Censorship Industrial Complex
TikTok partners with WHO to train influencers, ‘combat misinformation’
From LifeSiteNews
The WHO’s Fides network consists of some 800 creators and was launched in 2020 with the purpose of “mobilizing health content creators to counter misinformation and elevate evidence-based content.”
TikTok and the World Health Organization (WHO) are entering a one-year partnership to train influencers and promote regime-approved content concerning public health on the social media platform.
TikTok put out a press release on the partnership last Thursday, saying that it was a way for the social media company “to create reliable content and combat misinformation.”
/1 We're honored to forge a year-long collaboration with @WHO in line with our shared commitment to nurturing an informed, empathetic, and supportive online community. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/qRrDzHx8iF
— TikTokComms (@TikTokComms) September 26, 2024
/3 Creators in the Fides network from USA, UK, France, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, and Brazil will be joining TikTok to create and share evidence-based content around public health.
— TikTokComms (@TikTokComms) September 26, 2024
Today, we’re partnering with the World Health Organization (WHO) to create reliable content and combat misinformation through the Fides network, a diverse community of trusted healthcare professionals and content creators. — TikTok press release, September 2024
Working with the WHO’s Fides network, TikTok will provide training on how to best disseminate WHO propaganda.
“Through our collaboration with WHO, we will be engaging Fides creators to translate complex scientific research into relatable and digestible video content, expanding across various health topics.
READ: Democrat senators urge several Big Tech companies to censor election ‘misinformation’
“To further equip creators, we will be working closely with WHO to provide access to creator training programs and resources,” the TikTok press release reads.
The WHO’s Fides network consists of some 800 creators and was launched in 2020 with the purpose of “mobilizing health content creators to counter misinformation and elevate evidence-based content.”
Today, Fides boasts reaching 150 million users across various platforms.
Another part of the WHO-TikTok partnership is to suppress any information that doesn’t align with the unelected globalist health body.
People are increasingly being targeted with misinformation and malinformation on these digital channels. The new collaboration between WHO and TikTok is to help addressing these challenges by promoting evidence-based content and encourage positive health dialogues. — World Health Organization (WHO) press release, September 2024
WHO and @TikTokComms announce a year-long collaboration aimed at providing people with reliable, science-based information on health and well-being.
In an increasingly digitized world, harnessing the power of digital platforms is vital to reach people globally, promote health… pic.twitter.com/1ZnhteTVJA
— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) September 26, 2024
This is where WHO can step in to support influencers in delivering evidence-based information, ensuring that health conversations on platforms like TikTok are both impactful and informed. — Dr. Alain Labrique, WHO Director of Digital Health and Innovation, September 2024
The WHO also put out a press release on the partnership, explaining how certain influencers would be chosen and targeted to be propagandists for the regime:
“The collaboration will expand efforts around a number of relevant health topics, translating science-based information into relatable and digestible video content, with more support for influencers provided through TikTok’s creator training programs.”
According to the WHO, the goal of the partnership is to leverage “multiple digital communication platforms to increase outreach to people globally, to promote health literacy, healthy behaviors and actions in an increasingly digitized world.”
This isn’t the first time a UN organization has partnered with big tech to deliver its messaging.
We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do. — UN Communications Director Melissa Fleming, World Economic Forum Sustainable Development Impact Meetings, September 2022
During the pandemic, the UN deployed 'influencers who were much more trusted than the UN' on health messaging while working with TikTok to give UN-trained doctors 'verified ticks': UN Comms Chief to WEF, Sept 2022 pic.twitter.com/zCQ2GjUD8c
— Tim Hinchliffe (@TimHinchliffe) August 17, 2023
In September 2022, UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming told a World Economic Forum (WEF) panel on disinformation that the UN had partnered with TikTok on a project called “Team Halo” to boost COVID messaging coming from medical and scientific communities.
“Another really key strategy we had was to deploy influencers,” she said, adding, “influencers who were really keen, who have huge followings, but really keen to help carry messages that were going to serve their communities, and they were much more trusted than the United Nations telling them something from New York City headquarters.”
“We had another trusted messenger project, which was called ‘Team Halo’ where we trained scientists around the world and some doctors on TikTok, and we had TikTok working with us,” she added.
