The FTC report published Sept. 19 expounded on how social media and streaming companies endanger children and teens who use their platforms. It also showed how “the tech industry’s monetization of personal data has created a market for commercial surveillance – especially via social media and video streaming services – with inadequate guardrails to protect consumers.”

Staffers at the commission examined the practices of various Big Tech companies, including Meta Platforms (Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp), YouTube, X, Snapchat, Reddit, Microsoft (Discord), Amazon (Twitch) and ByteDance (TikTok).

Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, outlined in the report that “these companies engaged in mass data collection of their users and – in some cases – non-users.” He also wrote that “many companies failed to implement adequate safeguards against privacy risks.”

The report also expounded on the various ways the aforementioned companies made use of personal data “from serving hypergranular targeted advertisements to powering algorithms that shape the content we see, often with the goal of keeping us hooked on using the service.”

“These practices pose unique risks to children and teens, with the companies having done little to respond effectively to the documented concerns that policymakers, psychologists and parents have expressed over young people’s physical and mental well-being.”

In a statement, FTC Chair Lina Khan said her agency’s report “lays out how social media and video streaming companies harvest an enormous amount of Americans’ personal data and monetize it to the tune of billions of dollars a year.”

“With few meaningful guardrails, companies are incentivized to develop ever-more invasive methods of collection. While lucrative for the companies, these surveillance practices can endanger people’s privacy, threaten their freedoms, and expose them to a host of harms, from identify theft to stalking.”

Bills meant to protect kids online could infringe on First Amendment rights

Following the release of the FTC report, child welfare advocates urged U.S. lawmakers to pass a pair of controversial bills that seek to protect the youth from “dangerous and unacceptable business practices.” But the two proposals, the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) and Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), could infringe on young Americans’ rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Josh Golin, executive director of the nonprofit organization Fairplay, lauded the FTC report in a statement. He also called for the COPPA 2.0 and KOSA bills to be enacted into law.

“This report from the FTC is yet more proof that Big Tech’s business model is harmful to children and teens,” he wrote. “Online platforms use sophisticated and opaque techniques of data collection that endanger young people and put their healthy development at risk.”

But rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have condemned the KOSA. According to the ACLU, the KOSA – which the U.S. Senate passed in July – “would violate the First Amendment by enabling the federal government to dictate what information people can access online and encourage social media platforms to censor protected speech.”

ACLU and other rights groups have pointed out that the KOSA won’t keep children safe. It would instead threaten young people’s privacy, limit minors’ access to vital resources and silence important online conversations for all ages. Moreover, the ACLU has also raised concerns about how this bill could be used to limit adults’ ability to express themselves freely online or access diverse viewpoints.

Visit BigTech.News for similar stories. Watch this video about online privacy and security, and how to protect yourself online.

This video is from the Daily Videos channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• Big Government and Big Tech both want your biometric data.
• Social media use linked to TEENAGE DEPRESSION, warn mental health experts.
• Social media is the JUNK FOOD of human connection: Looks and feels like connection, but leaves you empty, just like junk food.

Sources include:

• ChildrensHealthDefense.org
• ACLU.org.
• Brighteon.com

Amazon has introduced a groundbreaking biometric payment system, Amazon One, which allows users to pay for purchases, access loyalty rewards and enter certain restricted areas on Amazon properties all with the wave of a hand. Users who sign up agree to give Amazon data regarding their palm’s unique vein patterns to help verify their identities.

Launched last March 28, this technology is already being used at over 200 Whole Foods locations across 20 states, and Amazon plans to expand it to every Whole Foods in the United States by the end of the year. (Related: More businesses now resorting to BIOMETRICS so that government nannies can literally track everything you do, see and buy.)

The technology is also being adopted by other retailers, such as Panera Bread – appearing in diverse locations like airports, convenience stores, gyms and stadiums.

In a similar manner, TSA has introduced facial recognition technology at airports with a promise that the technology enhances safety and streamlines the travel experience.

Facial recognition is used by the TSA to verify a traveler’s identity by scanning their face. This system captures a live image of the traveler’s face and compares it to the photo on their ID or passport. If the two images match, the traveler is cleared to proceed – often without needing to show physical identification.

For travelers who choose not to use this technology, the TSA continues to offer traditional ID checks. Participation in the facial recognition program is entirely voluntary and those who opt out will not face any delays or negative consequences.

Facial recognition is not just limited to airport security. It is being adopted across various industries, including banking, retail and healthcare – promising benefits like faster service, improved accessibility and a more personalized user experience.

However, as the technology becomes more widespread, so do the risks. These risks include inaccuracies and biases against certain age groups and ethnicities, the vulnerability of stored facial data and the possibility of criminal entities impersonating other individuals.

