Authored by Jesse Smith via TruthUnmuted.org,

The gauntlet has been cast by the media-censorship complex. Just prior to this year’s annual globalist confab in Davos, the World Economic Forum (WEF) announced that misinformation and disinformation are currently the greatest threats to humanity, with the release of its Global Risks Report 2024.

From a list of 34 risks, the WEF report identifies mis- and disinformation as the top threats to global stability over the next two years and the fifth most dangerous threats over the next 10 years. Of particular concern is false information that could affect elections, democratic processes, and social cohesion in various countries worldwide, as well as sentiment contradicting the “consensus” narrative about climate change.

Echoing these same concerns, the United Nations (UN), its strategic partner in advancing the climate-focused 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, has previously stated much of the same.

In Information Integrity on Digital Platforms, a June 2023 UN policy brief recommending a code of conduct for digital platforms, Secretary-General António Guterres stated:

The ability to dissem­inate large-scale disinformation to undermine scientifically established facts poses an exis­tential risk to humanity (A/75/982, para. 26) and endangers democratic institutions and funda­mental human rights. These risks have further in­tensified because of rapid advancements in tech­nology, such as generative artificial intelligence. Across the world, the United Nations is monitor­ing how mis- and disinformation and hate speech can threaten progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. It has become clear that business as usual is not an option.”

All the UN’s 2030 Agenda plans, activities, and expenditures are based on the belief that we face an existential climate crisis caused by human activity and dangerous greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). This conviction is clearly outlined in a fact sheet produced by Verified, a joint initiative of the United Nations and Purpose, launched in 2020 to respond to mis- and disinformation about “intersecting crises like COVID-19 and climate change.” The document states unequivocally that:

1. Climate change is happening.

2. Climate change is caused by human activity.

3. Scientists agree that humans are responsible for climate change.

4. Every fraction of a degree of warming matters.

5. The climate is changing faster than humans, plants, and animals can adapt.

6. Climate change is a major threat to people’s health.

7. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, not a clean source of energy.

8. Clean energy technologies produce far less carbon pollution than fossil fuels.

9. Entire countries already rely 100 percent on renewable electricity.

10. Renewable energy will soon be the world’s top source of electricity.

11. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels.

12. Solar panels and wind turbines make good use of land.

13. The transition to clean energy will create millions of jobs.

By stating that disinformation is undermining these supposed scientific facts, Guterres rests his entire argument on the premise that each of the above statements is absolutely, indisputably, and undeniably true. Like Guterres, all who espouse this climate narrative have no tolerance for any opinion, theory, or evidence that runs contrary to this dogged notion.

Verified is backed by powerful globalist NGOs including the Rockefeller Foundation and Omidyar Network. It has an extensive list of major media collaborators such as Al Jazeera, Clear Channel, Facebook, Reddit, Spotify, TikTok, and Twitter. Melissa Fleming, Verified co-founder and current UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, has made it known that social media is a huge threat to climate science and other UN initiatives and is particularly bothered by Twitter/X for allowing rampant disinformation.

It is clear from these reports that any dissent from the established climate narrative threatens the advancement of the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Now, urgent calls to extinguish these threats have been issued so they can proceed with transforming the world unimpeded.

While many of the issues expressed in the Information Integrity report are legitimate and concerning, the UN via the World Health Organization (WHO) participates in disinformation by continuing to promote COVID-19 vaccines as safe and effective, when they have largely been proven to be ineffective and cause much harm. Their stance regarding climate change could also qualify as disinformation to the thousands of scientists who oppose this view but are being discredited as mere conspiracy theorists.

The following statement from the report underscores their frustration with “climate deniers” and the platforms they use to oppose the UN’s agenda:

…mis- and disinformation about the cli­mate emergency are delaying urgently needed action to ensure a liveable future for the planet. Climate mis- and disinformation can be under­stood as false or misleading content that un­dercuts the scientifically agreed basis for the existence of human-induced climate change, its causes and impacts. Coordinated campaigns are seeking to deny, minimize or distract from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific consensus and derail urgent action to meet the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement. A small but vocal minority of climate science de­nialists continue to reject the consensus po­sition and command an outsized presence on some digital platforms.”
(p. 12, emphasis added)

Globalists want conformity regarding climate change and will go to extreme lengths to marginalize, censor, and discredit dissenters. They talk a good game about enforcing universal freedom of expression, but on climate and other issues vital to their agenda, free speech is not tolerated. Though they readily acknowledge that controlling information may lead to greater levels of authoritarianism, surveillance, censorship, and the erosion of human rights, it seems they are willing to overlook these offenses to protect their precious climate agenda.

