One has to wonder about the true motives behind this blatant interference. When pretending to be Trump supporters, they’re obnoxious. When engaging with real Trump supporters, they’re threatening.

According to research reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, these Beijing-backed trolls are pushing divisive narratives on critical issues such as gun control, racial inequality, and the Israel-Hamas conflict. This is not just a casual online campaign; it’s a calculated effort to manipulate public opinion and sway the upcoming election in favor of their agenda.

Breitbart News has previously reported on TikTok’s troubling practices, revealing that the platform has sent sensitive user data about Americans—data that includes their opinions on gun control and abortion—straight to their Chinese overlords. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has now confirmed that TikTok employees communicate internally using a tool called Lark, claiming that “significant amounts of restricted US user data (including but not limited to personally identifiable information)” was shared on this platform. The DOJ further elaborates, stating, “This resulted in certain sensitive U.S. person data being contained in Lark channels and, therefore, stored on Chinese servers and accessible to ByteDance employees located in China.”

This raises a critical question: how can we trust a platform that so blatantly compromises American privacy and security? The Chinese propaganda machine is not just targeting former President Donald Trump; it has also set its sights on Vice President Kamala Harris and even President Joe Biden before he was ousted from his reelection campaign. The initiative is attributed to the notorious Chinese disinformation group, Spamouflage, as reported by the Associated Press.

Jack Stubbs, the chief intelligence officer at Graphika, stated, “One of the world’s largest covert online influence operations, an operation run by Chinese state-linked actors, has become more aggressive in its efforts to infiltrate and sway U.S. political conversations ahead of the election.” This is not just a minor issue; it’s a full-scale assault on our democratic processes.

The trolls are adopting fake identities to masquerade as U.S. voters, engaging in political debates online to control the narrative. One TikTok account, known as the “Harlan Report,” racked up an astonishing 1.5 million views on a single post. When pressed for their identity, the individual behind the account cryptically stated, “In your world, I am a clown. Sorry, You cannot know my identity, nobody ensure my safety.” This level of secrecy is deeply concerning and raises further questions about the integrity of the information being disseminated.

Following inquiries from the Wall Street Journal, TikTok took action and banned the Harlan Report account. However, a review of the account’s X profile revealed it had amassed 11,000 followers before being suspended from Elon Musk’s platform as well. The Harlan Report account posed as a 31-year-old conservative, complete with hashtags like #Patriotsunited, #MAGA, and Trump2024 in its bio.

Moreover, the Wall Street Journal uncovered that TikTok has been promoting “thousands of videos with political lies and hyperbole to its users.” One particular network of anti-Trump videos was traced back to a web of overseas accounts operating from China, Iran, and Vietnam.

While China, Russia, and Iran have denied any involvement in targeting U.S. voters through clandestine internet activities, it’s widely understood that foreign nations engage in online propaganda campaigns every election cycle. Earlier this summer, American spy agencies reported that Iran is actively seeking to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential race to prevent a second Trump term.

As we approach the 2024 election, it’s imperative that we remain vigilant against these politically motivated ploys. The integrity of our democracy is at stake, and we must question the motives behind these foreign interventions. Will we allow our political discourse to be hijacked by foreign actors, or will we stand up for the truth? The choice is ours.

The survey, which gathered responses from 2,000 Gen Z social media users, found that Instagram and TikTok (both at 20 percent) and Facebook (13 percent) were the platforms most often linked to declines in mental well-being.

For older members of Generation Z, born between 1998 and 2004, growing up with nearly a decade of social media exposure may have contributed to what one expert referred to as “problematic internet use.”

Commissioned by LG Electronics, this survey was carried out online by Talker Research between June 20 and June 24.

The study shows that people start to feel negative emotions just 38 minutes after using social media. This is often because they encounter upsetting content (51 percent), feel unproductive with their time (49 percent) or experience “fear of missing out,” or FOMO (36 percent). On average, individuals spend about five and a half hours each day on social media and 45 percent believe they use it more than their friends do.

Louis Giagrande, LG Electronics head of U.S. marketing, pointed out that spending a lot of time online can leave people feeling drained. He said people should be mindful of the content they engage with to improve their overall well-being and focus on positive content to help manage life’s challenges better and find more happiness.

Interestingly, 62 percent of Gen Zers wish they could reset their social media feeds. Many are frustrated with the content they see, with 53 percent saying it doesn’t match their interests and 54 percent feeling they have little control over what appears in their feeds. Only 16 percent believe they have full control.

Despite these issues, 80 percent of respondents also find that social media can positively impact their mood. Content that tends to lift people’s spirits includes comedy (65 percent), animals (48 percent), beauty-related posts (40 percent) and prank videos (34 percent). Conversely, content related to violence (50 percent), politics (40 percent) and sexual themes (32 percent) often leads to negative feelings.