Biometric technologies spark security concerns

Hafiz Malik, a cybersecurity professor at the University of Michigan, cautioned that these systems are not infallible. Malik pointed out that advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) could potentially enable the creation of fake versions of a person’s voice, handprint or even face.

These AI-generated forgeries could be used to trick biometric payment systems, highlighting the need for robust countermeasures like “liveness detection” – a technology used by Amazon to distinguish between real and fake palms.

Another significant concern is the storage and protection of biometric data. Unlike a stolen credit card, which can be replaced, biometric data can’t be changed if it is compromised. This permanence makes biometric data a highly attractive target for hackers.

Evan Greer, director of the digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future, warned that trusting a corporation with biometric data also entails trusting that same corporation to keep that data safe. He said corporations have a really terrible track record of keeping people’s personal information safe.

Cynthia Rudin, a Duke University professor, further stressed the potential dangers if such sensitive data falls into the wrong hands.

“They can control you in ways you don’t like,” said Rudin. “Those data sets can be used to control us anywhere in the world, including arresting us, or preventing us from entering stores that don’t want customers in our salary bracket, or who have political views that disagree with the owners of the venues.”

Watch this demonstration of an Amazon One palm scanner.

This video is from the Daily Videos channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• No cash or card allowed: Major supermarkets set to accept only BIOMETRICS payment.
• Mastercard rolls out payment system that uses FACIAL RECOGNITION technology.
• Facial recognition will soon identify shoplifters and ban them from stores, experts say it’s ripe for abuse.

Sources include:

• WSJ.com
• BobsGuide.com
• TSA.gov
• CNBC.com
• Brighteon.com

A woman by the name of Kate Starbird, who chaired the now-dissolved advisory committee of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), advised social media companies about how to craft their “moderation” policies.

Last June in a closed-door meeting that was held in the leadup to the House Judiciary Committee probe into the federal government’s weaponized censorship operation, Starbird admitted to being involved in social media censorship.

Starbird also headed up the University of Washington‘s (UW) Center for an Informed Public, which just so happens to “specialize” in handling “disinformation and misinformation.”

The Election Integrity Project also had Starbird in its ranks, this being the group that promoted censorship in favor of Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

UW, by the way, received a $2.25 million award to fight “disinformation” from the National Science Foundation, another taxpayer-funded government agency.

(Related: Last summer, the United Nations [UN] and the World Economic Forum [WEF] admitted to controlling search engine results in favor of what the establishment wants people to believe about “science.”)

When government employees silence free speech

Documents obtained by the Washington Examiner show that Starbird was heavily involved in Big Tech censorship, her name never having been previously spoken of much on the censorship front.

In speaking before Congress, Starbird was careful with her words, though still revealed quite a bit about the role she played in advising social media platforms to do the government’s bidding.

When asked specifically if she had ever “directly” advised any social media platforms, Starbird admitted that she “sometimes had conversations” with them about censorship matters.

“I don’t draft (moderation policies), but I’ve had conversations with representatives of several platforms, actually,” Starbird said.

Not only did Starbird have these conversations, but she admitted to being “happy” with their outcome in terms of the moderation tactics that social media platforms ended up employing based on her guidance.

“Those are the kinds of things that I’m happy to have a conversation with a platform about: Like, how you might want to go about labeling, which accounts you might want to not bother labeling,” Starbird is quoted as saying to Congress.

“Maybe you really only want to label – you know, I might advise, like – you know, you focus labels on the people that, you know, are verified accounts or have large audiences, those kinds of things.”

Starbird’s first contact with Big Tech occurred all the way back in 2017 around the time Donald Trump became president. This contact, reports indicate, was not yet tied to any government body as was the case later in Starbird’s career.

“I did not consult with platforms around content moderation of specific pieces of content or accounts,” she revealed. “Nor did I communicate with platforms as part of my role at the EIP or as a member of the CISA advisory committee.”

The GOP-led panel that later compiled a report on the matter mentioned Starbird 41 different times, as well as the name Vijaya Gadde, an ex-executive at Twitter, now known as X.

Starbird was behind the digital suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. The former professional women’s basketball player also appeared on CBS‘s “60 Minutes” program recently where it was conveniently not disclosed that Starbird used to be on the now-defunct CISA advisory panel.

Before Starbird started working for the government, some social media platforms that had government employees working behind the scenes reached out to her “seeking insights based on my academic research to help them better understand how rumors and disinformation spread online,” she admitted.

Is Big Tech censorship affecting your internet user experience? Learn more at Censorship.news.

