The Biden administration is pushing for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to claim substantial control over the internet, pursuing a court ruling to gain the right to censor Americans and has issued a broad executive order to regulate AI. Such governmental dominance over the digital realm could have significant adverse effects on American consumers, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

You think we’ve been censored before?!? Look at what’s coming

This takeover of the internet by the Biden admin is a big freaking deal & no one is talking about this.

Time to wake up the masses and have our voices heard before we no longer have the opportunity.… https://t.co/JLzBZPaEm7

— Amy Kremer (@AmyKremer) November 9, 2023

“These latest moves shift the balance between governmental oversight and individual freedoms heavily toward the government,” Internet Accountability Project Founder and President Mike Davis told the DCNF. “Excessive government control from the Biden administration would curtail the very essence of a free and open digital environment, compromising privacy rights and growing the alliance between Big Tech and the federal government.”

For instance, the Biden administration has called upon the Democrat-controlled FCC to implement new rules designed to tackle “digital discrimination,” a move that experts argue would drastically broaden the commission’s regulatory authority. The primary focus of the rules, which the commission will vote on on Nov. 15, is to combat “digital discrimination of access” to broadband internet, as expressed in section 60506 of Biden’s 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

“Biden’s plan would be an unprecedented expansion of regulatory power that grants broad authority to the administrative state over internet services,” Heritage Foundation Tech Policy Center Research Associate Jake Denton told the DCNF. “This plan empowers regulators to shape nearly all aspects of how ISPs [internet service providers] operate, including how they allocate and spend their capital, where they build new broadband infrastructure projects, and what types of offerings are made available to consumers.”

“If enacted, these centralized planning measures could profoundly transform the digital experiences of consumers — a troubling prospect that should worry all Americans about what the future of the internet could look like in this country,” Denton added.

Furthermore, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to halt an order that blocked it from engaging in social media censorship after an appeals court partially affirmed it in September. The Supreme Court granted a pause on the injunction in October, but also agreed to consider Missouri v. Biden, a free speech case challenging the administration’s endeavors to suppress social media content, according to a court order.

“President Biden’s pronounced efforts to extend government control over the expansive tech landscape point toward an unprecedented level of government intervention in Americans’ digital lives and basic freedoms,” Davis told the DCNF. “Consolidation of power over the tech space within the government, working in tandem with its corporate allies in Big Tech, will stifle innovation, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. Diversity of ideas and technological advancements will suffer.”

A House Judiciary Committee report published on Monday revealed examples of internet censorship by the federal government, including the Biden administration.

“We see [the Biden administration trying to exercise control of the internet] from the social media side, where there was just new evidence released by [House Judiciary Committee] Chairman Jim Jordan that showed the collusion between the government and social media to censor individual Americans that were simply exercising their free speech rights,” Carr told the DCNF.

Moreover, the FCC is also pushing to restore net neutrality, making a significant move toward reestablishing it in October by voting in favor of a notice of proposed rulemaking. Net neutrality rules force ISPs to provide equal access to all websites and content providers at the same costs and speeds, regardless of size or content.

“We have seen several recent actions that shift from a light touch, free market approach to a more regulatory and precautionary approach including the revival of ‘net neutrality’ … and presumptions that AI should be regulated by the government in a top-down approach,” Cato Institute Technology Policy Research Fellow Jennifer Huddleston told the DCNF. “These actions are concerning as the light touch approach the U.S. has traditionally taken has benefited consumers by allowing entrepreneurs and innovators to enter the market with minimal government intervention or barriers.”

Biden recently signed the first ever AI executive order at the end of October and it is sweeping, covering areas such as safety, security, privacy, innovation and “advancing equity,” according to its fact sheet.

“The through line between all of these various things that are going on, including the administration’s new AI executive order … is there should be nothing that takes place on the internet that the administrative state doesn’t have a say to second guess it,” Carr told the DCNF.

The White House and FCC did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

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].

That includes content that is posted by users outside of the European Union, because someone that lives in the European Union might see it.  I wrote about this a few days ago, but I don’t think that people are really understanding the implications of this new law.  In the past, there have been times when governments have requested that big tech companies take down certain material, but now this new law will give government officials the power to force big tech companies to take down any content that they do not like.  Any big tech companies that choose not to comply will be hit with extremely harsh penalties.

Of course mainstream news outlets such as the Washington Post are attempting to put a positive spin on this new law.  We are being told that it will “safeguard” us from “illegal content” and “disinformation”…

New rules meant to safeguard people from illegal content, targeted ads, unwanted algorithmic feeds and disinformation online are finally in force, thanks to new regulation in the European Union that took effect this month.

