The arrest has sparked a debate on free speech, with many in the tech and political spheres expressing concern over the implications for digital rights. Vindman, however, supported the arrest, suggesting on 𝕏 (formerly Twitter) that there’s an increasing demand for platforms to be accountable for content moderation. He hinted that similar scrutiny could soon be directed at other social media moguls like Musk.

“While Durov holds French citizenship and was arrested for violating French law, this sets a precedent for other social media platforms,” Vindman stated. “There’s a growing intolerance for platforms that allow misinformation and harmful influence, and Musk should be wary.”

While Durov holds French citizenship, is arrested for violating French law, this has broader implications for other social media, including Twitter. There’s a growing intolerance for platforming disinfo & malign influence & a growing appetite for accountability. Musk should be… https://t.co/GyPMquKtKV

— Alexander S. Vindman (@AVindman) August 25, 2024

Musk, on his part, has voiced his concerns over the arrest, labeling the times as “dangerous” due to what he perceives as government overreach into censorship on 𝕏.

Dangerous times https://t.co/FuB6NEWOqr

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 25, 2024

Telegram, boasting over 900 million users, operates similarly to WhatsApp but with features that facilitate communication across large groups, which has unfortunately made it a tool for various criminal and extremist groups, according to The New York Times.

The arrest of Durov has drawn a line in the sand for many. Figures like RFK Jr. and Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski have criticized the French government’s actions as an assault on free speech. Conservative commentator Ian Miles Cheong described the situation as an attempt to control information and stifle dissent.

Despite the backlash, Vindman doubled down on his stance, criticizing “free speech absolutists weirdos” and suggesting that the focus should shift towards more pressing moral issues, indirectly referencing controversies surrounding political figures.

Vindman’s prominence rose during Trump’s impeachment when he, alongside his twin brother Eugene, highlighted concerns over Trump’s communications with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy, focusing on Hunter Biden’s business activities there. His subsequent retirement from the military and continued public commentary keep him in the spotlight of political and media scrutiny.

Editor’s Commentary: This wasn’t just a warning. This was an implied threat from someone who is very closely embedded in the Deep State and the Globalist Elite Cabal. The Vindman brothers are at least shills if not powerful players behind the scenes.

This tells us with nearly zero doubt that the arrest of Durov was not a one-off event. They’re coming after anyone who represents a threat to their hold on power, which means other tech CEOs, journalists (the good ones, not corporate media hacks), and whistleblowers must be extra diligent about their security. That’s not to say they should live in fear. They need to be prayerful, careful, and mindful about everything going forward. Durov’s arrest represents an escalation in the Deep State’s maneuvers for complete control.

Article generated from corporate media reports.

Media Matters published research in November alleging that X had been placing ads from major brands next to pro-Nazi content; however, X later sued Media Matters over the study, claiming it was manipulated and defamatory. Baily sent a letter to Media Matters on Monday asserting that the group may have run afoul of Missouri consumer protection laws if X’s allegations are true and instructing Media Matters to preserve documents related to group’s research on X.

BREAKING: We have reason to believe Media Matters used fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to bully advertisers into pulling out of X, the last platform dedicated to free speech in America.
 
We have launched an investigation. pic.twitter.com/jBUJqdsFYL

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) December 11, 2023

“I am especially concerned that Media Matters’ actions, if proven true, have hampered free speech by targeting an expressly pro free speech social media platform in an attempt to cause it financial harm while defrauding Missourians in the process,” Bailey wrote.

Bailey argued that, if Media Matters did indeed publish false and defamatory information about X, then their efforts to fundraise off their research may have violated Missouri laws against fraud.

Media Matters must maintain documents, including internal correspondences and correspondence with advertisers about withdrawing ads from X, according to the letter. It also must maintain “internal communications regarding [its] policies, strategies or operations related to generating stories or content intended to ‘cancel,’ ‘deplatform,’ ‘demonetize,’ or otherwise interfere with businesses or organizations located in Missouri, or utilized by Missouri residents” and “communications and documents related to soliciting charitable funds from residents of Missouri.”

Apple, Comcast, IBM, Lionsgate, Paramount Global, Sony and Warner Bros. Discovery all withdrew their advertising from X following Media Matters’ report.