Sources for this article include:

• ReclaimTheNet.org
• NaturalNews.com
• WashingtonExaminer.com

The current executives at companies involved in the entertainment business, such as Amazon, Comcast, Netflix, Apple, Disney, Paramount and Warner Bros., have collectively given $13.5 million to Democrats and just $4.2 million to Republicans, meaning 76% of donations went to Democrats, according to the 1792 Exchange, a transparency watchdog that tracks environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies in corporations. The donations coincide with major corporations adopting left-wing policies, including Disney, which has recognized that the company’s social activism has cost value for shareholders

Top leadership at Disney has collectively given $2.8 million to Democrats compared to just $908,840 to Republicans, according to the 1792 Exchange. Disney has been largely criticized for its choice to incorporate left-wing messaging into its products, which has led activist investor Nelson Peltz with investment firm Trian Partners to launch a campaign to have him and another member of the firm join the company’s board.

Did you know @Disney ’s board members have made over $2.8 million in personal donations to Democratic political candidates (more than 3x the amount to Republicans)?

— 1792 Exchange (@1792Exchange) April 2, 2024

Hollywood studios run by top entertainment companies have also given large donations to Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, as the state doles out hundreds of millions in tax credits to the film industry. Paramount, Warner Bros. Discovery, Netflix, Disney, Sony and Comcast are set to receive $722,068,000 in tax credits from the California government from 2020 to 2025.

Conservatives have attempted to boycott various businesses for their support of Democrats and left-wing messaging, most notably Bud Light, which lost its spot as the top-selling beer in the U.S. in June to Modelo Especial after a promotion with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Many of the companies that have been boycotted in the past, such as Target, have largely recovered from their initial losses as consumer concern over the policies died out, even though they did not always entirely retreat from their previous stances.

Amazon, Comcast, Netflix, Apple, Disney, Paramount and Warner Bros. did not immediately respond to a request to comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

Google, Microsoft, Facebook, TikTok and the majority of medical and healthcare websites illegally harvest and sell private health information despite a federal crackdown on the practice, according to a new cybersecurity report.

The report, by Toronto-based cybersecurity firm Feroot Security, analyzed hundreds of healthcare websites and found that more than 86% are collecting private data and transferring it to advertisers, marketers and Big Tech social media companies without user consent and in violation of privacy laws.

As patients or consumers browse their favorite or trusted medical websites or sign in to hospital portals to access their private health records, invisible bits of HTML code — called “tracking pixels” — embedded on the websites harvest private information, such as whether patients have cancer, erectile dysfunction or are behind on their hospital bill.

The information is repackaged and sold for a variety of uses, including to companies that target individual users with internet ads, according to the report.

The risk of having personal data scraped is particularly high on log-in and registration pages where internet users supply troves of information, unaware it is being hijacked and sold. More than 73% of log-in and registration pages have invisible trackers that pirate personal health information, the study found.

Approximately 15% of the tracking pixels analyzed by Feroot record users’ keystrokes, harvesting social security numbers, usernames and passwords, credit card and banking information, and an infinite variety of personal health data, including medical diagnosis and treatment.

The study showed that “Google is the absolute dominant collector” of data. Ninety-two percent of the websites loaded on the Google search engine contained data-harvesting technology across wide sectors of the U.S. economy including healthcare and telehealth, banking and financial services, airlines, e-commerce, and the federal and state governments.

The number two offender was Microsoft with 50.4% of websites on its platform hiding tracking tools, with Facebook next at 50.2% percent and TikTok at 7.41% percent and growing fast.

Google, as the driver of its parent Alphabet, the world’s fourth largest company, is often called “the most powerful company in the world.” It counts on advertising, a lifeblood of the global digital economy, for 80% of its revenue.

Microsoft and Facebook “round up the Top 3” of companies that systematically breach data, the report said. Representatives of Google, Microsoft, and Facebook denied their companies used tracking pixels to harvest personal data.

Website owners are responsible for controlling data collection, a Google spokesperson said. Google policy prohibits Google Analytics and advertising customers, including for example hospital or telehealth websites, from collecting health data in violation of the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). It’s up to the websites to determine “whether they are HIPAA-regulated entities and what their obligations are under HIPAA,” Google policy says.

Personal health data collected by a tracker or third party without a user’s consent is a violation of HIPAA, said Feroot CEO Ivan Tsarynny.

Big Tech companies “do have policies that talk about protecting health info,” Tsarynny said. But “the real-world application of these policies is a different story.”

Feroot’s study comes as “concern grows regarding data mining companies using pixels/trackers that load into browsers from websites to collect privacy and sensitive user data,” the report stated.

“Compliance regulators and government authorities are increasingly stepping in with bans, restrictions, and executive orders to curb them.”