Doesn’t that sound wonderful? When this new law was first approved, NPR admitted that it will enable European governments to “take down a wide range of content”…

Under the EU law, governments would be able to ask companies take down a wide range of content that would be deemed illegal, including material that promotes terrorism, child sexual abuse, hate speech and commercial scams.

In addition to “illegal content” and “hate speech”, the Digital Services Act also applies to “hoaxes” and any material that is considered to be “disinformation”.  The following comes from the official website of the European Commission…

At the same time, the DSA regulates very large online platforms’ and very large online search engines responsibilities when it comes to systemic issues such as disinformation, hoaxes and manipulation during pandemics, harms to vulnerable groups and other emerging societal harms.

These new content rules are so vague that they could apply to just about anything.

And that is precisely what they want.

From this point forward, if you post something that they do not like, they will have the power to have it taken down.

Even if you don’t live in the European Union, they can have your content taken down, because someone in the European Union might see it.

So who will be doing the censoring?

Well, it is being reported that “hundreds of unelected EU bureaucrats will decide what constitutes disinformation and instruct Big Tech firms to censor it”…

Under this Orwellian regime, a team of hundreds of unelected EU bureaucrats will decide what constitutes disinformation and instruct Big Tech firms to censor it. The firms themselves, faced with reputational risk and financial penalties, will have little choice other than to comply. This can be done in all manner of ways: simply by human moderators removing content, by shadow-banning problematic creators to reduce their reach, by demonetising certain content, and by tweaking algorithms to favour or disfavour certain topics. And though, legally speaking, the DSA only applies in the EU, once installed inside Big Tech firms, this vast content-regulation apparatus will surely affect users in the rest of the world, too.

In addition, the official website of the European Commission is telling us that big tech companies must “react with priority” to any content that has been reported by “trusted flaggers”…

A priority channel will be created for trusted flaggers – entities which have demonstrated particular expertise and competence – to report illegal content to which platforms will have to react with priority.

This means that far left organizations that have been set up to police content online will now be given extraordinary power to restrict speech on the Internet.

Needless to say, the Internet is never going to be the same after this.

Initially, this new law will apply to 19 very large online platforms…

The online platforms affected are Alibaba AliExpress, Amazon Store, Apple AppStore, Booking.com, Facebook, Google Play, Google Maps, Google Shopping, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Snapchat, TikTok, X (listed as Twitter), Wikipedia, YouTube, the European clothing retailer Zalando, Bing and Google Search.

If any of those large online platforms choose not to comply with the new law, the penalties could be extremely severe…

A firm that does not comply with the law could face a complete ban in Europe or fines running up to 6% of its global revenue.

Last month, X/Twitter said it was on track to generate $3bn (£2.4bn) in revenue. A fine of 6% would be the equivalent of £144m.

Once we get to February 24th, 2024, the Digital Services Act will also apply to a vast multitude of smaller platforms.

At that point, it will be very difficult to escape the reach of this new law.

And just to make sure that they can keep a very close eye on things, the EU just established a brand new office in San Francisco on June 22nd…

European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton cut the ribbon to commemorate the official launch of the European Union’s San Francisco office on Thursday, June 22, alongside Lieutenant Governor of California Eleni Kounalakis, California State Senator Scott Wiener, and Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs Adrian Vazquez.

“I am very glad to be here today in Silicon Valley, a global centre for digital technology and innovation, to officially inaugurate the new European Union office in San Francisco,” Commissioner Breton said in his keynote address to an audience of business and technology sector leaders. “As like-minded partners who strive for reciprocity and common principles, all while respecting our respective democratic processes, our transatlantic ties are more relevant than ever in the area of technology.”

For many years, the Internet was one of the last bastions for free speech.

But now everything has changed.

From this point forward, far left European bureaucrats will get to determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable on our large online platforms.

Direct government censorship of the Internet is here, and that is going to make it much more difficult to share the truth with a world that desperately needs it.

These are such dark times, and they are getting darker with each passing day.

Michael’s new book entitled “End Times” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here. Article cross-posted from The Economic Collapse Blog.

If they discover something that you have said on a large online platform that they do not like, they can force that platform to take it down, because someone in Europe might see it.  So even though this is a European law, the truth is that it is going to have a tremendous impact on all of us.

From this point forward, nothing will be the same.  It is being reported that the DSA literally makes large tech companies “legally accountable for the content posted to them”…

The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) has officially gone into effect. Starting on August 25th, 2023, tech giants like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and more must comply with sweeping legislation that holds online platforms legally accountable for the content posted to them.