In the same panel, Fleming declared, “We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do” while bragging about how the UN partnered with Google to manipulate search results, so that only UN-approved messaging would appear at the top.
With this partnership, TikTok continues its role as a propaganda arm of the United Nations, of which the WHO is a part.
Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.
Brownstone Institute
Freedumb, You Say?
From the Brownstone Institute
By
“Authorities have attacked, detained, prosecuted, and in some cases killed critics, broken up peaceful protests, closed media outlets, and enacted vague laws criminalizing speech that they claim threatens public health”
Didn’t give much thought to freedom until four years ago, at age 63. Freedom was just there, like the water surrounding a goldfish. And then the Covid-19 pandemic blew in, the world locked down, and admonitions to “stay the ‘$^#&’ home” blazed through social media. No freedom was too important to discard in the name of public safety: jobs, family businesses, artistic endeavours, public meetings, social connections that kept despair at bay, all took a backseat to the grim business of saving grandma (who ended up getting Covid anyway). No discussion of moral or practical trade-offs, no pushback from the press, nothing. It felt wrong to me on a cellular level.
Apparently I was the only one in my middle-class liberal circle to harbour misgivings about this astonishing new world. If I tried, ever so timidly, to articulate my concerns on Facebook or Twitter, the online warriors shot back with a string of epithets. “Go lick a pole and catch the virus,” said one. “Crawl back into your cave, troglodyte,” said another. And my all-time favourite: “You’re nothing but a mouth-breathing Trumptard.”
From the get-go, I perceived Covid as more of a philosophical problem than a scientific one. As I wrote on more than one occasion, science can inform our decisions, but not dictate them. What ultimately powers our choices are the values we hold. I saw Covid as a morality play, with freedom and safety cast as the duelling protagonists, and it looked like safety was skipping to an easy victory.
It was a heady time for the health bureaucrats, whose increasingly arcane rules betrayed a naked impulse to control: the Canadian high-school students required to use masks on both their faces and their wind instruments during band practice, the schoolchildren forced (for hygiene reasons) to study on their knees for hours in an Alaska classroom, the “glory-hole” sex advised by the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. The lack of public pushback against these absurdities heightened my awareness of the fragility of our freedoms.
One of the earliest memes to surface during the pandemic was “muh freedumb.” The locution became a shorthand for a stock character – a tattooed man wearing camo gear and a baseball cap, spewing viral particles while yelling about his rights. A selfish idiot. The memes kept coming: “Warning, cliff ahead: keep driving, freedom fighter.” “Personal freedom is the preoccupation of adult children.” Freedom, for centuries an aspiration of democratic societies, turned into a laughing stock.
Eventually, pro-freedom voices began trickling into the public arena. I wasn’t alone, after all. There were others who understood, in the words of Telegraph writer Janet Daley, that the institutional response to Covid-19 had steamrolled over “the dimension of human experience which gives meaning and value to private life.” Lionel Shriver decried how “across the Western world, freedoms that citizens took for granted seven months ago have been revoked at a stroke.” And Laura Dodsworth brought tears to my eyes when she wrote, in her 2021 book A State of Fear, that she feared authoritarianism more than death.
Once the vaccines rolled out, the war on freedom of conscience went nuclear. If you breathed a word against the products, or even the mandates, you were “literally killing people.” The hostility towards the “unvaxxed” culminated in a Toronto Star front page showcasing public vitriol, splashed with such sentiments as: “I honestly don’t care if they die from Covid. Not even a little bit.”
This, too, felt viscerally wrong. I knew several people who had refused the vaccine, and they all had well-articulated reasons for their stance. If they didn’t fully trust the “safe and effective” bromide recycled by all government and pharmaceutical industry spokespeople, I could hardly blame them. (And I say this as someone who writes for Big Pharma and got five Covid shots.)
One of the most deplorable casualties of Covid culture was freedom of expression, a core principle in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Experts speaking publicly about the harms of lockdown faced systematic ostracism from mainstream media, especially left-wing news outlets. By early 2021, Human Rights Watch estimated that at least 83 governments worldwide had used the Covid-19 pandemic to violate the lawful exercise of free speech and peaceful assembly.