Eighteen major hospital systems were sued this year for sharing patients’ sensitive health data with Google, Facebook and other tech giants in violation of privacy laws, according to Becker’s Hospital Review.

They include prominent academic medical centers such as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the University of Chicago Medical Center, the University of Iowa Medical Center, Chicago-based Northwestern Memorial Hospital and the University of California San Francisco Medical Center.

Prompted by growing concerns over data theft and the article, “‘Out of Control’: Dozens of Telehealth Startups Sent Sensitive Health Information to Big Tech Companies,” Feroot launched an investigation “to ascertain the exact magnitude and pervasiveness of social media pixels/trackers collecting and transferring personal, sensitive, and private data using pixels or trackers.”

The security platform Feroot sells to companies “made it possible to get detailed facts regarding active client-side e-skimming,” the company said.

Feroot collected data on pixels/trackers during an eight-week period in January and February.

The company said it examined more than 3,675 organizations with unique websites in seven economic sectors. It studied 108,836 unique web pages, including especially vulnerable login, registration and credit card processing pages, 227 trackers and 7 million data transfers.

Key findings from ‘Beware of Pixels & Trackers’:

• Pixel trackers are “common and abundant” — an average of 13.16 pixels/trackers were found per website, “with Google, Microsoft, Meta (owner of Facebook), ByteDance (owner of TikTok), and Adobe being some of the most common.”
• “Mission-critical” webpages, such as log-in or registration pages, increase the risk of exposing private information. An average of 5.96% of websites had pixels/trackers on webpages reading user input forms containing privacy or sensitive data.
• Pixel trackers transfer data to foreign locations around the globe — “about 5% of the data transferred by pixels/trackers loaded from US-based websites is sent outside the US.”
• Pixel trackers collect and transfer data without first obtaining the explicit consent of visitors.
• Pixels and trackers are loading from domains banned by the U.S. government and various U.S. states and even from some of those same governments, including Russia and China. Data obtained by Russian and Chinese websites is a security risk from surveillance and spying.
• Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram) and TikTok, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, were “particularly worrisome” for privacy invasion and surveillance risks. Thirty-four U.S. states, both Republican and Democratic-controlled, have banned the use of TikTok on government devices. Montana in May banned the app on all personal devices.
• TikTok is often present whether or not the TikTok app is deleted. TikTok pixels/trackers can still “load into webpages handling mission-critical user data and can collect and transfer it.”

GoodRX case highlights corporate deceit around data-sharing

While corporations face losing profit and reputation from data breaches or fines for causing them, individuals face a potentially catastrophic loss of privacy when major health websites harvest and sell their information, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

In February, the FTC fined popular discount drug and telehealth site GoodRx for “failing to report its unauthorized disclosure of consumer health data to Facebook, Google, and other companies.”

The action to “bar GoodRx from sharing consumers’ sensitive health information for advertising” was the FTC’s first enforcement action under its Health Breach Notification Rule.

“Digital health companies and mobile apps should not cash in on consumers’ extremely sensitive and personally identifiable health information,” FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Samuel Levine said in a news release after the settlement. “The FTC is serving notice that it will use all of its legal authority to protect American consumers’ sensitive data from misuse and illegal exploitation.”

The FTC enforcement against GoodRx revealed a particularly egregious, yet not uncommon, example of how corporate health and medical websites betray patient trust and manipulate patient data, the FTC said.

According to the FTC’s complaint, GoodRx violated the law by improperly sharing sensitive personal health information since at least 2017, though it promised otherwise.

The company “deceptively promised its users that it would never share personal health information with advertisers or other third parties,” the FTC charged, and deceptively displayed a seal at the bottom of its telehealth services homepage “falsely suggesting to consumers that it complied with … HIPAA.”

In reality, the FTC complaint said, GoodRx “monetized its users’ personal health information, and used data it shared with Facebook to target GoodRx’s own users with personalized health- and medication-specific advertisements on Facebook and Instagram.”

For example, GoodRx in August 2019 made lists of its users “who had purchased particular medications such as those used to treat heart disease and blood pressure, and uploaded their email addresses, phone numbers, and mobile advertising IDs to Facebook so it could identify their profiles,” according to the complaint.

“GoodRx then used that information to target these users with health-related advertisements.”

People who accessed GoodRx coupons to purchase, for instance, Viagra would see ads for erectile dysfunction medication on their Facebook or Instagram page ads, the FTC says.

“Similarly, people who had used GoodRx’s telehealth services to get treatment for sexually transmitted diseases would get ads for STD testing services.”

