Connect with us

Why Are Nation-State Agencies Ignoring Bitcoin As It Challenges Dollar Hegemony?

As bitcoin gains traction in becoming the world reserve currency, why are globalists ignoring it? Whatever the reason, Bitcoiners must stay vigilant.

Published

on

As bitcoin gains traction in becoming the world reserve currency, why are globalists ignoring it? Whatever the reason, Bitcoiners must stay vigilant.

On the surface, Bitcoin seems poised to take over as the world reserve currency based on the game theory of people converging on the adoption of a single hard and sound currency.

The original cryptocurrency has officially entered into its teenage years following the publication of the white paper on October 31, 2008. Plebs have been stacking bitcoin since the genesis block was mined on January 3, 2009. Both private and public companies have been accumulating it, and even governments have taken the plunge. Looking at the macro picture is certainly exciting from the standpoint of an early adopter.

Every ten minutes, blocks are being added to this decentralized timechain and Bitcoin is working as designed. The task at hand is for Bitcoiners to stay vigilant in order to keep it that way. One strategy for this is to constantly be thinking of attack vectors in all of their forms. To that end, this piece focuses on possible social and governmental sabotage.

El Salvador And Bitcoin Vs. The Globalists

On November 20, 2021, Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, announced plans to create a “Bitcoin City,” funded by bitcoin-backed bonds.

The city would charge 0% income, capital gains, property, payroll and municipal taxes. The only tax levied will be a value-added tax. In addition to all of those 0% taxes, the city plans to have 0% carbon emissions by utilizing the geothermal energy from the nearby Conchagua volcano.

The country is funding this centrally-planned project through bitcoin-backed “Volcano Bonds” spearheaded by Blockstream. Bukele has been praised by the Bitcoin community for adopting bitcoin as legal tender in El Salvador. He has welcomed Bitcoiners with open arms, offering citizenship to people who invest 3 bitcoin in the country and even changed the travel requirements to exclude proof of vaccination and negative COVID-19 test results, which coincidentally went into effect on the same day that the Adopting Bitcoin conference started.

Bukele’s term has not been without criticism. In May, he ousted five Supreme Court justices and the attorney general, purportedly because they ruled that his COVID-19 stay-at-home order was unconstitutional.

In September, Bukele passed laws removing judges who were over 60 years old, effectively firing approximately 30% of the sitting judges. A few days later, Bukele’s courts ruled that presidents could run for consecutive terms, defying El Salvador’s constitution and setting Bukele up for an additional term.

Following this, the National Assembly passed a law allowing for land and estate expropriations (read: seizure) in the name of an ambiguously defined “public interest.” There’s more questionable behavior from Bukele and his cronies, but the theme here is a strong trend of nationalization and squashing opposition that is reminiscent of other authoritarian regimes.

These are not qualities that Bitcoiners laud and we should be wary of this type of statist conduct. Adopting Bitcoin does not preclude governments from being totalitarian empires and we should be aware of the cognitive dissonance that comes with praising a country for adopting a free and open monetary network while also ignoring its obvious tyrannical tendencies.

Source

The announcement of “Bitcoin City” was met with excitement by Bitcoin news outlets and many people on Bitcoin Twitter, though there are some who feel skeptical of this plan, myself included.

I think it’s possible and even likely that Bukele truly “gets it” and wants Bitcoin to succeed. I also find it curious that his strategy to make bitcoin legal tender and facilitate positive tax policy for bitcoin investors in the country is being largely ignored/allowed by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

Bukele was also recently announced as a speaker at Bitcoin 2022 in Miami, FL. I am especially suspicious because he will be in attendance for the speech in the very country whose power he is directly usurping by abandoning the dollar standard. Notably, the United States has been extremely quiet about El Salvador’s adoption of Bitcoin.

