Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

The Rebranding of a Censorship Unit

Published

1 month ago

5 minute read

logo

By Didi Rankovic

Despite Congress’s efforts to dismantle the GEC, its core operations appear intact under a new name and nearly identical mission.

The way things stand right now, the shutting down of the US State Department’s disgraced Global Engagement Center (GEC) doesn’t appear to equate to the GEC actually being dismantled.

Rather, the unit, notorious for its role in flagging social media posts during the outgoing administration, seems to have simply undergone a rebranding. Now, the State Department has the Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI) Hub.

Matt Taibbi of the Twitter Files describes what happened here as an “absurd prank” that defies Congress, which moved to force the end of the GEC. One reason for this conclusion is the result of checking the former and the newly founded unit’s mission statements for any differences. And there are virtually none.

The GEC Mission was officially, “To direct, lead, synchronize, integrate, and coordinate US Federal Government efforts to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of the United States, its allies, and partner nations.”

And here’s what R/FIMI Hub is supposed to do: “To direct, lead, synchronize, integrate, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of the United States, its allies, and partner nations.”

The difference between the two texts is R/FIMI Hub going for, “(…) efforts of the Federal Government” – rather than GEC’s “US Federal Government efforts.”

Not only that – and the fact that this alleged focus on foreign threats turned into a smokescreen for going after online speech at home – R/FIMI Hub is also reportedly set to keep about 50 GEC staff, and continue to be funded, as before, with just under $30 million via grants and contracts.

Shuttering the GEC was a cause championed by Congress Republicans through a number of investigations, essentially suspecting that its role was to facilitate, through obfuscation, what is otherwise illegal government involvement in censorship.

They are now, even though coming to power at all levels, presented with a case that illustrates the functioning of what many of them like to call “the deep state” – a permanent power structure underlying elected ones, where a brazen “rebrand” of this kind can happen right in front of everyone.

Former GEC staff are reportedly planning to carry on their work, dispersed across the State Department, thus creating the illusion of the unit being disbanded, but with R/FIMI Hub seemingly envisaged as just that – a hub for their continued activities.

The activities included the GEC teaming up with third parties like the Global Disinformation Index that would “score” content for advertisers, to the detriment of conservative media.
You subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.


Thank you.
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
Business / 4 hours ago

DOGE discovers $4.7T in untraceable U.S. Treasury payments

National / 5 hours ago

Mark Carney admits he is an ‘elitist’ and ‘globalist’ but claims that is what Canada needs

conflict / 7 hours ago

Senior U.S. officials meet with Russians in Saudi Arabia to normalize relations, end Ukraine war

Censorship Industrial Complex

Germany’s Shocking War on Online Speech: Armed Police Raids for Online “Insults,” “Hate Speech,” and “Misinformation”

Published on February 17, 2025

By

logo

By Cindy Harper

A shocking discussion on CBS News’ 60 Minutes has highlighted the stark limits of online speech in Germany, where oppressive scenes once thought to be relegated to history and dystopian fiction, show law enforcement has been conducting pre-dawn raids and confiscating electronics from individuals accused of posting content deemed as “hate speech.”
In typical Orwellian fashion, despite these speech raids, officials insist that free speech still exists.
Dr. Matthäus Fink joined host Sharyn Alfonsi to explain how these laws operate and how those targeted by authorities typically react. According to Fink, most individuals are initially shocked when police confront them over online posts.
60 Minutes followed armed police on early morning raids, confiscating devices of people accused of online “hate speech.”
“They say — in Germany we say, ‘Das wird man ja wohl noch sagen dürfen,’”(You should still be allowed to say that) Fink remarked, illustrating the disbelief many express when they realize their statements can result in legal action. He noted that many Germans assume they are protected by free speech laws but learn too late that specific kinds of speech are punishable.
Alfonsi delved deeper, questioning the scope of these restrictions. Beyond banning swastika imagery and Holocaust denial, Fink pointed out that publicly insulting someone is also a criminal offense.
“And it’s a crime to insult them online as well?” Alfonsi asked.
Fink affirmed that online insults carry even steeper penalties than face-to-face insults. “The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet,” he elaborated. “Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking face to face, you insult me, I insult you, OK. Finish. But if you’re in the internet, if I insult you or a politician…”
Watch the video here.
The segment aired shortly after Vice President JD Vance spoke in Munich, warning about the dangers of European nations suppressing free speech. Vance emphasized that democracy cannot function without the fundamental right to express opinions.
“Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There’s no room for firewalls,” Vance argued. “You either uphold the principle or you don’t.”
In response to the 60 Minutes feature, Vance posted: “Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships.” He added: “This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy.”
You subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.
Thank you.
Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