GoodRx disclosed to Facebook the medication purchase data it receives from pharmacy benefit managers and also used the data to target ads.

By using Facebook’s ad targeting platform, the FTC said, “GoodRx designed campaigns that targeted customers with ads based on their health information. For example, if a customer had revealed a possible erectile dysfunction issue to GoodRx, they might have seen an ad on Facebook like Exhibit A in the FTC complaint.”

In February, California-based GoodRx, a $2.1 billion company, paid a $1.5 million civil penalty to the FTC to settle the complaint and denied any wrongdoing.

Howard Danzig, founder and president of Employers Committed to Control Health Insurance Costs, said “fining GoodRx just $1.5 million dollars is not even a slap on the wrist. While many employers are so vigilant about respecting the guidelines of the HIPAA privacy laws, large tech companies basically get a pass.”

“How about major penalties for Facebook, Google and any others who were the beneficiaries of this information?” he wrote on his LinkedIn page with almost 9,000 followers.

“How about determining whether or not there were any criminal violations that should be pursued against the individuals who actually collaborated to do this? How about ‘REPARATIONS’ from the companies involved to the people and customers whose privacy was breached?”

The data breach occurred for “advertising purposes,” he noted. “How far afield can this really be taken and how far afield has it been taken?”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

As Director of Prophecy Watchers’ own “Psalm 19 Project” observatory, I am awed by the images coming from the Webb telescope. The stunning magnitude of the greatness of God and the revealing of His glory (Psalm 19:1) makes humanity seem very small when we observe the grandeur of God’s creation. And even more so — when we understand that even this newest technology captures only a glimpse of His magnificence.

One of the Webb’s recent images reveals over 45,000 extremely distant galaxies in a small portion of the sky! The size and scale of the universe that God created on the Fourth Day is beyond comprehension. Have you ever noticed how casually Genesis 1:16 references the creation of all the stars? It reads, “So God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and also the stars.” It is now estimated that there are 1-2 trillion galaxies with an average of 100-200 billion stars within each galaxy. God basically says, “Look what I did on a Wednesday.” These are the works of the power of His hands (Psalm 19:1-2), revealing the unfathomable heights of God’s compassion (Psalm 103:11) and wisdom (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Sadly, like the audacious builders who envisioned a great tower that would touch the heavens, those in command of the Webb telescope have, so far, failed to give God the glory He deserves.

Eyes to See, But Hearts that are Darkened

Technology is advancing at a staggering pace. But it merely parallels advances in other arenas the coming Antichrist will leverage to fulfill his evil plans to enslave humanity during the Tribulation.

The coming Beast system will require political, economic, social, governmental, religious, and technological advances that will enable the Antichrist to accomplish all of his desires.

We must also remember that the Antichrist needs help to accomplish his goals. Even though he is empowered by the Dragon himself (Rev 13:2, 4), the Antichrist manipulates a coalition of ten kings to implement his worldwide Beast system. He will then subdue or remove three of them at a future time. Let’s consider how the Scriptures describe these ten “kings.”

• Daniel 7:19-20 KJV – “Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.”
• Daniel 7:24 KJV – “And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.”
• Revelation 17:12-13 KJV – “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”

From the above passages, we learn three characteristics of these ten “kings”:

1. The Greek word for king (basileus) in Revelation 17:12 offers a broader nuance than merely what we understand regarding the word “king.” One of the best Greek lexicons (BDAG) has the following as its second entry: One who possesses unusual or transcendent power.

This meaning seems consistent with Revelation 17:12, where we are told that these ten figures do not have a kingdom yet but will receive authority to rule as kings for the final “hour” of the Antichrist’s (Beast’s) reign in the seven-year Tribulation period. We will call them the “Ten Influencers” because they do have “unusual power” or some valuable level of authority that the Antichrist will seek to leverage (Rev 17:13).

2. They are not required to be in governmental or ruling positions at the time of their arrangement with the Antichrist.

3. When the time comes, they will give their significant influence or power to the Beast and in return, given the ability to rule with him for a short period in his final kingdom (Rev 17:13).

There are a variety of interpretations of who the ten kings are. Some see them as leaders over geographical regions. This could be true, but as I mentioned above, they do not need to be actual governmental officials or literal kings. Instead, they could be what we know as oligarchs or technocrats, who will one day give their authority (technology/wealth/influence) to the Antichrist in exchange for being allowed to rule in his Beast system.

Financial Oligarchs (Tycoons)

When addressing technology, it is relevant to note that technological research and development is expensive. We are witnessing in our day the super-rich not often sticking to the one industry which made them wealthy, but instead spreading their wealth into sometimes completely disparate technologies or fields of research. For example, Elon Musk is involved in Twitter, Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, OpenAi, and the Boring company.