“Media Matters accessed accounts that had been active for at least 30 days, bypassing X’s ad filter for new users,” X’s lawsuit says. “Media Matters then exclusively followed a small subset of users consisting entirely of accounts in one of two categories: those known to produce extreme, fringe content, and accounts owned by X’s big-name advertisers. The end result was a feed precision-designed by Media Matters for a single purpose: to produce side-by-side ad/content placements that it could screenshot in an effort to alienate advertisers.”

Media Matters has raised funds from organizations managed by Arabella Advisors, a consultancy that supports a dark money network aligned with left-leaning groups and causes. The Arabella-managed Hopewell Fund contributed $250,000 to Media Matters in 2022 and $150,000 in 2020, while the New Venture Fund has contributed $150,000 to Media Matters since 2018, according to tax documents.

Left-wing billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations also granted the group $500,000 in 2021, according to its grant database.

Bailey’s press office and Media Matters did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request 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 licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Reinstate Alex Jones on this platform?

Vox Populi, Vox Dei.

Reinstate Alex Jones on this platform?

Vox Populi, Vox Dei.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 9, 2023

The last phrase is Latin for “the voice of the people is the voice of God.”

It’s a certainty that Jones will be reinstated, and not because the people vote for it. They will do so; as of this writing reinstating Jones is at 72%. But Musk never asks a question without knowing the answer first. For example, he supposedly left it up to a vote of the people whether or not he would step down as CEO of Twitter. They voted in favor of it. What we didn’t know until AFTER the vote was the he’d been talking to Linda Yaccarino about taking over as CEO before he posted his survey.

Either way, it appears that Alex Jones will once again be on Twitter spreading truth and triggering globalists.

Robbie Starbuck posted some quick facts about the company and the heinous acts they promote against children. As he noted on Twitter:

Walmart has pulled all advertising from X. We’re witnessing a full scale hit job to blackmail @elonmusk. Now’s a good time for everyone to share and get familiar with what these companies support. Did you know Walmart gives big $ to groups supporting sex changes for kids? Oh and @Walmart has a perfect corporate equality index (CEI) score which requires you to support all gender transitions.

Additionally, the Walton family that became billionaires off of Walmart have helped fund drag shows for kids. I bet a lot of red state Walmart shoppers aren’t aware of that. It’s a bold move to attack the free speech platform your top customer demographic uses right before Christmas. Time to spread the word!

Walmart has pulled all advertising from X. We’re witnessing a full scale hit job to blackmail @elonmusk. Now’s a good time for everyone to share and get familiar with what these companies support. Did you know Walmart gives big $ to groups supporting sex changes for kids? Oh and… pic.twitter.com/ZHqfy7haIB

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) December 1, 2023

Once again, freedom-loving patriots need to make some hard choices. Are we willing to support companies that oppose the God-given freedoms we strive to protect? I haven’t shopped at Walmart in over a decade but if I could boycott them even more, I would.

People are allowed to be disgusting as long as they’re not encouraging direct harm. Saying, “from the river to the sea,” is abominable but it’s very different from someone saying, “let’s kill this Jew… here’s his address.”

This is a business move. His platform is being threatened because “woke” companies are being pressured by radical leftist groups to withdraw advertising. I get it and I’m not in his shoes so I don’t know the financial repercussions he’s facing. I just wish he would continue to be a defender of free speech by choice rather than an on-again, off-again censor. Here’s the report by Cindy Harper…

(Reclaim The Net)—Elon Musk has announced a new change in policy to X. On Friday, his announcement established that the use of terms such as “decolonization” and “from the river to the sea”— phrases commonly thrown around by the pro-Palestine movement — would invite suspension on the platform as they imply genocide. The change came after pressure from major corporate advertisers.

While these expressions have emerged as rallying cries in support of Palestinians, numerous individuals and groups, including supporters of Israel, Jewish advocacy teams, and others, perceive these phrases as eliminatory and anti-Semitic rhetoric that advocates the obliteration of the Jewish state and the Jewish people.

Representative Rashida Tlaib faced official censure from the House of Representatives in part due to her endorsement of the phrase “from the river to the sea,” and the phrase was chosen by Hamas as a slogan for the designated terror group’s 2017 revised charter.

Musk, who once described himself as a “free speech absolutist” stated that phrases such as this are tantamount to “extreme violence.”

He added: “At risk of stating the obvious, anyone advocating the genocide of *any* group will be suspended from this platform.”