So, what is going on here? Are these world organizations largely ignoring this radical move because El Salvador is deemed too inconsequential of a nation? An executive at the BIS said El Salvador’s adoption of bitcoin as legal tender is an “interesting experiment,” the World Bank denied El Salvador’s request for help adopting bitcoin as legal tender, and now that the country did it regardless, the IMF has issued a gently-worded statement advising against the country using bitcoin as legal tender due to its volatility. Most recently, the chief at the Bank of England called El Salvador’s move to adopt Bitcoin as its currency concerning.

Why are these major globalist organizations being so light-handed in their responses to this overtly subversive move? And who will be the first Bitcoiners to move to Bitcoin City at the base of a volcano?

Source

Where Are The “Economic Hit Men”?

I admit that my worldview is biased toward expecting the United States government to handle this with some sort of renegade, extrajudicial “accident” à la the Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Mossadeq coup, numerous assassinations in Africa, etc. Why are the three-letter agencies in the United States ignoring El Salvador and their adoption of bitcoin as legal tender?

In “Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man,” John Perkins writes about the presidents of Ecuador and Panama, Roldós and Torrijos, respectively, who were assassinated by the CIA for not getting in line with global imperialism.

The book details numerous examples, such as those in which agents of the corporatocracy went into developing countries, projected unrealistic electrical infrastructure growth and sold the locals the necessary facilities to achieve it, putting them in massive debt to the United States so that the countries would be forever subservient to the interests of Washington and Wall Street.

This originated with the Monroe Doctrine, which took manifest destiny a step further in the 1850s by using it to claim that the U.S. had special rights all over the hemisphere, including the right to invade any nation in Central or South America that refused to back U.S. policies. Later, this was invoked to justify intervention in the Dominican Republic, in Venezuela and in Panama in order to develop the Panama Canal. The leaders who had the foresight to see this economic subjugation for what it was and chose not to comply often had coincidental accidents and were replaced by authoritarian dictators.

In his book, Perkins details how the Panama Canal was completed after a coup orchestrated by Theodore Roosevelt, whose troops killed a local militia commander and declared Panama an independent nation where a puppet government was installed and the first Panama Canal Treaty was signed, without Panamanian influence or support.

Panama was then ruled by oligarchic families with ties to Washington and who allied with United States’ interests by supporting the CIA, NSA, big businesses, and anti-communist factions. The result was an opulent, U.S.-controlled Canal zone surrounded by destitute Panamanian slums. The folk hero and politician, Omar Torrijos, negotiated a deal with the Carter administration to repatriate the Panama Canal. This angered the Reagan-Bush administration so much that it sought to assassinate him. Torrijos died in a plane crash during a routine flight which most of the world outside of the United States viewed as a CIA assassination.

This is only one example of United States government intervention in world affairs from the book. Perkins explains how the Great Depression resulted in the New Deal, which further advanced economic regulation and governmental financial manipulation in the country, directly led to the creation of the World Bank, the IMF and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade after WWII.

A focus of this time period was the promotion of Robert McNamara. This Keynesian advocate rose in the ranks at Ford Motor Company to become the company’s president. He was then appointed secretary of defense and later president of the World Bank. McNamara was one of the primary, early examples of the military-industrial complex, having served as the head of a major corporation, a government cabinet and the most powerful bank in the world. This is a clear example of the blurred lines of corporate and government interests which continues to this day, with members of Congress owning significant amounts of Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson stock while pushing for mandatory vaccination.

Is the world’s ostensible acceptance of El Salvador opting into bitcoin as legal tender due to negligence, or is there something else going on?

Source

Paranoiac, Adversarial Thinking

One possibility is that El Salvador and its adoption of bitcoin as legal tender is being ignored by central banks around the world and the U.S. alphabet soup agencies because the time of American Imperialism is coming to an end due to insolvency and the implosion of dollar hegemony.

Or maybe there is a larger play at work to bring about the Great Reset using bitcoin as a backstop. This is a highly improbable possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.