If they can successfully shut down debate about climate change, then soon any topic that threatens their aims will be off limits. The UN deems itself a protector of human rights but plays a major role in the media-censorship complex. Its attempts at crushing opposition to the climate narrative betrays their mission and reveals authoritarian tendencies.

COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE OR ADVOCATING SUPPRESSION?

A recently released report issued by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) claims that new forms of climate denial have emerged. These new arguments don’t deny that the climate is changing and is caused by human activity, but instead contend that:

• The impacts of global warming are beneficial or harmless.

• Climate solutions won’t work.

• Climate science and the climate movement are unreliable.

The basis for their report stems from use of “an AI based model called CARDS,” short for Computer-Assisted Recognition of Climate Change Denial and Skepticism. CARDS is designed to identify and categorize climate denialist claims in text. The researchers used CARDS to analyze YouTube video transcripts from 96 mostly right-wing, conservative leaning channels including prominent ones like BlazeTV, Jordan Peterson, and the Heartland Institute.

CCDH has a big gripe with social media companies they believe are not doing enough to stem the tide of rising climate denial. They want to eliminate the ability for any “climate denier” spreading “conspiracy theory statements” to financially benefit from their content, as evidenced in the following statements:

To support the global efforts to avert climate disaster, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and X should all demonetize and de-amplify New Denial content. Demonetizing climate denial removes the economic incentives underpinning its creation and protects advertisers from bankrolling harmful content. Moreover, de-amplifying climate denial limits its reach and visibility, allowing time for fact-checking and other protective measures to be applied where content is clearly contrary to the well-established scientific consensus on climate change”
p. 34; emphasis added

CCDH polling on social media usage tested respondents’ agreement with conspiracy theory statements, including the statement: “Humans are not the main cause of global temperature increases.” CCDH found that 43% of adults and 56% of teenagers who report high activity on social media expressed agreement with that statement. This link between social media usage and conspiracist belief illustrates why urgent action is needed to prioritize information integrity on digital platforms in climate policymaking”
p. 34; emphasis added

Their demonetization and censorship recommendations come even after admitting that the CARDS model is only up to 78% accurate, could not perform any fact checks on the claims made in the transcripts, and that lack of punctuation caused results to be skewed.

Image: The New Climate Denial Report, Page 40

The CCDH is a sketchy, UK-based, advocacy group that has produced various reports inciting censorship against those they disagree with. Their efforts against “anti-vaxxers” culminated in several reports that led to the deplatforming, demonetizing, and discrediting of many individuals and organizations exposing pandemic-related fraud and COVID-19 vaccine falsehoods.

CCDH’s The New Climate Denial report has been promoted through mainstream outlets like CNN, MSN, Yahoo, and USA Today. It could impact the cited individuals and organizations the same way it affected those targeted in its Disinformation Dozen reports a few years ago. Though their stated mission is to “protect human rights and civil liberties online,” they practice the opposite by advocating the revocation of these rights for climate and vaccine narrative challengers.

HOW THE MEDIA-CENSORSHIP COMPLEX PLANS TO TACKLE CLIMATE DISSENT

Two things are very clear from the recent reports issued by the WEF, UN, and CCDH. One, is that climate skepticism is on the rise. The second, is that they are threatened by the very existence of those who dare to refute their narrative. Many strategies to stem the tide of climate cynicism have already been employed with new ones currently being tested.