It’s not rocket science to recognize that technology tycoons, with staggering amounts of money, are capable of influencing society on a worldwide scale. This influence can include shaping the political landscape through outright bribes or the political lobby system. This massive level of impact doesn’t require them to be in actual power or governmental positions. Instead, they wield their influence through proxies who purchase access to greedy politicians seeking to magnify their power.

Technological Oligarchs (Technocrats)

These technocrats partner with governments, NGOs, and financial institutions. One organization with extensive official and unofficial agreements with technocrats is the World Economic Forum (WEF).

The WEF is dedicated to seeing a complete “reset” of the way life on Planet Earth functions. They are brazenly presenting their vision and pursuing technology to accomplish their goals by the year 2030 (known as Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset).

In his book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Klaus Schwab highlighted 21 different up-and-coming technologies that he claimed will “break into the public domain to a significant degree,” and cause great shifts “to individuals, organizations, government and society.” The following is Klaus’ list of game-changing technologies:

In addition, some ancillary technologies include: nanotechnology, quantum computing, biotechnology, the Internet of Things, decentralized consensus, fifth-generation (5G) wireless technologies, and satellite Internet technology for worldwide distribution.

It is mind-boggling to think of the influence these technologies will have on world society — and how they will serve the purpose of the Antichrist:

Satellite Internet Connectivity

• Amazon seeks to put up 3,236 satellites by the end of the decade. Called the Kuiper system (or Project Kuiper). They have two launches planned for 2023 and service expected to arrive to customers in late 2024.
• OneWeb sought an initial 650 satellites. As of February 2023 they had 542 active satellites in low earth orbit.
• Starlink (Elon Musk). Over 4,500 satellites were working in orbit by May, 2023, with plans for over 42,000 within five years. Currently over 1.5 million active subscribers in 50+ countries with global mobile phone service to be implemented in 2023.
• China is planning to deploy 40,000 of is own satellites to pursue its agenda, claiming to desire additional Internet coverage across its expansive geography. Critics note that such technology can also be used for surveillance and control.
• Iridium started in 1998 and now has 82 active satellites and a partnership with Qualcomm for Android users.
• Globalstar Communications became functional in 1998 with 75 current satellites and functionality with the Apple iPhone 14.

Surveillance

• Facial recognition, camera technology, data acquisition through social media and Internet.

Artificial Intelligence

Most of the top 10 financial and technological oligarchs are involved in the research and advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In his 2018 book, A.I. Superpowers — China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order, Kai-Fu Lee predicted, “Instead of dispersion of industry profits across different companies and regions, we will begin to see greater and greater concentration of these astronomical sums in the hands of a few.” This certainly sounds like financial oligarchs who wield incredible power and influence.

AI needs three things to work effectively: big data, computing power, and algorithm engineers. Government policies supporting AI are also helpful. To help accomplish the computing power requirement, many of these same technological oligarchs are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in quantum computers, which are billions of times faster than modern supercomputers! It comes as no surprise that Google, Microsoft, and IBM are some of this field’s leaders.

Biotechnology

Elon Musk is heavily involved in connecting the human brain to technology. His “Neuralink” was given FDA approval for human trials in May 2023.

Multi-billionaire software developer Bill Gates is pursuing implantable contraception, nano vaccine technology, and sub-cutaneous microchip implanting. Backed by his Foundation, MIT researchers are developing a method of recording a patient’s vaccination history through invisible dye injected under the skin.

Genetically-Modified Farming

Bill Gates has also spread his oligarchical influence further than any other. He has now become the largest private landowner of farmland in the United States. Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, Jr. observed, “Gates has been [expanding] his power over global populations by buying devalued assets at fire-sale prices and maneuvering for monopoly control over public health…”

Combined with his investments in global communications, digital currencies, high tech surveillance, data harvesting systems, and artificial intelligence, Bill Gates is the quintessential technocrat.

Censorship

Many financial and technological oligarchs are using their social media platforms and data acquisition to surveil, censor, cancel, deplatform, and shame those not deemed “woke enough” or willing to follow their own idiosyncratic rules and politically correct narratives. Many U.S. lawmakers and officials actually co-conspire with big tech oligarchs, encouraging them to police (censor) content more aggressively.

Innovation Zones

Nevada governor Steve Sisolak recently proposed giving corporations who own significant portions of land in Nevada a status equivalent to counties. They would be able to impose taxes, form school districts, courts of law, and provide other government services.

What Lies Ahead

As we look at end-time prophetic events coming to pass, it is becoming increasingly apparent that some of the most influential entities in both global policy and societal changes are not found in governments at all. Instead, multi-national financial and technological oligarchs are eager to conform the world to their own technocratic purposes.