The study found that two-thirds of people have managed to turn a bad day into a good one thanks to social media. They are also 70 percent more likely to use social media when they’re in a good mood and 44 percent believe it has a positive effect on their outlook on life. Looking ahead, 38 percent think social media platforms will improve their impact on mental health over the next five years.

Gen Zers use social media daily for various reasons, according to the study. Sixty-six percent do it out of boredom, 59 percent seek laughs or smiles, 55 percent need a distraction or break, 49 percent want to stay updated on global events, 44 percent check in on friends, 42 percent seek connections with others, 33 percent look for relaxation and 32 percent search for specific information.

How smartphone addiction affects mental health

Recent findings reveal a concerning link between excessive smartphone use and serious mental health issues. Teens who spend more than three hours daily on social media face an increased risk of developing mental health issues, especially those related to internal stress and anxiety.

Research from JAMA Psychiatry, which studied nearly 6,600 U.S. adolescents, suggests that boosting media literacy, limiting social media time and redesigning social media platforms could help alleviate these mental health issues.

A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal consolidates evidence from numerous research efforts – showing that heavy smartphone and social media use is associated with greater mental distress, self-harm and suicidal thoughts among young people. This effect is particularly pronounced in girls and follows a pattern where more screen time correlates with more severe problems.

Visit Mental.news for more stories about social media and smartphone use and mental health.

Watch this video from SciShow discussing how people can overcome FOMO and lessen their social media addiction.

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

Sources include:

• StudyFinds.org
• ScienceDirect.com
• SWNSDigital.com
• JAMANetwork.com
• NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov
• PsychologyToday.com
• Brighteon.com

So the fate of the platform is very much up in the air.  170 million Americans have accounts on TikTok, and 7 million small businesses use the platform.  Needless to say, there are vast hordes of young people that are extremely upset about what Congress is trying to do, and lots of them will be voting in November.

It was apparent that this bill had a tremendous amount of support, but I was surprised that so many lawmakers from both parties ended up voting for it…

The House on Wednesday passed legislation that could ban TikTok in the U.S. if its Beijing-based parent company ByteDance doesn’t sell its stake in the massively popular social media platform.

The vote was 352 in favor and 65 opposed, underscoring its broad bipartisan support, with 197 Republicans and 155 Democrats voting to approve it. Fifteen Republicans and 50 Democrats voted against the bill. One Democrat voted “present.”

If you have not read the bill yet, you can find it right here.  Prior to the vote, TikTok users absolutely flooded Congress with phone calls, but that didn’t work. So now countless TikTok influencers are completely freaking out because the future of their favorite platform is very much in doubt…

Describing herself as a ‘panicked influencer’ in a video with almost 250K likes, one creator said: ‘We might have to part our ways and say farewell tomorrow because what the actual freak?’

Others noted the rare efficiency that Congress showed in passing the legislation, with one TikTok user saying it stands out compared to the ‘months and months to even get aid to people when there’s a hurricane.’

‘Somehow the gremlins in Congress just really got together and finally agreed on something.’

Another prominent influencer boldly proclaimed that “THIS is going to be the reason why I hate the federal government”…

‘When I’m old an miserable and telling my grandkids about all the reasons why I hate the world, THIS is going to be the reason why I hate the federal government,’ another influencer fumed.

According to CNN, if this bill actually becomes law TikTok will disappear from app stores in the U.S. if ByteDance chooses not to divest…

If enacted, the bill would give TikTok roughly five months to separate from ByteDance, or else app stores in the United States would be prohibited from hosting the app on their platforms.

App stores that violate the legislation could be fined based on the number of users of a banned app. The bill establishes fines of $5,000 per user of a banned app. So, in the case of TikTok, Apple and Google could potentially be on the hook for up to $850 billion in fines each.

It’s unclear if ByteDance would agree to sell or spin-off TikTok. If it did, the company could struggle to find an American buyer willing to shell out, despite the app’s popularity.

TikTok is worth an estimated $100 billion, according to Wedbush analyst Dan Ives. And many major US tech companies already face fierce regulatory scrutiny that could prevent them from making such a major acquisition.

But of course even if TikTok was banned from app stores that would definitely not kill the platform.

The 170 million users that have already downloaded the app would still be able to use it, and new users would likely be able to download it using a VPN…

If TikTok were banned in the U.S., the hundred million plus users who have already downloaded the app would still likely be able to access it. New users would also potentially be able to download it using a virtual private network, or VPN.

Even with the app’s removal from app stores and experts expect that TikTok’s resourceful U.S. fans would still find ways to continue using it.

And at this point it is very unclear whether this bill will be able to get through the U.S. Senate…

The TikTok’s bill in the Senate is uncertain, as the Senate is unlikely to pass the bill as is.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said, “I think it’s more than likely that we will take up their bill and amend it and say we’ve come up with some areas where we think it needs improvement. My concern is that if you try to deal with this by name, you’re playing a game of Whack a Mole, because what’s TikTok today, next week it’s TokTik or TicTak or whatever.”