If one dares to publicly question the science regarding climate change, one or more of the following tactics may be used to impede the effort:

• Awareness Campaigns

• Artificial Intelligence

• Censorship

• Civic Listening

• Content moderation

• Demonetization and Financial censorship

• Deplatforming

• Digital armies

• Education

• Fact checking

• Media and information literacy

• Prebunking/psychological inoculation

• Shadowbanning

• Trusted Messengers

• Text mining / Automated text analysis

• Whole-of-society approach

In addition to Verified and CCDH, other organizations utilizing these methods to silence opposers include:

• Climate Feedback

• Covering Climate Now

• European Media and Information Fund

• FactCheck.org

• Global Disinformation Index (GDI)

• International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) (Poynter Institute)

• Media Wise (Poynter Institute)

• Newsguard

• PolitiFact (Poynter Institute)

• Reuters

Each of these organizations are fueled and funded by many of the entities responsible for advancing the climate agenda, especially as it relates to the UN SDGs. This globalized amalgamation of media watchdogs, fact checkers, and disinformation regulators is powered by billion-dollar corporations, democratic and undemocratic governments, influential foundations, and powerful NGOs. The list includes The White House, U.S. State Department, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), The National Science Foundation, United Nations, Poynter Institute, National Endowment for Democracy, Open Society Foundations, Omidyar Network, Rockefeller Foundation, Rockefeller Family Fund, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and many more.

A plethora of legacy and social media companies also utilize the services provided by these organizations. A small sampling includes Associated Press, NPR, NBC News, Newsweek, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Nation, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, WhatsApp, Twitch, and LinkedIn. A look at Covering Climate Now’s list of partners provides an even broader view of the media’s enforcement of the climate agenda.

As if governments, corporations, and organizations weren’t enough, universities such as Columbia, Harvard, Oxford, and University of Southern California also perpetuate the climate propaganda by training journalists in their institutions.

By treating climate change as a national security threat, the U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence agencies have also been enlisted in the fight against mis- and disinformation.

In addition, individuals within both the left and right wings of the two-party paradigm collude to curtail free speech. It is a grave mistake to believe that calls for censorship from either side of the political spectrum are beneficial. They are both integral to perpetuating the media-censorship complex.

WHY HAS CLIMATE SCIENCE BECOME NONDEBATABLE?

If it wasn’t apparent before, it should now be crystal clear that there is a vast empire united against those questioning the climate narrative. They are determined to perpetuate the myth that there is universal consensus on the facts.

The truth is there is no real consensus on climate science. The UN and its network of public-private partnerships (PPP) just make it seem that way. In this regard, the UN climate stance is akin to Anthony Fauci’s claim that questioning him was like questioning science itself. Honest and open debate on the issue should be continued by allowing opponents opportunities to present their case without fear of censorship, harassment, exclusion, or cancellation. Instead, there is constant reinforcement of a fictional consensus while divergent opinions are labeled as dangerous conspiracies.

Climate consensus figures as high as 97 and even 99.9 percent have been touted by former US Presidents, researchers, and media outlets in the past. But is this claim true? If it were, then why would there be so much effort to silence a mere one to three percent who deviate from the scientific echo chamber? Would all these battles be worth the time, energy, and money being spent on just a few dissidents, as they claim?

Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://t.co/4lEEBYtVqf

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 16, 2013

Much of what qualifies as climate research is funded by institutions that have already bought into the doomsday mantra of impending man-made disaster. The industry is rigged to favor researchers who set out to prove “official” claims. Funding and publication are often withheld from those who do not toe this line. As a result, statistics are skewed to make it seem like there is universal consensus.

Past research has demonstrated claims of scientific consensus on climate change to be fraudulent. In a paper published in 2023, a team of researchers disproved the conclusions reached in a 2021 study claiming there was greater than 99% consensus on climate science in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

The claims were refuted by demonstrating that studies expressing neutral opinions were misclassified and papers communicating skepticism were ignored. This clear case of academic malfeasance is not the only example where scientists used falsified research and conspired to silence those contradicting the alleged consensus. Even if the 99% consensus assertions were valid, the notion of consensus-as-truth does not pass the test for authentic scientific validation. The majority can still be wrong.

A recent article posted by The Good Men Project, which “exposed” the climate deniers behind the recent farmer protests in Europe, proclaimed that “Scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is equivalent to that on evolution.” This statement came in response to a request from protest organizer James Melville for a national debate on climate and net zero policies. Never mind that evolution is not a proven fact. Equating climate change to evolution shows it is also unproven and can be argued against. Again, the majority can still be wrong!

Remember when Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson made claims that their COVID vaccines were all well over 90% effective in stopping transmission? As evidenced in the following video, those proclamations did not hold up very well, did they?

