Not about ‘pancake Earth’, but about the existential threat of climate change.
Family members and friends scorned and ridiculed them, and many still do. They were outraged that a regular citizen would dare to share information from a completely sane climate scientist or researcher who did not agree with the majority. They’d lose their marbles on those silly enough to cite a peer reviewed scientific paper. IF anyone was bold enough to take the time to read an entire report from NASA or Environment Canada, well you’d certainly hear someone say “You fool! You can’t do your own research!! You’re not a scientist!!”
Fortunately, funny man podcaster Jimmy Dore has the perfect comeback for these situations. Dore says when his own friends warned him only a Conspiracy Theorist would do his own research, he replied “You know before COVID doing your own research used to be called… reading”. It’s really worth two minutes to check this out. If you don’t find it funny, really funny, then I’m sorry. One day you will.
Jimmy Dore on the shaming of doing your own research and questioning the narrative during the Covid era…pic.twitter.com/PxCRVgklbj
— James Melville 🚜 (@JamesMelville) January 2, 2024
Speaking of reading, in the days before the printing press the Church and various wildly wealthy monarchs had a stranglehold on information sharing. Those who contradicted the party line could have their heads chopped off by a guillotine bought and paid for with their meagre tax offerings, or, they could expect to be publicly shamed and eternally condemned by their local preacher. Sure some of them probably deserved it but who am I to judge?
Then the printing press was invented. At first the Church leaders said, “Great now everyone can be educated, learn to read and even write themselves, and study the Bible on their own!” Eventually some of those same leaders said, “THIS IS A DISASTER! Everyone can be educated, learn to read and even write themselves, and study the Bible on their own!” After a few centuries the power structures in Europe completely changed. The Church divided into thousands of Protestant movements and the Catholic Church forever lost the political clout it never should have appreciated. Universities sprung up around libraries. Monarchs handed over power to early democratic governments. Books about science lead to scientific innovations. Average Joe’s eventually moved from underground mud huts to middle class condos in the sky.
Well the same thing is happening now with the internet. Except at breakneck speed. What took the printing press hundreds of years to accomplish, takes the internet a few months. The emergence and re-emergence of Trump Presidencies, revolutions against power structures, could not have been accomplished without the way we get information on the internet.
Sure there’s a lot of murky confusion as corporate media used to their powerful podiums of the printing press and cable tv are moving their content over to the new medium. But they’re being (sorry it’s all over, they have been) overtaken by the new form of information sharing. We’ve gone from headlines and ten second sound bites, to three hour long conversations with plenty of time for explaining and context. That’s something cable tv just didn’t have enough bandwidth to deliver.
So what does this mean for people trying to buy 1,200 square foot condos in Canada today?
Well we get to watch the power brokers struggle to retain their grip on / over our lives.
Those running to replace the son of … Hmm. Here’s a perfect example. Depending upon where you get your information from he’s either the son of Pierre, or he has an incomprehensively uncanny and impossibly accidental resemblance to a close personal family friend.
Those running to replace Liberal Leader Justin (let’s leave the last name out until the DNA results are back) definitely believe his father is Pierre. They believe Russians are our enemies. They think COVID vaccines saved the world. They think NATO is protecting Ukraine. And they certainly believe if we pay higher taxes in Canada we’ll save the world from the temperatures many of us pay thousands of dollars to escape to for a few days for six months of the year.
Carney, Gould, and Freeland don’t seem to realize everyday Canadians are simply done with the idea that a Carbon Tax in any form is going to save the world. Thanks to the internet, regular folks/voters have had time to do a little reading and listen to a few long conversations about this. Average people are understanding that CO2 makes up not 40% or 60% of the atmosphere, but .04%. Of that .04%, less than 4% is caused by humans. Mathematically it’s silly to think that paying more for food and groceries and everything else in Rosetown, Saskatchewan or Red Deer, Alberta is going to stop, slow down, or make any difference at all to global temperatures in 20 years.
It’s ironic that it’s the modern progressive movement who are stuck in the old information age. You’d think the slower thinking conservatives would hold on to the old ways and they’d be the ones trying to enforce restrictions on the new communication movement. Somehow the self proclaimed forward looking progressives are the ones trying to censor. Maybe it does make sense. Conservatives are more likely to read their history. They know the ones who censor are always trying to retain their failing grasp on power. New information consumers are ready, willing, and annoyingly attempting to debate. But there’s no debate for those who say “The science is settled.” I guess that means they’re all finished learning things.
Sorry to the Liberal Leadership hopefuls. They haven’t heard the news. Well actually they have and that’s the problem. Instead of paying attention to what’s really happening, they’re dismissing everything and everyone who doesn’t appear on the cable news channels.. other than to be ridiculed that is.
I leave you with this short video from Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Franco explains how those vying for control of the PMO are tripping over their new versions of an old and failed Carbon Tax. Pity them. They don’t realize voters have moved on.
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Biden Pardons His Brother Jim And Other Family Members Just Moments Before Trump’s Swearing-In
-
Catherine Herridge2 days ago
Return of the Diet Coke Button
-
Business2 days ago
TikTok Restores Service After US Shutdown Amid Trump Deal
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days ago
Canadian Court Upholds Ban on Clearview AI’s Unconsented Facial Data Collection
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
WEF Davos 2025: Attendees at annual meeting wrestling for control of information
-
Business1 day ago
Carney says as PM he would replace the Carbon Tax with something ‘more effective’
-
Business1 day ago
Freeland and Carney owe Canadians clear answer on carbon taxes
-
Business1 day ago
UK lawmaker threatens to use Online Safety Act to censor social media platforms