On a recent “Tales From The Crypt “episode, Matt Hill of Start9 spoke with host Marty Bent about the ingenuity of governments making Bitcoin regulations increasingly cumbersome for those interacting with on/off ramps through institutional systems, but without making Bitcoin outright illegal. His point was bringing attention to the effectiveness of wearing people down by making a certain behavior inconvenient.

Hill said, “The internet, as is, and the server/client architecture, as is, is not conducive to a viable future for Bitcoin. Bitcoin cannot live on a centralized internet. Not as ‘Bitcoin,’ anyway. If there’s one node, running on one server, controlled by one entity, it’s not really Bitcoin anymore.”

Bent then mentioned the censorship-resistant assurances that Bitcoin provides when it’s running in a distributed way and Hill went on to say that consensus rules can be changed more easily (when centralized) and compared Bitcoin to a surveillance tool if it’s running on a centralized server.

“Bitcoin in the hands of a few people on a few servers, which again, it’s not going to happen, but it is sort of a statist’s wet dream… It’s a giant, public, open ledger of every transaction on Earth, but if you can just pin identities to those things it’s perfect,” Hill said.

This type of thinking is extremely necessary for us to examine when we think about possible attack vectors for Bitcoin.

Catherine Austin Fitts, former assistant secretary of housing and federal housing commissioner at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration, is an outspoken critic of COVID-19 lockdowns, vaccine passports, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and the Great Reset in general.

Recently, videos have been circulating of her speaking about central bankers, “exercising a coup d'état where they are taking control of fiscal policy [from the electorate] as well [as monetary policy]. With the advances of digital technology, vaccine passports will not be about health. Vaccine passports are part of a financial transaction control grid that will absolutely end human liberty in the West.”

This hypothesis is not new to those on Bitcoin Twitter nor to many of the people who believe in the freedom and financial sovereignty that Bitcoin provides.

In an interview with Greg Hunter, Austin Fitts said, “We are in Never, Never Land. We have two groups in our society: One group that can print money, and the other who can earn money. What we saw last year is the people who could print money declared war on the people who earn money. They basically said we are going to shut down your businesses, and we are going to suck up and take your market share or buy you out with money we print out of thin air… There is no pandemic. What this is is an economic war.”

She recommended getting corrupt institutions out of your life, including keeping money with Federal Reserve-related banks, but surprisingly, she also said in an interview with Daniel Liszt that, “You can’t solve a political problem with a financial product.”

This is irreconcilable with what many Bitcoiners believe because, as they say, “fix the money, fix the world.”

Austin Fitts has been wary of Bitcoin for many years and spoke publicly against it as early as January 2014. In her interviews, she makes some relevant points that Bitcoiners should take into consideration, though oftentimes, she clearly misunderstands how Bitcoin works on a fundamental level. I won’t get into everything she has said about Bitcoin that is factually inaccurate, but she believes that the government could take the bitcoin price down to zero or shut it down in the same way that social media companies are shutting down people’s accounts. She also has equated the seizure of assets from Silk Road as proof that the system is insecure. While the aforementioned points have been disproven through other examples, like police being unable to access “seized” bitcoin and Marathon Digital Holdings announcing it would no longer be censoring transactions (with reasons not specified), Austin Fitts does share some important points from her interview with Greg Hunter that Bitcoiners should focus on, especially considering that the digital currency is entering the world stage:

1. “The easiest way to build the prison is to get freedom lovers everywhere building it for you.”

CBDCs will most likely be modeled after bitcoin, though the goal will be complete control of individuals spending habits with unsanctioned purchases being disabled and/or leading to a negative impact on a social credit scoring system, like the one China is currently using.

Austin Fitts thinks that governments around the world are letting Bitcoin developers build out a system, but will then usurp its functions for their own globalist agenda. She has mentioned “The Master Switch” by Tim Wu, who details that, when new technology arises, there’s a period of innovation and then it centralizes because it’s cheaper and easier that way.