X has been criticized for not censoring enough speech regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict, with companies such as Disney, Apple, IBM, and Lionsgate, pulling advertising from the platform.

X has been accused of both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and it remains uncertain if the platform’s users will indeed be suspended for using the contested phrases.

Yaccarino, in her conversation with the Financial Times, appeared initially to champion the concept of free speech, only to subsequently divert the discussion towards other organizational aspects. This oscillation between defending free speech and avoiding the subject has drawn scrutiny, raising questions about the possible politicization of free speech and the role of tech giants in shaping public discourse.

“How is freedom of speech politicized?,” Yaccarino asked during the interview. “It is one of the foundational core values of what this country was formed on, so I don’t really understand how that’s a political issue. I think that would be something everyone, no matter what your opinions are, would agree on.”

But Yaccarino also during the interview repeated the contentious phrase “freedom of speech, not reach,” something that she has already been widely criticized for, as it suggests that X will have control over which voices are heard and which are not.

Yaccarino also repeated the equally contentions idea of X restricting what is “lawful but awful” speech and the interview reveals that X is “successfully” restricting such speech. Who is to decide what constitutes “awful?”

Yaccarino’s conflicting statements have come amidst rising debates over censorship and the rights of individuals to express their viewpoints openly.

Elon Musk, the tech magnate known for his eclectic political affiliations, previously vocalized support for Democrats but has been seen mingling with prominent Republicans like Tucker Carlson lately. The apparent change in Musk’s affiliations has heightened discussions around whether freedom of speech is increasingly becoming a politicized concept, a question Yaccarino claims she struggles to process.

When questioned about the establishment of a “content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints,” a proposal made by Musk during his initial tenure, Yaccarino responded with unfamiliarity, stating, “That is news to me. You’re the first person that mentioned that.”

This controversy emerged shortly after Yaccarino’s reputedly fruitful with ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt. The ADL has been calling for censorship on the platform and Elon Musk has threatened to sue the ADL for causing what he says is a drop in 60% of its advertising revenue after the ADL asked advertisers to suspend advertising on the platform.

Both Yaccarino and Greenblatt have publicly described their meeting as productive. Yaccarino clarifies, “The issue that’s being debated is not about supporting ADL’s mission to fight antisemitism. We’re all in on fighting antisemitism. The issue is about the ADL misrepresenting or not addressing the progress that we’ve made in our ongoing efforts.”

In anticipation of the upcoming 2024 US presidential election, Yaccarino is intensifying efforts to guard against manipulation and the prominence of inauthentic accounts, whilst maintaining stringent surveillance of the platform to thwart emerging threats.

The #DilleyMemeTeam is proud to present the one and only @KariLake as MAGA WOMAN!! pic.twitter.com/DQ2naXeQ43

— Ramble_Rants (@ramble_rants) September 21, 2023

… but not by Lynda Carter, the actress who portrayed the superhero in the 1970s.

Wonder Woman represents kindness, empathy, and pursuit of truth and justice. It is a delusion to believe Kari Lake could fill those boots, unless she’s just dropping by a Spirit Halloween store. pic.twitter.com/EWVc9BJD6p

— Lynda Carter (@RealLyndaCarter) September 21, 2023

Carter posted, “Wonder Woman represents kindness, empathy, and pursuit of truth and justice. It is a delusion to believe Kari Lake could fill those boots, unless she’s just dropping by a Spirit Halloween store.”

It was a bitter and inaccurate response, especially considering that Lake has been pursuing truth and justice with both kindness and empathy since before she even ventured into politics. But Carter has built a reputation in recent years of latching onto every woke viewpoint she can attach herself to, so it’s no surprise she would attack Lake over a meme.

Did Lake lash out? No. She dropped one of the classiest replies I’ve ever seen from someone who was just insulted by a former celebrity.

Hello @RealLyndaCarter,

What an incredible surprise to see that you responded to this light-hearted Meme that somebody made today.

I have nothing but the utmost gratitude for you. I loved the role you played as Wonder Woman. As a child in the 70s, I enjoyed EVERY single episode I had a chance to watch.

And when I went to deliver my beautiful babies nearly 2 decades ago, I wore a Wonder Woman T-shirt (Becoming a mother makes you feel like a Super Hero!)