“We do things slowly over here, and this takes time,” he added.

Indeed, the Senate’s 60-vote threshold requires consensus to pass legislation.

Joe Biden has said that he will sign the bill if it eventually gets through the Senate.

But would he really want to alienate millions of young voters just before the presidential election in November?

Donald Trump seems to realize what will be better for his political future, and so he has come out against banning TikTok…

Former President Donald Trump came out against the app’s ban.

“If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!” the 45th president said.

I think that Trump makes a legitimate point.

Without a doubt, TikTok is doing a tremendous amount of damage.

For a long time, TikTok has been promoting very harmful content. And for a long time, TikTok has been suppressing content that many of us would consider to be good.

TikTok clearly has an agenda, and they are using their power to shape how our young people think. But of course the exact same things could be said about other social media platforms.

It could be argued that Facebook has had a far greater impact on our culture than TikTok has, but nobody is talking about banning Facebook. Collectively, the major social media companies are transforming our culture in ways that we have never seen before.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. According to a brand new Gallup survey that was just released, 22.3 percent of all Gen Zers now identify as LGBTQ+…

More than one in five Gen Z adults identified as LGBTQ+ in 2023, having more than doubled over less than a decade.

Of the 22.3 percent of Gen Zers identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer, more than 15 percent identified as bisexual, according to polling results from Gallup.

Pollsters reported that, overall, each younger generation is about twice as likely as the last to identify as LGBTQ+. Compared to the rate of Gen Z adults, far fewer millennials – one in 10 – say they belong to the LGBTQ+ community.

In the entire history of our country, we have never seen a shift of this magnitude.

At this point, nearly 30 percent of Gen Z women now identify as LGBTQ+…

“Almost 30% of Gen Z women identify as LGBTQ+, most as bisexual,” Jeffrey Jones, a senior editor at Gallup, told NBC News. “That’s where a lot of the growth seems to be happening.”

This is the first year Gallup has laid out its annual LGBTQ identification report in a way that breaks down each generation by gender. Looking at all generations, 8.5% of women and 4.7% of men identified as LGBTQ, the survey found.

If you ban TikTok, that is barely going to do anything to stop the cultural tsunami that we are witnessing.

For many of our politicians, the reason why TikTok is such a big deal is because it is controlled by China.

This just shows how much things have changed.

For many years, I have been warning my readers that China is our enemy.  A decade ago, most people thought that was absurd.  Over and over again I would be told that “China is our friend” and that a war with the Chinese would never happen.

But now most of our politicians clearly believe that China is our enemy.  If they considered China to be a friend, there is no way that they would be trying to ban TikTok.

Relations between the United States and China are rapidly deteriorating, and it won’t be too long before they reach a breaking point.

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here.

Has something gone right this time? Spoiler: Well, no.

But do read on – because knowledge, and context, are truly important. The educated guess is – there will be many more of these instances of social media censorship schemes coming down this particular pike.

And what better than to recognize them for what they are, as they do come.

There’s this: UNESCO (that’s the UN agency that used to basically sell you Christmas/New Year postcards to help children in distress, suddenly, waking up to “misinformation”) – and now directly supported by WEF.

What a shocker. WEF is glad that – UNESCO, of all agencies, has come up with what it calls the “internet of trust.” And the informal globalist Switzerland-based group (WEF, though) is also happy to reiterate what those “guidelines” are.

WEF is a flagship global, elitist outfit with no apparent qualms leading with the devastating fact that more people on this planet have access to the internet (“social media”), that to say, a car.

But this is not seen as a problem. Merely an opportunity to subjugate (or kick down) those already in distress.

So you don’t have a car? You can’t afford a home, perhaps? But you do have a phone. Now let WEF tell you what you should think. That’s pretty much the gist of this entire “elaborate” article.

While you may be in a country with decidedly few real rights and/or opportunities, WEF assures you that if only you – about 4.75 billion people on this Earth – could find some “trusted” (“guaranteed” by elites) way to inform and “protect yourself from misinformation, disinformation.”

Well.

“If we can no longer distinguish fiction from reality, falsehood from truth, the foundations of our societies crumble. Democracy, dialogue and debate – all essential to address major contemporary challenges – become impossible,” UNESCO says – quotes WEF.

And some might say – why in the world did UNESCO go that ostentatious rout of stating the horrible truth, that involves UN, and WEF?

Who knows. But WEF has this: A toolkit for “digital safety.”

Tell us, WEF. You, who do, habitually, take “ordinary people” for fools.

“Digital platforms need reporting mechanisms to log policy violations, but given the global nature of their operations, they also need to ensure these mechanisms take into account local cultural sensitivities in the way complaints are handled” – said WEF.

Sound off about this story on The Liberty Daily 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].