As Bitcoin users, we need to continue staying vigilant (read: toxic) about protecting the Bitcoin network from malicious actors by keeping the network decentralized. This means running a Bitcoin full node. It’s not too expensive to run a node, but it’s extremely important. “Not your node, not your rules,” as the saying goes.

In her most recent video release, Austin Fitts declared some steps to decentralize the money.

“We have to figure out how to take back control of the money system,” she said. “The important thing about any money or financial system comes down to the quality of governance. The reason the current financial systems are so powerful is because their governance is backed up by awesome force. We won’t have awesome force to back up ours. We need excellence in governance, a commitment to rule of law, and a culture because there’s not enough enforcement in the world to backup a great culture. That enforcement has to come not just from law, but from culture.”

She went on to say, “That system is going to have to be both physical and digital. We need the digital for efficiency, but we need the physical to keep it honest and real.”

To be frank, it sounds like she’s talking about Bitcoin: digital value transferred using hardware nodes and miners which use physical electricity.

2. “Invest your money into things that will build resiliency for yourself and your family. Are you spending all your money on bitcoin and not supporting your local farmers?”

In an August interview with Whitney Webb, Austin Fitts shared some recommendations for surviving the coming instability. Her biggest reminder is to be resilient. Following resiliency, her suggestions include securing ways to source healthy food and finding water independence through drilling a well.

She also suggested using jurisdictional arbitrage to move where the cost of living is low to avoid inflation as much as possible. Moving further from cities increases the chances that the people around you know how to do things for themselves.

Bitcoin citadels are frequently discussed as a means of creating sovereign communities. Food security through local economies is best cultivated through farmers’ markets and direct support through community supported agriculture (CSA). All of this advice involves building “living” equity. As Fitts said, “If you are putting all your money into Bitcoin and you have no farmland, no cattle, and no farmer, you may be wealthy on Bitcoin, but you’re going to have to eat synthetic meat from Bill Gates.”

3. “How many hours are you spending on Bitcoin? Could that time be used supporting your family or otherwise being put to work?”

There are thousands of hours of phenomenal podcasts about Bitcoin, countless Bitcoin books and articles to read, and tons of video interviews and documentaries to watch — let alone the time it takes to figure out how to use Bitcoin, connect your wallet to your node, and create multisignature quorums. These are all incredibly important pratices, but so are other universal abilities. If you invest in developing your skills, they can go with you if you need to move: growing food, building, coding, canning, wilderness survival, plant/fungus identification, first aid, sewing, etc. These are all things that can be used in many different contexts.

In conclusion, as Bitcoiners, we need to remain skeptical of everything, and I mean everything. Stay vigilant and use adversarial thinking in order to avoid becoming complacent so that we can protect the monetary sovereignty that the Bitcoin network provides.

G. Michael Hopf said, “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.” It seems clear that we are in a period of hard times right now. We need to make sure that as we develop into the strong men (and women) that will create good times in the future, we can continue them for as long as possible.

As Austin Fitts suggested as she ended her speech, “Don’t ask if there’s a conspiracy, if you’re not in a conspiracy, you need to start one.”

Take everything you read, hear, and see with a hint of suspicion, including this article.

Shared without comment, source

This is a guest post by Craig Deutsch. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

You can now enter this country without a passport

Singapore has been on a larger push to speed up the flow of tourists with digital immigration clearance.

Published

on

In the fall of 2023, the city-state of Singapore announced that it was working on end-to-end biometrics that would allow travelers passing through its Changi Airport to check into flights, drop off bags and even leave and exit the country without a passport.

The latter is the most technologically advanced step of them all because not all countries issue passports with the same biometrics while immigration laws leave fewer room for mistakes about who enters the country.