“Authorities have attacked, detained, prosecuted, and in some cases killed critics, broken up peaceful protests, closed media outlets, and enacted vague laws criminalizing speech that they claim threatens public health,” the group wrote in a media release. “The victims include journalists, activists, healthcare workers, political opposition groups, and others who have criticized government responses to the coronavirus.”
But what about misinformation? Doesn’t it kill people? Newsflash: misinformation has always existed, even before TikTok. It’s up to each of us to sift the credible folks from the cranks. The best defence against misinformation is better information, and it’s the policy wonks’ job to provide it. Modern science itself depends on this tug-of-war of ideas, which filters out weaker hypotheses and moves stronger ones ahead for further testing.
Besides, misinformation comes not just from cranks, but from “official sources” – especially those tasked with persuading the public, rather than informing it. Remember when Rochelle Walensky, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US, asserted that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus?” Or when Anthony Fauci maintained that getting vaccinated makes you a “dead end” in the chain of transmission? I rest my case.
The marketplace of ideas is like a souk, with a lot of hollering and arguing and the odd snatched purse – and that’s exactly how it should be. It’s an ingenious and irreplaceable process for getting to the truth. There are few ideas too sacrosanct to question or too ridiculous to consider. That’s why, unlike just about everyone in my left-leaning circle, I take no issue with Elon Musk’s shakedown of the old Twitter, now the Wild West of X.
Under Musk’s algorithms, my feed has become a true philosophical souk, with wildly disparate views smashing into each other, leaving me to sift through the rubble in search of a gold nugget or two. Love him or hate him, Musk offers a much-needed counterweight to the ideological lockstep in much of the mainstream media. And when it comes to free speech, Musk has put his money where his mouth is: when media personality Keith Olbermann recently hopped on X, where he boasts a million followers, to call for Musk’s arrest and detainment, Musk made no move to censor him. Works for me.
While the “old normal” has thankfully returned to our daily lives, save the odd mask in a shopping mall or subway car, the stench of censorship that blew in with the pandemic has yet to dissipate. An obsession with disinformation permeates the zeitgeist, spurring lawmakers in several Western countries to censor the flow of thoughts and ideas that gives a free society its pulse.
We cannot excise personal freedom from a democratic society, even in the interests of the “public good,” without poisoning the roots of democracy itself. Article 3 of UNESCO’s 2005 Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights states this plainly: “The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.” In our post-pandemic reality, the statement seems almost quaint. Nonetheless, it expresses an enduring truth: that a democracy must never discard the idea of freedom – even in a pandemic.
Freedom desperately needs a comeback from its current incarnation as an expendable frill. In my own small way I’m trying to make this happen: never much of an activist before Covid, I’m now part of a small group preparing to launch a Free Speech Union in Canada, modelled after the highly successful one in the UK. The organisation will offer legal advice to individuals facing censorship, cancellation, or job loss because of their words. I look forward to supporting people caught in this anti-freedom web, including those whose words I heartily disagree with.
My newfound respect for free speech is also what propels me to keep talking about Covid. The response to the pandemic exceeded the bounds of public health, and we need to expose the forces that drove it. Here’s Daley again: “The world went crazy. There is no other way to account for what was an almost nihilistic dismantling not just of particular liberties and rights, but of the very idea of liberty.” We can’t let it happen again.
Republished from Perspective Media
Censorship Industrial Complex
Will Trump’s Second Chance Bring Justice for Edward Snowden?
Snowden has been indicted as a “spy” and is considered to be one by many, even though the revelations from the leaked documents were not handed to another country, but publicly released to benefit the rights of the citizens of his own.
|
|
-
Alberta16 hours ago
Proposed $70 billion AI data centre in MD of Greenview could launch an incredible new chapter for western Canadian energy
-
COVID-192 days ago
Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed
-
Business2 days ago
Massive growth in federal workforce contributes to Ottawa’s red ink
-
Alberta12 hours ago
Your towing rights! AMA unveils measures to help fight predatory towing
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
False Claims, Real Consequences: The ICC Referrals That Damaged Canada’s Reputation
-
COVID-192 days ago
Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation
-
National1 day ago
When’s the election? Singh finally commits. Poilievre asks Governor General to step in
-
Business2 days ago
Senator Introduces Bill To Send One-Third Of Federal Workforce Packing Out Of DC