Ever since the COVID-19 pandemic began, censorship has kicked into high gear, and between lawsuits and voluntary document releases such as the Twitter Files, released by Elon Musk after he took over the company, it’s become apparent that most of this censorship is being directed by the U.S. government itself, in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution.

In short, government departments and agencies have been outsourcing the censorship to private tech companies through private-public partnerships, but the decisions about who and what to be censored came straight from the top.

In 2021, it also became apparent that the U.S. government was basing some of these decisions on information from an obscure U.K.-based group called the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). It’s “Disinformation Dozen” report,¹ published March 24, 2021, is without question one of the most widely cited “justifications” for censorship. The problem is that this report was itself an example of gross misinformation.

The CCDH claimed 12 individuals were responsible for 73% of vaccine misinformation on social media, including Facebook, yet an investigation by Facebook revealed the so-called “disinformation dozen” were responsible for just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on the platform.²

Yet, even after Facebook set the record straight, the federal government continued to cite the CCDH report as the reason for why they wanted the people listed in it censored by Big Tech.

As just one example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren demanded that Amazon ban my book, “The Truth About COVID,” based on the CCDH’s false statements about me, months after Facebook debunked its claims.

CCDH Campaign to Take Down Twitter

Most recently, the CCDH has turned its attention to Elon Musk’s Twitter, now renamed X Corp. June 1, 2023, the CCDH published a report^3,4 about Twitter Blue, claiming the platform failed to censor 99% of hate posted by Twitter Blue-subscribed accounts.

However, its research strategies have not improved over the years. As with the “Disinformation Dozen” report, it appears the CCDH simply chose 100 allegedly “hateful” tweets at random, reported them, and if a tweet wasn’t removed within four days, Twitter/X was judged to have intentionally permitted hate speech.

The report is the latest in what appears to be a dedicated campaign to drive Twitter/X out of business. In February 2023, the CCDH launched a #StopToxicTwitter campaign with the release of another report⁵ in which the group accused Twitter of “generat[ing] millions in ad revenue by bringing back banned accounts.”

The group called on advertisers to “stop bankrolling the spread of hate and disinformation” by removing their ads. CCDH founder and CEO Imran Ahmed even went on record accusing Musk personally of “undoing” decades of progress on tolerance “with the tacit approval of the advertisers who remain on his platform.”⁶ Since then, Twitter/X has reportedly lost about half of its ad revenue.⁷

Elon Musk Sues CCDH

July 31, 2023, Elon Musk struck back by filing a lawsuit against the CCDH,^8,9,10 arguing the group is “actively working to prevent free expression” and spreading “troubling and baseless claims that appear calculated to harm Twitter generally, and its digital advertising business specifically.”¹¹

According to Musk, the CCDH engaged “in a series of unlawful acts designed to improperly gain access to protected X Corp. data” — including improperly obtained login credentials — for the purpose of creating a “scare campaign” to drive advertisers away from his platform.

According to X Corp’s legal team, the CCDH’s claims are “false, misleading, or both, and they are not supported by anything that could credibly be called research.”¹²

According to the complaint, the CCDH cherry-picked “from the hundreds of millions of posts made each day on X” to “falsely claim it had statistical support showing the platform is overwhelmed with harmful content.”

Like the rest of us, Musk also wants to know who is bankrolling the CCDH. In a July 18, 2023, Twitter/X post, Musk reposted Facebook’s dismissal of “The Disinformation Dozen” report, stating, “Who is funding this organization? They spread disinformation and push censorship, while claiming the opposite. Truly evil.”

Two weeks later, the same day he filed his lawsuit against the CCDH, he tweeted out, “Let’s pull the mask off this organization and see who is really behind it.”¹³

In a letter¹⁴ to Ahmed, X Corp’s lawyer, Alex Spiro of the Quinn Emanuel legal firm, states they “have reason to believe” the CCDH is bankrolled by X Corp’s “commercial competitors, as well as government entities and their affiliates,” and that:

“To the extent that CCDH is passing off as impartial ‘research’ material that is in fact being funded in support of an ulterior agenda, your representations are all the more misleading, while reporting of the CCDH’s true economic motives and agenda are imperative.

Accordingly, we are investigating whether CCDH’s false and misleading claims about Twitter are actionable under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 …”

In brief, section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, refers to making claims about goods or services that are false or misleading representations of fact.¹⁵

Other CCDH Crusades

The businesses named in the “Disinformation Dozen” report and Twitter aren’t the only ones who have suffered dire consequences as a result of the CCDH’s fabricated “research.” As reported by Unherd:¹⁶

“The CCDH has been on similar crusades, resulting in absolutely devastating effects on affected targets. In March 2019, an anonymous internet campaign dubbed ‘Stop Funding Fake News’¹⁷ (SFFN) was launched to demonetize a variety of political websites … by directly lobbying companies to remove their advertisements.