Related: A country just went visa-free for visitors with any passport

That said, Singapore is one step closer to instituting passport-free travel by testing it at its land border with Malaysia. The two countries have two border checkpoints, Woodlands and Tuas, and as of March 20 those entering in Singapore by car are able to show a QR code that they generate through the government’s MyICA app instead of the passport.

A photograph captures Singapore's Tuas land border with Malaysia.

Here is who is now able to enter Singapore passport-free

The latter will be available to citizens of Singapore, permanent residents and tourists who have already entered the country once with their current passport. The government app pulls data from one's passport and shows the border officer the conditions of one's entry clearance already recorded in the system.

More Travel:

While not truly passport-free since tourists still need to link a valid passport to an online system, the move is the first step in Singapore's larger push to get rid of physical passports.

"The QR code initiative allows travellers to enjoy a faster and more convenient experience, with estimated time savings of around 20 seconds for cars with four travellers, to approximately one minute for cars with 10 travellers," Singapore's Immigration and Checkpoints Authority wrote in a press release announcing the new feature. "Overall waiting time can be reduced by more than 30% if most car travellers use QR code for clearance."

More countries are looking at passport-free travel but it will take years to implement

The land crossings between Singapore and Malaysia can get very busy — government numbers show that a new post-pandemic record of 495,000 people crossed Woodlands and Tuas on the weekend of March 8 (the day before Singapore's holiday weekend.)

Even once Singapore implements fully digital clearance at all of its crossings, the change will in no way affect immigration rules since it's only a way of transferring the status afforded by one's nationality into a digital system (those who need a visa to enter Singapore will still need to apply for one at a consulate before the trip.) More countries are in the process of moving toward similar systems but due to the varying availability of necessary technology and the types of passports issued by different countries, the prospect of agent-free crossings is still many years away.

In the U.S., Chicago's O'Hare International Airport was chosen to take part in a pilot program in which low-risk travelers with TSA PreCheck can check into their flight and pass security on domestic flights without showing ID. The UK has also been testing similar digital crossings for British and EU citizens but no similar push for international travelers is currently being planned in the U.S.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

The Virality Project’s Censorship Agenda

The Virality Project’s Censorship Agenda

Authored by Andrew Lowenthal via the Brownstone Institute,

In November 2023 Alex Gutentag and…

Published

on

The Virality Project’s Censorship Agenda

Authored by Andrew Lowenthal via the Brownstone Institute,

In November 2023 Alex Gutentag and I reported on the Virality Project’s internal content-flagging system, as released by the US House Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

Initiated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and led by the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), the Virality Project sought to censor those who questioned government Covid-19 policies. The Virality Project primarily focused on so-called “anti-vaccine” “misinformation;” however, my Twitter Files investigations with Matt Taibbi revealed this included “true stories of vaccine side effects.”

A further review of the content flagged by the Virality Project demonstrates how they pushed social media platforms to censor such “true stories.” This was often done incompetently and without even a cursory investigation of the original sources. In one instance, the Virality Project reporters told platforms that reports of a child injured in a vaccine trial were “false” due to the timing; citing the dates of a Moderna trial when in fact the child had been in a Pfizer trial.

Trigger-happy researchers-turned-activists at the Virality Project went further, alerting their Big Tech partners (including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok) of protests, jokes, and general dissent.

Led by former CIA fellow Renee DiResta, the Virality Project functioned as an intermediary for government censorship. Ties between the US government and the academic research center were extremely close. DHS had “fellows” embedded at the Stanford Internet Observatory, while SIO had interns embedded at CISA, and former DHS staff contributed to the Virality Project’s final report.

The Virality Project also had contact with the White House and the Office of the Surgeon General, described the CDC as a “partner” in its design documents, and the California Department of Public Health had a login to access the Jira content flagging system, as did CISA personnel.

Kris Krebs and Alex Stamos – former directors of CISA and SIO, respectively – became business partners soon after leaving their positions.

Norwood v. Harrison established that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” Stamos knew this too and put it simply; the government “lacked the legal authorisation” and so they built a consortium to “fill the gap of the things the government could not do themselves.”