"The Vaccine is 100% Safe and Effective"

???? ... ???? pic.twitter.com/O1RbSvt2EY

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) September 25, 2023

A massive army has been assembled to ensure that rival claims will not see the light of day for long. But why is it that the powers that be would rather falsify research, smear dissenters, and spend billions of dollars to silence critics rather than continuing to debate the issues?

An article written by Gregory Whitstone, Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition, presents a valid argument for continued scientific debate on climate change, stating:

You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. You may also have heard that those who don’t buy into the climate-apocalypse mantra are science-deniers. The truth is that a whole lot more than 3% of scientists are skeptical of the party line on climate. A whole lot more…

There are some scientific truths that are quantifiable and easily proven, and with which, I am confident, at least 97% of scientists agree. Here are two:

• Carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing in recent years.

• Temperatures, as measured by thermometers and satellites, have been generally increasing in fits and starts for more than 150 years.

What is impossible to quantify is the actual percentage of warming that is attributable to increased anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2. There is no scientific evidence or method that can determine how much of the warming we’ve had since 1900 that was directly caused by us.

We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces, which did not cease to operate at the beginning of the 20th century.

The claim that most modern warming is attributable to human activities is scientifically insupportable. The truth is that we do not know. We need to be able to separate what we do know from that which is only conjecture.

How can greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 be the sole agent causing rising temperatures when it is an essential element for all life forms? Given the growing world population, it seems that greater levels of CO2would lead to greater benefits. Plants need CO2 to thrive, yet the fight against it is accelerating.

Scientists have now stated that cow burps and farts and even human breathing are bad for the environment because they contribute to the emission of methane and nitrous oxide, both believed to contribute to global warming. This is beyond absurd!

We are on the slippery slope to a dystopian nightmare if the trend toward censorship and marginalization continues. There is no good reason why continued debate featuring those on all sides of the issue should not be occurring, unless of course there are other reasons for ramming this fear-based agenda down our throats.

We’ll examine the other reasons in Part 2 of this series.

Authored by Conor Gallagher via Naked Capitalism,

Philip K. Dick’s 1956 novella The Minority Report created “precrime,” the clairvoyant foreknowledge of criminal activity as forecast by mutant “precogs.” The book was a dystopian nightmare, but a 2015 Fox television series transforms the story into one in which a precog works with a cop and shows that data is actually effective at predicting future crime.

Canada is trying to enact a precrime law along the lines of the 2015 show, but it is being panned about as much as the television series. Ottawa’s online harms bill includes a provision to impose house arrest on someone who is feared to commit a hate crime in the future. From The Globe and Mail:

The person could be made to wear an electronic tag, if the attorney-general requests it, or ordered by a judge to remain at home, the bill says. Mr. Virani, who is Attorney-General as well as Justice Minister, said it is important that any peace bond be “calibrated carefully,” saying it would have to meet a high threshold to apply.

But he said the new power, which would require the attorney-general’s approval as well as a judge’s, could prove “very, very important” to restrain the behaviour of someone with a track record of hateful behaviour who may be targeting certain people or groups…

People found guilty of posting hate speech could have to pay victims up to $20,000 in compensation. But experts including internet law professor Michael Geist have said even a threat of a civil complaint – with a lower burden of proof than a court of law – and a fine could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

While this is a dangerous step in Canada, I also wonder if this is where burgeoning “anti-hate” programs across the US are headed. The Canadian bill would also allow “people to file complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission over what they perceive as hate speech online – including, for example, off-colour jokes by comedians.”

There are now programs in multiple US states to do just that –  encourage people to snitch on anyone doing anything perceived as “hateful.”

The 2021 federal COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act began to dole out money to states to help them respond to hate incidents. Oregon now has its Bias Response Hotline to track “bias incidents.”

In December of 2022, New York launched its Hate and Bias Prevention Unit. Maryland, too, has its system – its hate incidents examples include “offensive jokes” and “malicious complaints of smell or noise.”

Maryland also has its Emmett Till Alert System that sends out three levels of alerts for specific acts of hate. For now, they only go to black lawmakers, civil rights activists, the media and other approved outlets, but expansion to the general populace is under consideration.