Within six months, SFFN succeeded in shutting down Westmonster, a pro-Brexit site founded by Aaron Banks, while damaging the takings of Corbynite media outlet ‘The Canary’ to such an extent, it was forced to make job cuts.

The latter was also investigated by press regulator IMPRESS, due to SFFN alleging it published anti-Semitic content. The probe ultimately found no evidence whatsoever to substantiate that charge¹⁸ … In May 2020, SFFN was revealed to be a CCDH asset.”¹⁹

Jim Jordan Launches Investigation Into CCDH

The Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government also wants to know who funds the CCDH, and how and why, exactly, this obscure foreign group was allowed to impede the free speech rights of Americans.

To that end, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, opened an investigation into the CCDH August 3, 2023.²⁰ The group has been ordered to hand over records to the Judiciary Committee detailing its interactions with the U.S. government and the executive branch by August 17.²¹ As reported by the Washington Examiner:²²

“’We know from the Facebook Files that the Center for Countering Digital Hate was working with the White House to censor speech,’ a senior GOP congressional aide with knowledge of the inquiry said. ‘But how far did it go? Republicans want to find out, and of course subpoenas are on the table if we don’t get answers.’

Jordan’s letter²³ [to the CCDH] … is the latest escalation of the GOP’s efforts to investigate how the federal government has, in some cases, coordinated with the private sector to flag certain speech, including speech related to COVID-19, as ‘disinformation’ or ‘misinformation’ …

‘We are interested in understanding the interactions between the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and the federal government in particular, as well as between CCDH and social media companies,’ Jordan wrote in his letter to the center’s CEO Imran Ahmed …

In his letter, Jordan asked the center for communications dating back to January 2015 between itself and employees, contractors, or representatives with the executive branch or social media companies ‘referring or relating to the moderation, deletion, suppression, restriction, demonetization, or reduced circulation of content’ as well as ‘the accuracy or truth of content’ and ‘the attribution of content to the source or participant in a foreign malign or state-sponsored influence operation.’

The chairman also requested a list of employees, contractors, or agents for the center who ‘have communicated’ with tech companies or the government on content moderation — and details on contracts or grants received from the U.S. government on this practice.”

CCDH Report Used to ID ‘Domestic Terrorists’

Most disturbing of all, however, is the fact that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may also be relying on the CCDH’s malign fabrications to identify “domestic threat actors,” meaning domestic terrorists.

This troubling information was discovered by my team in an August 2021 report²⁴ on the DHS website titled “Combatting Targeted Disinformation Campaigns, Part 2” created by the Public-Private Analytic Exchange Program (AEP).

According to the DHS,²⁵ the AEP “organizes teams of analysts from the private sector, academia, and public sector across all levels of government — federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial.” In this case, the team responsible for this report include two members of the FBI, listed only as “Peter M.” and “Laci F.,” someone from the State Department and “Kathryn W.” from the CIA.

Curiously, only those from the private sector are identified with full names. Only the first names and the initial of their last names are listed for the public sector members.

While I cannot prove this is the case, I wonder if “Peter M.” refers to Peter M. Klismet Jr., author of “FBI Diary: Profiles of Evil.”²⁶ According to his bio, Klismet was one of the first FBI agents to be hand-picked to undergo “ground-breaking, revolutionary and controversial training … made famous by the renowned Behavioral Science Unit.” Basically, Klismet is a profiler, which is what this report is all about.

Under section 2.1.2., which discusses how to identify domestic threat actors, the report specifically highlights the CCDH “Pandemic Profiteers: The Business of Anti-Vaxx” report, which features photos of the 12 “disinformation dozen” on its cover.

And, while it never spells out my name, it goes on to state “The New York Times later published a more detailed article on the person listed in the report as the greatest offender.” Guess who that person was? That’s right. Me.

Misinformation Is Not Illegal, AEP Admits

To the AEP’s credit, the report goes on to note that:²⁷

“While naming and shaming may be superficially appealing as a method of exacting a price from those who peddle in disinformation, such naming and shaming might make matters worse by provoking a fierce backlash from those sympathetic to the views of the information consumers identified …

Since polarization is a primary reason for the success of disinformation campaigns, attempting to counter these campaigns with methods which may generate even more polarization seems questionable.

Also, revealing the identities of domestic threat actors and other personally identifiable information can render these information consumers vulnerable to harassment or more egregious forms of retaliation. We do not condone harassment and vigilantism as means of responding to domestic threat actors.

Absent suspicion of criminal activity or a legitimate government purpose pursuant to clear legal authority, government monitoring of the opinions and activities of U.S. persons is problematic.

Although federal and state law penalize false statements in judicial proceedings and official documents … disinformation, much less misinformation, is not illegal in most cases.”