Judicial precedents regarding “joint participation” and “pervasive entwinement” between public and private entities make clear that the government cannot outsource to third parties like the Virality Project actions that would be illegal for the government itself to do.

The Virality Project had several unnamed partners that appear in the content-flagging system, including billion-dollar military contractor MITRE and a communications consultancy linked to the Democratic Party, Hattaway. Founder Doug Hattaway was an “advisor and spokesperson for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and provided strategic counsel to the Obama White House and the Democratic leadership of the US House and Senate.” Like the Virality Project, Hattaway worked with the Rockefeller Foundation during the pandemic on issues of disinformation.

The Virality Project does not declare any relationship with MITRE or Hattaway despite providing them access to their Jira system.

The Virality Project was partly funded by the Omidyar Network, which provided $400,000 to VP partner and Pentagon consultant Graphika. Much of the Virality Project’s funding however is unknown and is also not declared on their website.

This and much more have led five plaintiffs, including Harvard and Stanford professors, to accuse the US government of violations of the First Amendment with the Virality Project as one of the key proxies. On March 18, their case will be heard by the US Supreme Court.

The Virality Project and Murthy v. Missouri

The Murthy vs Missouri plaintiffs allege that, “CISA launched a colossal mass surveillance and mass-censorship project calling itself the “Election Integrity Partnership” (and later, the “Virality Project”). The Election Integrity Project (EIP) “monitored 859 million posts on Twitter alone.” 

The Virality Project used the same Jira system as EIP for flagging content and included the same core public partners: SIO, the University of Washington Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, and Graphika, with the addition of NYU and the congressionally chartered National Conference on Citizenship.

The Virality Project had extensive contact not only with CISA but also with the White House and the Surgeon General. White House representatives sent direct censorship requests to Twitter including, “Hey folks – Wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process for having it removed ASAP.” And the more threatening:

 “Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.”

Flaherty also conveyed that his communications came with the backing of the very top echelons of the administration: “This is a concern that is shared at the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the WH.”

The Virality Project hosted a launch with the US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy as part of the Surgeon General’s campaign against “misinformation.” In the presentation, Renee DiResta also introduced Matt Masterson, former senior adviser at DHS, and now a “non-resident policy fellow” at SIO.

Murthy ends the presentation by telling Renee, “I just want to say thank you to you, for everything you have done, for being such a great partner.”

At that same time the White House, OSG, and others were on the warpath, claiming social media platforms were “killing people” for allowing so-called “misinformation” to circulate.

With access to the White House, the Surgeon General, CDC, DHS, and CISA, along with top-level relationships with almost every major Western social media platform, the Virality Project was a key, if not the key, coordinating node for Covid-related censorship on the Internet. 

The Content-Flagging System

When the Virality Project said it considered, “true stories of vaccine side effects” to be “misinformation,” it wasn’t joking, and it flagged content to its Big Tech partners accordingly. 

Perhaps the most egregious was that of Maddie de Garay. Maddie and her siblings were enrolled in the Pfizer vaccine trial at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. She was later unblinded and confirmed as being in the vaccine and not the placebo group. 

Within 24 hours of her second shot in January 2021, Maddie developed a host of symptoms, including “severe abdominal pain, painful electric shocks on her spine and neck, swollen extremities, ice cold hands, and feet, chest pain, tachycardia, pins and needles in her feet that eventually led to the loss of feeling from her waist down.” To this day Maddie continues to suffer from a lack of feeling in her lower legs, difficulty eating, poor eyesight, and fatigue among other persisting symptoms.

Virality Project staff logged a Jira ticket titled “Maddie’s Story: False claim that 12-year-old was hospitalized due to vaccine trial” and provided extensive documentation of offending “engagement” on social media, including the micro-policing of content citing Maddie’s story with just two likes and two shares.