US Lawmakers Condemn UK’s Secret Encryption Backdoor Order to Apple

Published on February 16, 2025

By

logo

By Didi Rankovic

The UK Labour government’s secret order to Apple for an iCloud encryption backdoor ignites US-UK tensions as lawmakers demand action.

The Labour government’s reported decision to issue a secret order to Apple to build an encryption backdoor into iCloud is turning into a major political issue between the UK and the US, just as the move is criticized by more than 100 civil society groups, companies, and security experts at home.
The fact that this serious undermining of security and privacy affects users globally, including Americans, has prompted a strong reaction from two US legislators – Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat, and Congressman Andy Biggs, a Republican.
In a letter to National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, the pair slammed the order as “effectively a foreign cyber attack waged through political means.”
Wyden and Biggs – who sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, respectively – want Gabbard to act decisively to prevent any damage to US citizens and government from what they call the UK’s “dangerous, shortsighted efforts.”
The letter urges Gabbard to issue what the US legislators themselves refer to as an ultimatum to the UK: “Back down from this dangerous attack on US cybersecurity, or face serious consequences.”
Unless this happens immediately, Wyden and Biggs want Gabbard to “reevaluate US-UK cybersecurity arrangements and programs as well as US intelligence sharing with the UK.”
They add that the relationship between the two countries must be built on trust – but, if London is moving to “secretly undermine one of the foundations of US cybersecurity, that trust has been profoundly breached.”
The letter points out that the order appears to prohibit Apple from acknowledging it has even received it, under threat of criminal penalties – meaning that the UK is forcing a US company to keep the public and Congress in the dark about this serious issue.
In the UK, well-known privacy campaigner Big Brother Watch agreed with what the group’s Advocacy Manager Matthew Feeney said were “damning comments” made by Wyden and Biggs.
Feeney said Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s “draconian order” to Apple was in effect a cyber attack on that company, and that the letter penned by the US legislators is “wholly justified” – and comes amid “a shameful chapter in the history of UK-US relations.”
“Cooper’s draconian order is not only a disaster for civil liberties, it is also a globally humiliating move that threatens one of the UK’s most important relationships,” he warned, calling on the home secretary to rescind it.
The same is being asked of Cooper by over 100 civil society organizations, companies, and cybersecurity experts – an initiative led by the Global Encryption Coalition (GEC).
SPEECH CONTROL

UK Refuses to Weaken Online Censorship Laws Despite US Pressure
The UK government has firmly stated that its online censorship laws will not be softened to appease US President Donald Trump or to facilitate trade negotiations with the United States. Technology Minister Peter Kyle repeated Britain’s stance on maintaining strict digital speech regulations, shutting down any speculation of a shift in policy toward American AI firms.
During the Paris AI summit, Kyle dismissed claims that Downing Street was considering relaxing sections of the Online Safety Act in discussions with the US. Refuting a report from The Daily Telegraph, he asserted: “Safety is not up for negotiation. There are no plans to weaken any of our online safety legislation.”
The Online Safety Act, one of the strictest online speech crackdowns in a democratic nation, which is set to come into force this year.
Industry moguls such as Elon Musk have voiced hopes that a Trump-led administration might resist global regulatory pressures on US-based tech companies.
Despite these concerns, Kyle expressed confidence that Trump would not obstruct Labour’s forthcoming AI legislation, which mandates that leading AI firms undergo “safety” evaluations before rolling out new software. He confirmed that voluntary safety pledges would now be replaced with enforceable mandates, ensuring strict compliance.
Continue Reading

Trending

X