CCDH-Identified Targets Have Clearly Been Retaliated Against

However, as much as the AEP condemns the tactic of revealing the identities of potential “domestic threat actors,” this advice was clearly not taken to heart. On the contrary, the CCDH’s information was used by a long list of government actors and representatives, including members of Congress, state attorneys general and even President Biden himself, all of whom publicly called for retaliatory actions to be taken against us.

As a result, we’ve been censored on social media, delisted by Google Search, and demonetized on YouTube. We’ve been deplatformed and cut off from online payment processors, our websites have been cyberattacked and, in several cases, taken down completely — and we’ve been debanked.

I don’t know about you, but to me, that surely falls under “more egregious forms of retaliation.” And for what? For Constitutionally-protected speech.

Ironically, the AEP goes on to call for increased fact-checking efforts, completely ignoring the fact that most of their fact checks are pure misinformation. Fact checks are grossly biased, as they’re paid by the very groups pushing a specific counternarrative to the topics they’re fact-checking. So, basically, the AEP is calling for the use of misinformation to counter “malinformation,” i.e., true information that is problematic for the government.

At the end of the day, the so-called “problem” of misinformation and disinformation is pure nonsense. In a free society, people debate issues and bring varying viewpoints to the table. Misinformation wasn’t even “a thing” before 2020. It’s a completely fabricated problem, made up by the very people who seek to control the public discourse for their own aims.

Time will tell whether Musk’s lawsuit and Jordan’s investigation will reveal who’s funding and/or directing the CCDH and its malicious campaigns to destroy American lives and businesses, simply for exerting their First Amendment right to free speech.

• ¹ Counterhate.com The Disinformation Dozen March 24, 2021
• ² Facebook August 18, 2021
• ^3, 6 Counterhate.com Twitter Fails to Act on 99% of Twitter Blue Accounts Tweeting Hate Report June 1, 2023
• ⁴ Counterhate.com June 1, 2023
• ⁵ Counterhate.com Toxic Twitter Report
• ⁷ CBS July 17, 2023
• ⁸ New York Times July 31, 2023 (Archived)
• ⁹ The Defender August 1, 2023
• ^10, 16 Unherd.com August 3, 2023
• ^11, 12, 14 Alex Spiro Letter to Imran Ahmed July 20, 2023
• ¹³ AOL.com August 1, 2023
• ¹⁵ Bitlaw 15 USC 1125, Section 42 of the Lanham Act
• ¹⁷ The Drum June 25, 2019
• ¹⁸ Press Gazette UK December 7, 2021
• ¹⁹ The Canary December 1, 2020
• ²⁰ MSN August 4, 2023
• ²¹ Greenmedinfo.com August 3, 2023
• ²² Washington Examiner August 3, 2023
• ²³ Jim Jordan’s letter to Imran Ahmed CEO of CCDH August 3, 2023
• ^24, 27 Combatting Targeted Disinformation Campaigns, Part 2 August 2021
• ²⁵ DHS.gov AEP Deliverables
• ²⁶ Amazon FBI Diary: Profiles of Evil by Peter M Klismet

Article cross-posted from Dr. Mercola’s site.

Interesting… when we use our TeamKennedy email address to set up @instagram accounts we get an automatic 180-day ban. Can anyone guess why that’s happening?

Kennedy reported this on Twitter, noting that Elon Musk had allowed his previously banned account back on the platform. He then noted how undemocratic it was for Instagram to censor him.

To silence a major political candidate is profoundly undemocratic. Social media is the modern equivalent of the town square. How can democracy function if only some candidates have access to it?

Twitter allows my campaign and me to have a voice. Thank you @elonmusk.

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 2, 2023

To silence a major political candidate is profoundly undemocratic. Social media is the modern equivalent of the town square. How can democracy function if only some candidates have access to it?

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 2, 2023

Democrat or Republican, big candidate or small, accounts on social media “platforms” that have not engaged in illegal actions should never be banned. In fact, nobody’s account on these “platforms” that are given the blanket of government protection should get banned for legal speech. If these “platforms” decide they want to limit speech, they need to have their government protections immediately removed.

Named “Gaming Public Opinion,” the report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) included data collection spanning Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Sina Weibo, and ByteDance products.

It reveals previously unreported CCP cyber-influence operations, such as one called the “Spamouflage network,” in which inauthentic accounts are used to spread claims that the United States is irresponsibly conducting cyber-espionage operations against China and other countries.

“The CCP has used these cyber-enabled influence operations to seek to interfere in U.S. politics, Australian politics, and national security decisions, undermine the Quad and Japanese defence policies, and impose costs on Australian and North American rare-earth mining companies,”  the report said.

The most notable Chinese party-state agencies involved include the People’s Liberation Army’s Strategic Support Force, which conducts cyber operations as part of the army’s political warfare; the Ministry of State Security, which conducts covert operations for state security; the Central Propaganda Department, which oversees China’s domestic and foreign propaganda efforts; the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), which enforces China’s internet laws; and the Cyberspace Administration of China, which regulates China’s internet ecosystem.