I wish you nothing but love and I believe that we both America and hope to bring our country together under the US Constitution and the freedoms and liberties our Founding Fathers worked into that amazing document.

May God Bless You and I pray that one day I get to meet you

p.s. I don’t plan on dressing-up for Halloween this year. I’m going to be too busy trying to save America.

Hello @RealLyndaCarter,

What an incredible surprise to see that you responded to this light-hearted Meme that somebody made today.

I have nothing but the utmost gratitude for you. I loved the role you played as Wonder Woman. As a child in the 70s, I enjoyed EVERY single… https://t.co/rRKlLxnSVE

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) September 22, 2023

As much as I’d love to see Kari Lake intellectually dismantle the former Hollywood star, this display of class achieved a far better result. They say in politics you should never punch down. This is the way.

I’m going with the former, not because I necessarily like or trust Musk but because he’s a smart guy who leans conspiratorial when appropriate. For Pizzagate, it’s definitely appropriate to keep an open mind. Whether someone is a full-blown believer in the theory, an open-minded skeptic who won’t dismiss something just because it’s outrageous, or anywhere in between, the Pizzagate theory has yielded fruit over the years that point to a high likelihood that at least some of it is true. But this isn’t the time to explore Pizzagate theories.

Back to Musk and his Tweet…

Dominoes Effect pic.twitter.com/3HYrvDE1pu

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 6, 2023

The meme he posted follows the progression of Barack Obama’s political career. Many believe it started because Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jack Ryan was forced to drop out when it was revealed that he had asked his former wife, actress Jeri Ryan, to engage in kinky sex in public. That led to Obama’s victory in the Senate before becoming President.

All of this was prompted by the last domino in Musk’s meme, the allegations by former Obama-lover Larry Sinclair. And in case anyone misconstrued his use of the word “Dominoes” as a reference to the game, he threw in a pizza emoji for effect.

“Dominoes” is a pedophile code that was referenced in emails to John Podesta. So even if Musk was trolling, we can assume that he has explored the theory. Again, I do not believe he is trolling anyone other than Obama.

Conspiracy theorist Liz Crokin explained:

BOOM: Elon Musk trolls Barack Obama with pedophile codes found in the Podesta E-mails!

Musk wrote “Dominoes Effect” with a pizza emoji in a post with a meme about Obama’s alleged drug-fueled gay orgy. “Dominos” and “pizza” are code words found in the Podesta E-mails. “Dominos” is believed to be a code word referencing a sex act, and the word pizza is a pedophile code word commonly used by child sex predators. Also, pizza emojis are also used by child sex predators as pedophile code as confirmed by the Wall Street Journal earlier this year.

On Dec. 12, 2015, creepily billionaire “philanthropist” Herb Sandler sent an e-mail with the subject “cheese” to John and Mary Podesta that concluded with this: “Ps. Do you think I’d do better playing dominos on cheese or pasta?”

On May 14, 2009, Fred Burton, the chief security officer at Stratfor, sent an e-mail to Don Kuykendall with others cc’d, released via Wikileaks’ Global Intelligence files. The e-mail read: “I think Obama spent about $65,000 of the tax-payers money flying in pizza/dogs from Chicago for a private party at the White House not long ago, assume we are using the same channels?”

Looks like Elon has gone down the Pizzagate rabbit-hole!

We’re getting closer.

BOOM: Elon Musk trolls Barack Obama with pedophile codes found in the Podesta E-mails!

Musk wrote “Dominoes Effect” with a pizza emoji in a post with a meme about Obama’s alleged drug-fueled gay orgy. “Dominos” and “pizza” are code words found in the Podesta E-mails. “Dominos”… https://t.co/UJMFp4iNrV pic.twitter.com/Y69xWwQIK4

— LIZ CROKIN (@LizCrokin) September 7, 2023

It’s always hard to tell if we’re getting through to the people or if it’s all just a false positive. The sheep are often the hardest to read. But if people like Musk get on board, it’s a step closer to getting the masses to wake up.

But the censorship industrial complex builds algorithms, not bombers. The players aren’t Raytheon and Boeing, but social media companies, tech startups, and universities and their institutes. The foes to be dominated are American citizens whose opinions diverge from government narratives on issues ranging from COVID-19 responses to electoral fraud to transgenderism.