California vs. Hate, a multilingual statewide hotline and website that encourages people to report all acts of “hate,” is coming up on its one-year anniversary, reportedly receiving a mere 823 calls from 79% of California’s 58 counties during its first nine months of operation. It looks like the program is rolling out even more social media graphics in a bid to get more reports:

A key question is why states like California are rushing to expand the definition of hate. Officials in the Golden State like Governor Gavin Newsom claimed it was because of a rise in reported hate crimes – up 33 percent from 2020 to 2021. A deeper look at the data, however, shows that Newsom is guilty of cherry picking. From Public:

But convictions of hate crimes have been flat. In 2012 there were 107 hate crime convictions in California. In 2021, there were 109, according to the same data. It’s possible that hate crimes really did rise by 80%, and juries decided not to give prosecutors convictions. …But it’s also possible that convictions stayed the same because there was no increase in prosecutable hate crimes. And it may be that Californian prosecutors simply labeled more crimes as “hate” crimes because they were primed to do so by the media’s 700% – 1,000% increased focus on racism between 2011 and 2020.

I’m likely omitting other states with similar programs, but it’s clear that there is a push across the country. No doubt, these efforts to eliminate hate also have other benefits for the ruling class.

In a state like California or New York, there is the added bonus that the program ends up being a massive giveaway to a key part of the Democratic base – the nonprofit industrial complex that is helping to bring this system into existence.

These programs also help spread fear that hate is around every corner, which could allow for an erosion of rights under the guise of eradicating “hate.”

There’s also the issue of who is providing the definitions for hate that go beyond the laws already on the books for hate crimes. The California Senate Public Safety Committee analysis stated the following about the CA vs. Hate program:

A hate incident is an action or behavior motivated by hate but legally protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

That leads to the question of why the state is encouraging people to report and is collecting information on legally protected “behavior.” And where does the expanded definition come from? The committee stated the following:

Define hate incidents with language provided by the Anti-Defamation League.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is a non-governmental organization based in the US, whose stated mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.”

But there’s a little more to it than that. In May 2022, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, announced that, “Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.” He also labeled groups that want equal rights for Palestinians in Israel as “extremists” and likened Israel critics to white supremacists. More from Boston Review:

…the ADL has consistently sought to undermine the left, leveling a charge akin to dual loyalty: that the American left’s calls for redistribution of power, its solidarity with global movements, and its prioritization of people over states threaten the very concept of the state. Indeed the ADL, in addition to its stated mission of shoring up U.S. support for Israel, is deeply loyal to the U.S. state. The second is that the ADL has waged a long, vigorous, and successful campaign, alongside AIPAC, specifically to characterize Arab American political organizing as dual loyalty.

Maybe this isn’t an organization that should be defining hate for US governments. We have the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) for that.

In March South Dakota became the 35th state to codify the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism. The law requires the consideration of the definition of antisemitism when investigating unfair or discriminatory practices.That definition includes the traditional elements of antisemitism but also inserts elements that could move the state of Israel under antisemitic protections. Consider the following from the IHRA’s definition:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

A 2022 UK study published in Springer Nature found the following about the IHRA’s definition:

…pro-Israel activists can and have mobilised the IHRA document for political goals unrelated to tackling antisemitism, notably to stigmatise and silence critics of the Israeli government. This causes widespread self-censorship, has an adverse impact on freedom of speech, and impedes action against the unjust treatment of Palestinians. We also identify intrinsic problems in the way the definition refers to criticism of Israel similar ‘to that leveled against any other country’, ambiguous wording about ‘the power of Jews as a collective’, lack of clarity as to the Jewish people’s ‘right to self-determination’, and its denial of obvious racism.

Despite that effect, and despite the 2021 Hate Crimes Act, which provided more money and more programs to collect data on all “hate incidents,” there are still complaints that it all still isn’t enough because they don’t prevent “hate” but only address what takes place afterwards. To fix that, a precrime system will be necessary.

***

Predictive policing – which uses computer systems to help direct the deployment of police to crime hotspots – has been widely discredited as biased and worthless.

The Markup found that predictive policing does not work – at all. It took a look at efforts by Geolitica, known as PredPol until a 2021 rebrand, and its software that ingests data from crime incident reports and produces daily predictions on where and when crimes are most likely to occur. From The Markup:

We examined 23,631 predictions generated by Geolitica between Feb. 25 to Dec. 18, 2018 for the Plainfield Police Department (PD). Each prediction we analyzed from the company’s algorithm indicated that one type of crime was likely to occur in a location not patrolled by Plainfield PD. In the end, the success rate was less than half a percent.