Chinese state media outlets and Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials are also running clandestine operations that seek to amplify their own overt propaganda and influence activities.

In the case of the Spamouflage network, it is found that some operators of the network are based in Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, some being part of the Yancheng Public Security Bureau.

Private Chinese Companies Assisting Government Agencies

In addition, the authors found that private Chinese companies collaborate with CCP agencies in their operations.

In a recent coordinated CCP propaganda campaign named “Operation Honey Badger” (蜜獾行动) by Chinese government-linked entities, for instance, Chinese cybersecurity company Qi An Xin (奇安信) supporting the influence operation.

“We uncover new evidence to suggest that the MPS, with the support of cybersecurity company Qi An Xin, may be involved in this campaign,” they wrote.

“The company has the capacity to seed disinformation about advanced persistent threats to its clients in Southeast Asia and other countries… It’s deeply connected with Chinese intelligence, military, and security services and plays an important role in China’s cybersecurity and state security strategies.”

As of April 2023, the “Operation Honey Badger” campaign continues to attribute cyber-espionage operations to the U.S. government.

Clive Hamilton, the Australian academic who authored “Silent Invasion,” said he agrees with the arguments made in the ASPI report.

Hamilton said he believes the CCP’s goal of manipulating public opinion remains the same, but the way it actually does it is changing.

As countries such as Australia have strengthened legislation and law enforcement to counter foreign interference, it has become more difficult for Beijing to carry out on-the-ground missions in those countries. That’s why underground work through networks is all the more important, he told Radio Free Asia.

Solution: Strengthen legislation, intelligence sharing, and cooperate with social media

The authors suggest governments review foreign interference legislation and consider mandating that social media platforms disclose state-backed influence operations and other transparency reporting to increase the public’s threat awareness.

In addition, they appeal to partners and allies to share more intelligence with one another on such influence operations.

“Strong open-source intelligence skills and collection capabilities are a crucial part of investigating and attributing these operations, the low classification of which should making intelligence sharing easier,” they argued.

On the other hand, social media platforms are urged to remove access to those analytics for suspicious accounts breaching platform policies, making it difficult for identified malicious actors to measure the effectiveness of influence operations.

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

But, as Murray Rothbard has pointed out, “human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory.” Your freedom to have an opinion does not grant you the right to express that opinion in venues or on media outlets you do not own. But if you pay to give a speech at a lecture hall and the government blocks it, this violation of free speech could be better understood as a violation of property rights. So how would property rights fare under the RESTRICT Act? Not well. The bill would not only block private companies from engaging in legitimate business practices but would further violate the property rights of American citizens and companies through an open-ended digital surveillance regime.

The RESTRICT Act seeks to give the Commerce Department broad new authorities to “identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, and mitigate” information and communications technology products “in which any foreign adversary has an interest, and that pose an undue or unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the safety of U.S. persons.” The bill defines foreign adversaries as China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea, but it allows the Executive to add and drop foreign regimes from the list without oversight from Congress.

The information and communications technology products highlighted in the act are expansive and unspecific. They range from desktop applications, mobile apps, web-based applications, payment platforms, and gaming systems to webcams, Wi-Fi networks, drone cameras, home surveillance systems, and even biotechnology.

It’s worth mentioning that the only real threat the alleged adversarial regimes pose is to Washington’s ability to exert military control over the entire globe. The root of this issue lies in America’s overzealous foreign policy aspirations—not in some irrational wish by these regimes to see American people harmed. The proper way to address these threats is to bring American foreign policy back in line with reality as Washington’s unipolar moment slips away. The RESTRICT Act ignores the root of the problem and instead attacks the rights of the American people.

Our right to property stems first from our right to self-ownership. We alone own our bodies. Any property claim made on our bodies is unethical and impossible. From self-ownership, property can be attained justly through homesteading—mixing one’s labor with unowned land resources. After property has been homesteaded, it can be justly transferred through gifts or voluntary exchange. That is how most property is justly acquired in modern societies.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfectly libertarian world. But property rights are still important and, to the extent they exist, must be defended. As such, if a someone wishes to read, watch, or listen to a foreign government—maybe they want to hear both sides of a geopolitical dispute to be better informed—and a website owner is willing to deliver that piece of media to them, it is completely within the rights of both the consumer and website owner to engage in that transaction.

Further, it is the right of those who own the internet service provider, data center, and optical fiber cables to make part of their infrastructure available for the information transfer if they find the price to be worth it. Even if the information originated from or encountered a foreign regime, any third party stepping in to stop this transaction would be violating the right of the individuals involved to control their own property.