When first exposed a few months ago, many of the actors and their media defenders perversely claimed that they, as private entities, were acting out of concern for “democracy” and exercising their own First Amendment rights.

However, the records and correspondence of an advisory committee to an obscure government agency tell a different story. The Functional Government Initiative (FGI) has obtained through a public records request documents of the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee of the U.S. Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The committee was composed of academics and tech company officials working with government personnel in a much closer relationship than either they or the media want to admit. Several advisory committee members who appear throughout the documents as quasi-federal actors are among those loudly protesting that they were private actors when censoring lawful American speech (e.g., Kate Starbird, Vijaya Gadde, Alex Stamos).

But the advisory committee members met often and worked so closely with their government handlers that the federal liaison to the committee regularly offered members his personal cell phone and even reminded them to use the committee’s Slack channel. Your average concerned citizen doesn’t have a Homeland Security bureaucrat on speed dial.

What were they working on? CISA’s “Mis-, Dis-, and Mal-information” (MDM) subcommittee discussed Orwellian “social listening” and “monitoring,” and considered the government’s best censorship “success metrics.” Who was to be censored? CISA was formed in response to misinformation campaigns from foreign actors, but it evolved toward domestic “threats.” Meeting notes record that Suzanne Spaulding of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said they shouldn’t “solely focus on addressing foreign threats … [but] to emphasize that domestic threats remain and while attribution is sometimes unclear, CISA should be sensitive to domestic distinctions, but cannot focus too heavily on such limitations.” So CISA should combat “high-volume disinformation purveyors before the purveyor is attributed to a domestic or foreign threat” and not worry so much about First Amendment niceties.

More telling is the group’s attitude toward what it called “mal-information” – typically information that is true, but contrary to the preferred narratives of the censor. Dr. Starbird wrote in an email, “Unfortunately current public discourse (in part a result of information operations) seems to accept malinformation as ‘speech’ and within democratic norms …” Therein lies a dilemma for the censors, as Starbird wrote: “So, do we bend into a pretzel to counter bad faith efforts to undermine CISA’s mission? Or do we put down roots and own the ground that says this tactic is part of the suite of techniques used to undermine democracy?”

It is chilling that there is no consideration of whether the information is true or of the public’s right to know it. “Democracy” in this formulation is whatever maintains the government’s narrative.

Accordingly, the group discussed recommendations for countering “dangerously inaccurate health advice.” It contemplated the roles of the FBI and Homeland Security in addressing “domestic threats,” and a CISA staffer felt the need to remind the subcommittee “of CISA’s limitations in countering politically charged narratives.”

CISA couldn’t censor all the people the advisors wanted. And it could face the same outrage that greeted President Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board, led by singing censor Nina Jankowicz. Americans didn’t want that body deciding what they could say, and Biden shut it down within three weeks. CISA’s advisers were acutely aware their work could be conflated with that of the DGB, and even considered changing the name of the MDM subcommittee. Dr. Starbird noted in an email that she’d “removed ‘monitoring’ from just about every place where it appeared” and made “other defensive word changes/deletions.” Similarly, Twitter’s Vijaya Gadde “cautioned the group against pursuing any social listening recommendations” for the time being.

The group also sought cover from outside and inside the government. They spent an inordinate amount of time talking about “socializing” the committee and its work – something DGB apparently hadn’t done. And like a partisan campaign, they looked for natural allies. Meeting notes record that they sought to “identify a point of contact from a progressive civil rights and civil liberties angle to recruit as a [subject matter expert].”

A government committee that seeks partisan allies, obfuscates its purpose, and can’t even be honest about the nature of its members’ participation is going to sort out online truth for Americans? Welcome to the Censorship Industrial Complex.

Here’s the interview on Rumble for those who don’t want to watch on Twitter.

The explosive interview has over 210 million views on Twitter alone as of this article being published. That exceeded even the most aggressive expectations and adds more supporting evidence to the notion that Americans are turning off network television and cable news.

Ep. 19 Debate Night with Donald J Trump pic.twitter.com/ayPfII48CO

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 24, 2023

To be clear, impressions do not translate into full video views, but even if only 10% of the people who had the video in their feed watched all or part of it, that’s still over 20 million. That also doesn’t count the views on the various other online channels that published it.

By comparison, Carlson’s previous episode on Twitter yielded just under 10 million views.