Much doubt has been cast on the veracity of Maddie’s injuries. Maddie’s mother, Stephanie de Garay, provided me with several doctor’s letters that confirm the link, including that of the emergency room doctor who discharged her on her initial visit. Their diagnosis was “Adverse effect of the vaccine.” Stephanie de Garay also testified under oath in front of the US Congress in November of 2023 regarding her daughter’s experience.

Most egregiously, the idea that the story was “false”rested on the claim that Maddie was in a Moderna trial. But she was in a Pfizer trial, as stated in the posts the Virality Project collected and linked to in the very same ticket.

“Dear Platform Partners,” the reporter writes as they bring the posts to the attention of Google, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Medium, Pinterest, and the aforementioned Hattaway Communications:

…very likely false due to issues in timing. The Moderna trial in children [began on March 16], when the participants received their first doses. However, the video claims that Maddie has an MRI scheduled for 03/16, and that these symptoms have been occurring for 1.5 months. Thus, Maddie would have had to have received the second dose of the vaccine during/before February, which is at least a month before the Moderna trials began.

“Ack – thanks for raising!” replies a platform representative. 

Not only are our self-appointed censorship overlords micro-managers, they are often incompetent. 

The posts were flagged “General: Anti-Vaccination” despite the de Garays volunteering their three children for the vaccine trial.

Some content flagged in the report remained up, and others were taken down. A video of Stephanie de Garay’s testimony was removed from Twitter. Whether or not this was specifically taken down due to the Virality Project report cannot be ascertained, but their intent was clear.

In another instance, the Virality Project wanted people circulating a mainstream media report censored:

“Platforms, this unconfirmed story of a healthy youth athlete who was hospitalized after being vaccinated continues to be used by anti-vaccine activists to spread misinformation about vaccines.”

“ack, thanks” responded a platform representative. 

Even a report by an ABC news affiliate, one of the biggest media conglomerates in the United States, fell into the category of “General: anti-vaccination” and “Misleading Headline.”

The main link provided, to a YouTube video, was removed. 

The Jira system was set up to track the actions the Big Tech partners took, as illustrated below:

The content was flagged to get platforms to take action.

“Hello Google team – sending this over as our analysts noticed that a google ad on a politico article this morning was peddling the antivax claims from the medical racism video you were monitoring. Is this against your policies?”

“Thanks for flagging – ack and sending for review.”

“Thanks for the heads up – we’re on it”

“Thanks for sharing! Our team is now tracking this.”

And follow-ups from the Virality Project team:

“Were the ads supposed to have been taken down? Just flagging for you, I just checked now and I’m still seeing another medical racism ad.”

Platforms were apologetic when they didn’t get to Virality Project’s flags quickly enough:

“With apologies for the delayed response (was in meetings) – we took action earlier in the afternoon, thanks again for the flags.”

This of course built on the Election Integrity Partnership’s more flagrant “recommendations,” which included

“We recommend that you all flag as false, or remove the posts below.”

“Hi Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter…we recommend it be removed from your platforms.”

And many more.

The Virality Project was a strategic intermediary between the US government and major social media platforms. As Murthy v. Missouri shows, in many cases the government dispensed even with their chosen intermediary and directly demanded censorship.

With their vast resources, why did Google, Facebook, and Twitter even need an external consortium to flag “misinformation?” The answer of course is they didn’t, the government did. Much like SIO Director Alex Stamos so helpfully reminded us, First Amendment jurisprudence states that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

The First Amendment protects false speech. There is a cost to false claims, but the cost of censoring true claims is much higher. The alternative is a society where the truth is suppressed and powerful actors become even more unaccountable. The government cannot be made an arbiter of what is true.

In this inverted world, the role of academia and civil society isn’t to harness the internet to better pick up safety signals related to corporate products, it is to shield corporations from public scrutiny. In times gone by such ethical violations would see institutions shut down, but the Stanford Internet Observatory and their consortium partners continue with hardly a dent.