Even though this new law was passed in the EU, we’ll likely see far-reaching global effects as companies adjust their policies to comply.

Initially, there will be 19 giant online platforms that will be forced to comply with this new law…

Ranging from social media platforms to online marketplaces and search engines, the list so far includes: Facebook, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Snapchat, Amazon, Booking, AliExpress, Zalando, Google Shopping, Wikipedia, Google Maps, Google and Apple’s mobile app stores, Google’s Search, and Microsoft’s Bing.

But starting on February 24th, 2024, the Digital Services Act will start applying to a much broader spectrum of online platforms that have fewer than 45 million monthly users.

We are being told that this new law will establish clear rules that online platforms must follow.

That will include censoring anything that is deemed “false or misleading” under the Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation…

So what kind of speech is the DSA expected to police? Last year’s Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation defines disinformation as “false or misleading content that is spread with an intention to deceive or secure economic or political gain and which may cause public harm.” The code has already been put to work during elections and to “respond to crises,” such as COVID and the war in Ukraine.

And it really doesn’t matter if material that European bureaucrats consider to be “false or misleading” is actually “false of misleading” at all.

What matters is that if online platforms do not comply with what they are being told to do, they will pay dearly…

Online platforms that don’t comply with the DSA’s rules could see fines of up to 6 percent of their global turnover. According to the EU Commission, the Digital Services Coordinator and the Commission will have the power to “require immediate actions where necessary to address very serious harms.” A platform continually refusing to comply could result in a temporary suspension in the EU.

Big tech companies will be desperate to avoid such penalties, and so they will obey.

And so that means that “hundreds of unelected EU bureaucrats” will be in control of speech on the Internet now…

Under this Orwellian regime, a team of hundreds of unelected EU bureaucrats will decide what constitutes disinformation and instruct Big Tech firms to censor it. The firms themselves, faced with reputational risk and financial penalties, will have little choice other than to comply. This can be done in all manner of ways: simply by human moderators removing content, by shadow-banning problematic creators to reduce their reach, by demonetising certain content, and by tweaking algorithms to favour or disfavour certain topics. And though, legally speaking, the DSA only applies in the EU, once installed inside Big Tech firms, this vast content-regulation apparatus will surely affect users in the rest of the world, too.

We are being told that these EU bureaucrats will also be working with “trusted flaggers” to help identify content that needs to be censored…

The DSA’s “trusted flaggers” are entities with proven expertise in flagging harmful or illegal content to platforms. The new regulation provides that their content flagging shall be prioritised by platforms when moderating content.

You might be tempted to think that you will be able to avoid all of this censorship because you do not live in Europe.

Unfortunately, that is simply not true.

If you post something that someone in Europe might see, your content comes under the jurisdiction of this horrifying new law.

So you need to brace yourself for a level of Internet censorship that none of us have ever seen before. In addition, most of the large tech companies that must comply with this new law are based in the United States.

And it turns out that the Federal Trade Commission actually sent officials to Europe in March to assist with the implementation of this new law on U.S. soil…

U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today sent letters to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Lina Khan and the head of the European Union’s San Francisco office, demanding answers regarding the degree of coordination between the FTC and the EU to enforce the EU’s Digital Services Act (“DSA”) and Digital Markets Act (“DMA”) on U.S. soil. Both foreign laws were written to weaken American tech companies, particularly in Europe. There are no corollary federal laws to the DSA and DMA, making the FTC’s efforts to conspire with foreign regulators against U.S. businesses unprecedented.

The FTC announced in March that it was sending agency officials to Brussels to assist the EU in implementing these laws, while the EU opened a San Francisco office to pressure U.S tech companies to comply with them.

From this point forward, it is going to become much more difficult to share alternative views on the Internet.

Personally, there will be certain things that I will only be able to share in my books or with the paid subscribers of my Substack newsletter.

I am going to need to be more careful about what I share from now on, because if I say something publicly on the Internet that offends the bureaucrats in Europe, I could get into really big trouble.

And that is going to apply to every other independent journalist as well.

For a long time, the Internet allowed ordinary people like you and ordinary people like me to share truth with a world that was desperate for it.

But now the gatekeepers are exerting a draconian level of control, and the Internet will never, ever be the same again.

Michael’s new book entitled “End Times” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here. Article cross-posted from End of the American Dream.