It is also biased, despite efforts to make it less so. MIT Technology Review points out:

…many developers of predictive policing tools say that they have started using victim reports to get a more accurate picture of crime rates in different neighborhoods. In theory, victim reports should be less biased because they aren’t affected by police prejudice or feedback loops.

But a University of Texas study found this method still led to significant errors:

 For example, in a district where few crimes were reported, the tool predicted around 20% of the actual hot spots—locations with a high rate of crime. On the other hand, in a district with a high number of reports, the tool predicted 20% more hot spots than there really were.

While these predictive policing spatial models prove biased, what if to counter those criticisms you begin to roll out programs to “protect” minorities by preventing hate crimes? Could an approach that treats each individual as a collection of data points (including any “hate incidents”) be predictive of a future hate crime?

Efforts to do just that date back to at least the early 1970s. When UCLA tried to set up a center for the study of violence.The Center for the Long-Term Study of Life-Threatening Behavior was intended to re-think human functioning itself in terms of data and was going to compile behavioral data to understand crimes that were “in formation.”

The center never officially opened its doors, however, as it got caught in the backlash against psychosurgery when groups like the Black Panthers and Nader’s Raiders protested against it.

But the rethink of humans as a collection of data points that can predict crimes in formation never really went away, and is now inching closer to becoming a reality. What is Canada’s proposed law other than a method to use data to measure “dangerousness” and preemptively punish suspects?

As MIT Technology Review pointed out above, there are efforts underway to use victim reports to counteract bias, but the University of Texas study was still trying to use them to predict where a crime might occur and not who might commit the crime.

I should point out that it’s unclear what states are doing with all the info collected from reported hate incidents, particularly the details on the alleged perpetrators. I reached out to the California Civil Rights Division weeks ago to get an answer but have yet to receive a response.

There is a clear line of thinking that these hate incidents can be predictive of future crime, however. That’s what the Canadian bill claims. Back in 2019 NYU researchers claimed to use AI to show that “online hate” could be predictive of offline violence. Could all these efforts to gather data on hate “incidents” be laying the groundwork for precrime detention along the lines of what Canada is attempting?

For those who would like to see the adoption of a precrime system, one of the benefits of focusing on individuals and hate crimes is that it could help diffuse the bias criticism of predictive policing from groups typically suspicious of increased law enforcement powers. Indeed, many of the groups helping to implement the hate incident hotlines in US states are nonprofits focused on minority groups.

As the state efforts above show, the definition of what constitutes a bias or hate “incident” are slippery and many interested parties would like to shape that definition. Again, there are already hate crime laws on the books, and I have yet to encounter an explanation for why these laws are so ineffective that it’s necessary to encourage people to rat on one another in order to gather data on hate incidents.

Placed alongside burgeoning censorship efforts, it begins to make more sense. If we look at Canada’s effort to establish official pre-hate-crime law enforcement, it’s one that would mark the official end of free speech and lead to a dystopian society revolving around the fear of being targeted – either by an individual or AI.

Even without official precrime laws on the books, there are already ways that these efforts to combat “hate” are attempting to stifle speech. Naked Capitalism readers don’t have to look far for errors (or intentional targeting) in this system as Google’s AI targeted this site for “hateful content” among other alleged sins.

And there’s the issue with “hate.” It could mean a racist comment or action; it could also now refer to criticism of Israeli policy or a thought crime against the ruling class. It apparently does not refer to elite policy in California, for example, where the gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest percentiles increased to 15.51 years in 2021 (which seems like the hateful result of hateful policies if you ask me). What happens if Californians begin to make hateful comments about that fact?

We don’t have to only look to fiction like Minority Report for answers. California’s own history provides a great example of the real use of these burgeoning programs to purportedly combat “hate.”

The California Criminal Syndicalism Act of 1919 prohibited speech that suggested the use of violence for political aims. It came at a time when workers were winning important battles in the class war raging across the state. California started locking up Wobblies en masse. As Malcolm Harris describes in his book Palo Alto:

Wobblies filled San Quentin, the Bay Area’s only prison, on bullshit charges that could hold them for up to 14 years. In Southern California, the police teamed with a resurgent KKK to bust the waterfront union, and the IWW was lucky if the cops decided to merely stand by and watch. …By the end of the decade, the state organization was jailed and beaten into submission.