Could these figures be the Ten Kings (influencers) who give their “authority and power to the Beast (Antichrist)” and in return “receive authority to rule as kings with the Beast for one hour” (Rev 17:12-13)?

Time will tell, but a compelling case can certainly be made that the technology these Ten Figures control will help the Antichrist consolidate and enforce his tyrannical rule over the entire earth.

The spirit of the Antichrist is here now — and the Antichrist is coming. Thankfully, greater is He who is in us (and is coming again soon) than he who is in the world! (1 John 4:1-4)!

About the Author

Mondo Gonzales is an author, former pastor, co-host of the Prophecy Watchers television program, and a guest contributor with Christ In Prophecy.

The new Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 injections have been approved by the FDA. Full-approval was given to inject into arms of people over 12-years-old and Emergency Use Authorization covers them for jabbing babies as young as six-months-old.

That’s all bad enough, but it gets worse. The new jabs are NOT designed for the current dominant variants. These jabs were built for the XBB.1.5 subvariant, which has basically died out. If the name sounds familiar, it could be because Jimmy Fallon made a fool of himself singing an ode to the subvariant eight months ago.

One might think they’re unleashing this onto the nation because these jabs work better than the previous ones. Nope. Pfizer and Moderna are proud that the antibody response of the new injections are “similar” to the old ones. You know, the ones that didn’t stop infection, didn’t slow spread, didn’t prevent hospitalizations, and increased death rates.

We really are living in a clown world.

Here’s an article generated from corporate media reports by Discern Reporter:

U.S. drug regulators authorized new COVID-19 vaccines on September 11 in an effort to address the current vaccines’ poor effectiveness. The FDA cleared the shots from Moderna and Pfizer, which will be available to Americans as young as 6 months old later this month. Vaccination continues to be crucial for public health and protection against severe consequences of COVID-19.

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were approved for individuals aged 12 and older, with emergency authorization granted for those aged 6 months to 11 years. Novavax’s vaccine was not mentioned in the authorization. The authorized shots target the XBB.1.5 subvariant of the Omicron virus variant, although this subvariant has already been largely replaced by newer strains such as EG.5.

The authorizations were granted based on studies that showed neutralizing antibody levels comparable to the previous versions of the vaccines. The CDC will meet with its advisers to determine which populations should receive the new vaccines, with the federal government covering the cost if recommended.

While many countries have advised younger and healthy individuals against COVID-19 vaccination due to the decrease in cases, the CDC is considering recommending annual COVID-19 shots. Pfizer and Moderna have stated that the new shots will cost around $110 to $130.

The number of shots required varies based on age group and prior vaccination. Individuals aged 5 years and older are eligible for a single dose, while children aged 6 months to 4 years who have been previously vaccinated can receive one or two doses. Children in that age group who have not been vaccinated can receive three doses of the new Pfizer vaccine or two doses of the new Moderna vaccine.

The FDA expects to update the vaccines annually, similar to influenza vaccines. However, some experts have criticized the authorization of the new shots due to the lack of strong data. They argue that booster doses should be focused on individuals at higher risk of severe disease.

They’re not even trying to pretend like these are going to work. They’re just relying on the sheep to roll up their sleeves and obey. Considering the vast majority of Americans chose to get jabbed the first time, perhaps there’s no need for Big Pharma or the FDA to try a different approach.

Sound off about this on my Substack.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s judgement that the White House, Surgeon General, CDC and FBI violated the First Amendment while finding that “the district court erred in finding that the NIAID Officials, CISA Officials, and State Department Officials likely violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.” Yet it found the injunction, issued by District of Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty in July, was “vague and broader than necessary.”

“Ultimately, we find the district court did not err in determining that several officials—namely the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI—likely coerced or significantly encouraged social-media, platforms to moderate content, rendering those decisions state actions,” the court wrote. “In doing so, the officials likely violated the First Amendment.”

Doughty granted a broad injunction barring President Joe Biden’s administration from collusion with pro-censorship nonprofit organizations, in addition to social media companies, in the free speech lawsuit Missouri v. Biden. The injunction found that government officials likely violated the First Amendment by suppressing protected speech, and the order states that government actors are barred from “collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working with” research groups and projects that advocate for censorship.

BREAKING: The Fifth Circuit has upheld the district court’s order in our free speech case, Missouri v. Biden, enjoining the White House, Surgeon General, CDC, & FBI from violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) September 8, 2023

The court axed nine of ten provisions of the injunction but kept provision six, which bars officials from ““threatening, pressuring, or coercing” companies to remove speech, though it altered the language to avoid capturing “otherwise legal speech.”

“Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech,” the new provision reads. “That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies’ decision-making processes.”

The court also extended the Biden administration’s request to fully freeze the injunction for ten days pending their application to the Supreme Court.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

(Article cross-posted from Natural News)

Recently the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), by way of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), has given millions of dollars to an AI tech company in exchange for software that can detect sentiment and emotion in social media posts. The company, Fivecast, claims the software uses AI to determine problematic posts and automatically report them to law enforcement. Other aspects of Fivecast’s AI software include object recognition and multi-language risk term and phrase recognition.

Fivecast is an Australian company founded in 2017 whose technology, according to its mission statement, is “used and trusted by leading defense, national security, law enforcement, corporate security and financial intelligence organizations around the world.” Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States are the five countries Fivecast works intimately with. So intimately that they have dubbed the group the “Five Eyes Alliance.”

Counter-Disinformation Unit to monitor and censor individuals challenging lockdown policies and vaccine fanaticism

One Five Eyes Alliance member, the United Kingdom, starting in the early days of the coronavirus (Covid-19) lockdowns and lasting all throughout the “pandemic,” used AI technology to identify “stay at home” order dissenters on social media. A recent report published by The Telegraph showed that the UK government formed a Counter-Disinformation Unit to monitor and censor individuals challenging lockdown policies and vaccine promotion.

It is fair to be suspicious that other members of the so-called alliance were also employing the same technology to monitor their own countries’ dissenters. They just may have done a better job at covering up their censorship operations.

Allowing government censorship of this magnitude is a critical threat to the first amendment rights provided to lawful US citizens. Not only can your comments be wrongfully censored for questioning and challenging the agendas of hidden authoritarian powers, but the newly implemented AI technology will target you for simply expressing a negative emotion. Don’t use a frown emoji or your account could be banned!

The first amendment protects nearly all speech if it does not incite violent or unlawful conduct. You have the protected right to share a dissenting opinion online regarding a government policy. You also have the protected right to engage in digital discourse about medical choices and opinions. In both these cases it’s possible that your speech will become emotionally driven. What becomes a blatant first amendment violation is the government censoring your comments due to the alleged emotion behind it.

One thing is for certain: AI is here to stay, and global governments are using it. We are already seeing individuals have the comments censored purely based on AI deeming their tone “problematic.” It may not be long before AI manufactured evidence is used to convict someone in a court of law.

Big Brother Watch campaign group spokesperson said of the CCP-AI system, “The very concept of ‘wrong information’ dictated by a central authority is open to abuse and should be considered far more critically, lest we mirror Chinese-style censorship.” The Biden Regime is currently bent over a barrel, doing everything to turn America into a Communist country. Anyone who can’t see it is in for a rude awakening.

Be sure to bookmark Censored.news to your favorite websites for truth news about abortions, suicide and mental health horror stories that are being censored from mass media while you read this.

Sources for this article include:

• NaturalNews.com
• PJMedia.com

(Article cross-posted from Reclaim The Net)

YouTube has also declared its plan to delist videos promoting “cancer treatments proven to be harmful or ineffective,” effectively disallowing content creators from encouraging natural cures.

The platform pledges to implement its medical misinformation policies when a topic exhibits high public health risks, is supposedly prone to misinformation, and when official guidance from health authorities is accessible to the public.

The changes also see YouTube recommitting to groups such as the WHO and other health bodies on what information is deemed to be acceptable for people to talk about on the platform – despite these institutions having recently received major blows to their credibility.

According to the policy update, YouTube will no longer host content that:

• Misinforms about prevention techniques or contradicts current health authority guidelines, including inaccuracies regarding the safety or efficacy of approved vaccines.
• Promotes treatments that local health bodies or the WHO have neither approved nor recognized as safe and effective. Moreover, it bans content that advocates for harmful substances or practices that have been scientifically proven to be detrimental.
• Denies the existence of specific health conditions.

As stated in its blog post, YouTube intends to punish content promoting not only what it believes to be overtly harmful treatments but also unproven ones that are audaciously offered as replacements for recognized alternatives.

For instance, influencers suggesting vitamin C supplements or garlic for cancer may have their content removed, the post states.

This marks a substantial escalation in the Google-owned platform’s ongoing crusade against what it believes to be the dissemination of medical misinformation, heavily catalyzed by the controversial experience of battling narratives about themes such as COVID-19 and vaccines, something YouTube was heavily criticized for as truthful content ended up being censored on the platform.

YouTube had targeted vaccine “misinformation,” such as demonetizing and deleting vaccine skepticism, thereby refining their approach in response to the global pandemic situation.