When people see current systems failing, they are more likely to be open to bigger changes.  As Daisy noted, when FedNow was announced in March, it came on the heels of multiple large bank failures.

Likewise, many people now recognize that the worldwide response to Covid was a total fiasco.  The WHO is trying to use this as an excuse to centralize control. The causes behind both the bank failures and the events surrounding Covid are still highly debatable.  People worldwide have been discussing these issues for years.

Europeans may lose their ability to even complain about current events.

Europe’s Digital Services Act (DSA) is coming online this August.  The DSA aims to curtail illegal online activity and restrict targeted advertising. The largest companies, those with over 45 million European users, will face fines of up to 6% of their annual turnover if they fail to comply with the new rules.  They will have to be transparent about how they moderate content, advertise, and use algorithmic processes. Hosting services and domain registrars are now responsible for reporting criminal offenses to authorities and cooperating with national law enforcement.

Like many other laws, much of the Digital Services Act seems reasonable on the face.  I don’t like targeted ads.  I think it would be nice for people that have been de-platformed from social media to understand why.

However, the DSA also contains provisions for combating disinformation, which means that it can be used to police online speech.

Is this the first we’ve heard of something like this?

No, this isn’t much of a stretch. France has already threatened to kick out Twitter. A voluntary agreement had been put into place between Big Tech and the European Commission to help the largest tech companies comply with the Digital Services Act’s new obligations. Twitter had been on board at first, then backed out due to Elon Musk’s concerns regarding free speech.

Upon Twitter’s withdrawal, France’s Digital Minister Jean-Noël Barrot publicly stated, “Twitter, if it repeatedly doesn’t follow our rules, will be banned from the EU.”  He also posted on Twitter, “Fighting disinformation will be legal obligation under #DSA.”

In general, the DSA grants companies like Twitter a fair amount of leeway in what constitutes disinformation.  However, it does contain a crisis mechanism that will grant the European Commission much more power to restrict speech in times of crisis.  In the law, “crisis” has been given the broad definition of extraordinary circumstances that can lead to a “serious threat to public security or public health.” This is a pretty broad definition, and its lack of specificity has already drawn the ire of civil rights groups.

And it doesn’t help that the EU has already shut down large media outlets without so much as a court order.  After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the European Commission passed a series of measures aimed at curtailing the spread of Russia Times and Sputnik, both media outlets paid to propagandize for the Russian government.  Cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, and internet video-sharing platforms such as YouTube and TikTok all removed content within a short time period.

I don’t think Russia is totally innocent here, but that’s beside the point.  My point is simply that the EU has already shown itself willing to shut down huge media outlets.  In the same way that FedNow is putting in a framework for CBDCs, in the same way that the WHO is setting up a framework for worldwide health programs, the Digital Services Act is putting in a framework for widespread internet control within Europe.

And once it’s up and running there, who says this framework can’t spread?

It’s easy to feel overwhelmed at the size and breadth of freedom-restricting frameworks being put into place.  Megalomaniacs have always dreamt of world domination; the only difference now is that our technology and global interconnectedness have made one-world government a real possibility.

The desire to centralize power has been around longer than the World Economic Forum.  Read Carroll Quigley’s The Anglo-American Establishment, which you can download for free here, and you’ll see, in letters written between British aristocrats a century ago, that this is not a new impulse.

And it is not just a desire for raw power but a belief in their own righteousness that makes globalists so dangerous.  Watch some of the videos of the WEF; read some of the letters re-printed in The Anglo-American Establishment.  There has been a group of very wealthy, very powerful people absolutely convinced that they have a moral duty to manage the rest of us for a long time now.

Personally, I think this kind of arrogance is insane.

But thinking that isn’t enough.  The only way to counter the frameworks of control currently being put in place is to come up with our own frameworks for resistance.

In a recent interview with Redacted, former British Parliamentary candidate Jim Ferguson had some interesting thoughts on how to think of ourselves in facing down this power-mad behemoth of wannabe world governors.  He said that resistance could take place at three levels: strategic, tactical, and operational.

The strategic level would be international, consisting of people getting together in agreement to work toward national sovereignty for individual countries around the globe.  This is what Ferguson does himself. This would be the role of politicians that truly had their countries’ best interests at heart.

The tactical level would be regional, addressing specific issues.  This would consist of groups like the various Freedom Convoys or the Dutch Farmers’ Defense Force.

And finally, at the operational level, we have the people that just keep things running.  This would be those of us engaged in the day-to-day work of growing food, keeping the lights on, and raising the next generation of children.  It’s easy to see many of these tasks as insignificant in the face of powerful global movements, but they aren’t.