The conduct that the RESTRICT Act seeks to prohibit is not a real crime. And beyond that, the state surveillance of private activity necessary to identify the relevant transactions is where the majority of property rights violations will occur. The bill makes numerous references to the use of information gathered by the director of national intelligence. Although we’re told US intelligence agencies focus on gathering information and conducting operations outside of the United States, whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that agencies such as the National Security Agency conduct mass surveillance of American’s communications. The RESTRICT Act could ratchet this up by extending the surveillance beyond communications to include digital information of any kind. By accessing devices without express permission, the federal government would further violate our property rights.

There is even more of concern. With its vague language, the bill gives the government much leeway in defining what qualifies as illegal information. We’ve already seen government officials and their friends in media conflate antiestablishment arguments with foreign disinformation. They’ve even falsely labelled accurate news stories as foreign disinformation. It’s not hard to see these same people using the powers granted to them by the RESTRICT Act to criminalize certain dissenting views under the guise of counterintelligence.

This awful bill seeks to prop up Washington’s disappearing global military dominance by making certain pieces of digital information illegal. The implementation of the RESTRICT Act would violate the American people’s basic right to control their property—all in the name of thwarting a fake crime. The bill isn’t protecting you from a threat. It is the threat. Don’t fall for it.

About the Author

Connor O’Keeffe is a writer and video producer at the Mises Institute. He has a masters in economics and a bachelors in geology.

Article cross-posted from Mises.

It used to be that most Americans were mainly brainwashed into buying specific products and services by watching television, reading the newspaper, noticing billboards, and seeing films. Propaganda was a front-loaded “machine” that was quite linear in its approach to influence buying motives of consumers. With the invention of the internet and social media, everything changed.

The consumption of news, products, services, lifestyles, pornography, and now most medical “choices” are made online, after “consuming” artificial intelligence. This is how technology has been created and disseminated to chronically DAMAGE humanity, and it’s happening like a tsunami engulfs a coastline, every day.

Machine learning regulates nearly everything users see in front of them online, often in unethical, harmful ways

An artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm regulates the content chosen to be placed in front of user’s eyes specifically to influence their purchases of products, services, and information, based on what they talk about, type about, and search for using smart devices. Ever just talk to a friend about anything, then minutes later an ad pops up on your smart device, selling exactly what you just talked about? That’s AI. Smart devices are almost always RECORDING, whether or not you have the camera, microphone, or app “open” or “live.”

For example, Facebook’s AI software analyzes videos, stories, photos, and even memes, then gathers together ‘recommendations’ for you. Add in some key misinformation and suddenly you find yourself buying what Fakebook told you to buy, and believing what Fakebook calls news.

Google search engine uses AI to guide everyone AWAY from any information about natural health and AWAY from any information that exposes prescription medications and vaccines as the dangerous, experimental mediums they really are. Google blocks, bans, censors and bankrupts people, businesses and organizations that do not support the communist narrative that attempts to control all Americans’ lives and livelihoods.

Social media, mRNA and twisted, sick living thanks to the evil uses of AI

AI dominates the social media landscape, have no illusions. Fake friends, fake followers, fake idols, fake news and fake trends “run” all the thinking of today’s youth, millenials and even adults who see and hear what they “want” to see and hear, because they are influenced by the false ‘gods’ of tech. With thinking comes action, and with action comes the adoption of the sick and twisted “services” of the AI-created world of social media. Bots and more bots tell the social-media-addicted world exactly what and how to think.

The CDC, FDA, DHS, NSA and the FBI categorize all that data too. All online “users” are moderated by fake news in order to control your thoughts and actions, in a very unhealthy way. For example, the Covid pandemic was created, controlled and spread via the internet in a far greater way than it ever was physically manifested in the real world. AI made it a sickness of the mind, more than the body, first. This way key to having people think they were “choosing” to wear a mask, social distance, isolate, get vaccinated and visit the hospital (a place to die) if they “caught” the Fauci Flu.

The most evil “technology” ever besieged upon the human race may just be mRNA technology. mRNA is a form of artificial intelligence that tricks your cells by entering them Trojan-horse style and then changing their manufacturing instructions, forever. With mRNA, cells produce toxic protein prions that clog the vascular system, damaging the heart, brain, CNS and immune system all in “one shot” (pun intended).

By the way, mRNA is nothing new; in fact, this form of AI has been worked on by scientists for decades prior to the Wuhan flu ever being released. Robert Malone is a key pioneer of this landmark “experiment,” and he blew the whistle on everything about it this year. He’s on the record talking about how mRNA AI is permanently damaging children. mRNA has a tangled history that Malone has told the world about, and now the truth is getting out, despite the censorship. Now hundreds of millions of people around the world are suffering the health detriment of the deadly mRNA jabs.

Do your own research and don’t use Google. Try the search engine Brave BETA and get more truth news and real information. Bookmark Censored.news to your favorite websites for truth news that’s being censored from the rest of media as you read this.

Now check out this amazing video about the good and bad sides of artificial intelligence:

Sources for this article include:

• Social-hire.com
• Nature.com
• NaturalNews.com
• Censored.news
• NATURAL NEWS