Join the parallel economy.

If you are stuck in a job that you feel is meaningless, think about what kind of productive hobby you could pursue, something that would give you a spot in a parallel economy.  This could be something you and your family do together.  If you need direction, look at what the World Economic Forum wants us to do, and then run the opposite way.

Henry Kissinger said a long time ago, “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

If you want to take back some control in your life, perhaps you should start with your food supply.

We talk about food production a lot on this website and for good reason.  Most people can produce at least something, and producing one thing often leads to the development of many other skills.  For many people, some productive tomato plants in their suburban backyards lead to learning how to can, which leads them to buy in bulk from farmers’ markets, which leads them to meet like-minded people, and it just keeps going on.

Once you start doing something truly productive, other pursuits will eventually follow.  Can you always plan this all out?  Of course not.  The important thing is to start and to be willing to see where your journey toward increasing independence takes you.

The best way to resist these frameworks for control currently being put into place is to develop our own set of frameworks for resistance.  I think Ferguson’s way of thinking about strategic, tactical, and operational levels is a good place to start.

It may be hard to think of yourself as part of something meaningful when you spend your day engaged in menial tasks.  However, if you can begin to see yourself as part of a parallel economy – part of an active resistance – you will gain enough strength and confidence to oppose these forces that want to see us all in their rigid little frameworks.

Owning nothing and happy about it.

What’s your take?

Do you think the Digital Services Act is going to be used to gain global control? Do you think this is going to be implemented in the United States? Do you have any suggestions on some things we can do to gain independence from a situation like this?

Let’s discuss it in the comments section.

About Marie Hawthorne

A lover of novels and cultivator of superb apple pie recipes, Marie spends her free time writing about the world around her. Article cross-posted from The Organic Prepper.

It’s understandable that people who embraced the Ukrainian government in the beginning have a hard time acknowledging that we now know it was a scam. But as Tyler Durden from Zero Hedge notes in the article below, Musk’s generosity is not unlimited and our willingness to accept the narrative that Volodymyr Zelensky is the “hero of democracy” must be limited as well. We cannot continue sending billions of dollars when our own citizens are struggling to put food on the table. Here’s Tyler…

Elon Musk’s SpaceX has been generous in providing free Starlink satellite internet terminals for Ukraine’s military to boost communication channels as the war enters its eighth month.

Musk recently tweeted the Ukrainian “operation has cost SpaceX $80 million and will exceed $100 million by the end of the year.”

Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.

This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.

As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 7, 2022

But those charitable donations of more than 20,000 Starlink terminals (and counting…) have just come to an abrupt end. CNN obtained a new letter that SpaceX sent the Pentagon, warning about the need for funding to maintain the service in the war-torn country, which costs upwards of $20 million per month (and most of it has been footed by SpaceX).

In addition to terminals, we have to create, launch, maintain & replenish satellites & ground stations & pay telcos for access to Internet via gateways.

We’ve also had to defend against cyberattacks & jamming, which are getting harder.

Burn is approaching ~$20M/month.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2022

The letter continued with the need for the Pentagon to take over Starlink’s expenses. In the next 12 months, Starlink forecasted the service would cost upwards of $400 million.

“We are not in a position to further donate terminals to Ukraine, or fund the existing terminals for an indefinite period of time,” SpaceX’s director of government sales wrote in the letter. 

Musk on Friday confirmed the letter as he responded to a Kyiv Post journalist on Twitter, saying he only followed the advice of a Ukrainian diplomat who told him to “F*** off.”

We’re just following his recommendation

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2022

Musk also said: “Starlink is still losing money … goal is “not to go bankrupt.”

Also, Starlink is still losing money! It is insanely difficult for a LEO communications constellation to avoid bankruptcy – that was the fate of every company that tried this before.

When asked what the goal of Starlink was at a space conference, I said “not go bankrupt”.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2022

The letter comes after reports of widespread Starlink outages across Ukraine. The Financial Times reported that Ukrainian troops had experienced issues with their terminals.

CNN said, “sources familiar with the outages said they suddenly affected the entire frontline as it stood on September 30.” Starlink has been the primary communication link on the battlefield since Russia bombed the country’s infrastructure.

SpaceX’s request for funding or it would stop providing free access comes after Musk tweeteed about a controversial peace plan.

This is highly likely to be the outcome in the end – just a question of how many die before then

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2022

Starlink is essential to the Ukrainian military, and one would suspect that the Pentagon would pick up the tab if US’ proxy war against Russia wants to be successful.