Dr. Aaron Kheriaty is a Murthy v. Missouri plaintiff and was the Director of the Medical Ethics Program at the University of California Irvine before he was fired for challenging the university’s vaccine mandate. Asked for his reaction to this censorship he responded: 

While causation in medicine is sometimes difficult to establish, and different evaluating physicians may reach divergent conclusions about a particular case, the Virality Project’s censors (who lacked even basic medical expertise) arrogated to themselves the authority to make veracity judgments about particular medical cases–even overriding the judgments of evaluating physicians. Such censorship is completely antithetical to medical and scientific progress, which relies upon free inquiry and open, public debate.

Much of what the Virality Project flagged was plausible; however, their internet hall monitors, who likely lacked even first aid certificates, deemed themselves arbiters of the truth, and coupled their arrogance with a complimentary laziness and incompetence.

The veracity of the content was of course always irrelevant to the Virality Project, given they considered “true stories” to be “misinformation.”

All told the DHS, CISA, the White House, the Surgeon General, a DNC-aligned communications agency, military contractors, academics, NGOs, and more combined to suppress the stories of real people, including children, who were plausibly injured by the vaccine. They sought to hide it not because it might be false, but precisely because it might be true.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Andrew Lowenthal is a Brownstone Institute fellow and co-founder and former executive director of EngageMedia, an Asia-Pacific digital rights, open and secure technology, and documentary non-profit, and a former fellow of Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society and MIT’s Open Documentary Lab.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/21/2024 - 13:05

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

This country became first in the world to let in tourists passport-free

Singapore has been on a larger push to speed up the flow of tourists with digital immigration clearance.

Published

on

In the fall of 2023, the city-state of Singapore announced that it was working on end-to-end biometrics that would allow travelers passing through its Changi Airport to check into flights, drop off bags and even leave and exit the country without a passport.

The latter is the most technologically advanced step of them all because not all countries issue passports with the same biometrics while immigration laws leave fewer room for mistakes about who enters the country.

Related: A country just went visa-free for visitors with any passport

That said, Singapore is one step closer to instituting passport-free travel by testing it at its land border with Malaysia. The two countries have two border checkpoints, Woodlands and Tuas, and as of March 20 those entering in Singapore by car are able to show a QR code that they generate through the government’s MyICA app instead of the passport.

A photograph captures Singapore's Tuas land border with Malaysia.

Here is who is now able to enter Singapore passport-free

The latter will be available to citizens of Singapore, permanent residents and tourists who have already entered the country once with their current passport. The government app pulls data from one's passport and shows the border officer the conditions of one's entry clearance already recorded in the system.

More Travel:

While not truly passport-free since tourists still need to link a valid passport to an online system, the move is the first step in Singapore's larger push to get rid of physical passports.

"The QR code initiative allows travellers to enjoy a faster and more convenient experience, with estimated time savings of around 20 seconds for cars with four travellers, to approximately one minute for cars with 10 travellers," Singapore's Immigration and Checkpoints Authority wrote in a press release announcing the new feature. "Overall waiting time can be reduced by more than 30% if most car travellers use QR code for clearance."

More countries are looking at passport-free travel but it will take years to implement

The land crossings between Singapore and Malaysia can get very busy — government numbers show that a new post-pandemic record of 495,000 people crossed Woodlands and Tuas on the weekend of March 8 (the day before Singapore's holiday weekend.)

Even once Singapore implements fully digital clearance at all of its crossings, the change will in no way affect immigration rules since it's only a way of transferring the status afforded by one's nationality into a digital system (those who need a visa to enter Singapore will still need to apply for one at a consulate before the trip.) More countries are in the process of moving toward similar systems but due to the varying availability of necessary technology and the types of passports issued by different countries, the prospect of agent-free crossings is still many years away.

In the U.S., Chicago's O'Hare International Airport was chosen to take part in a pilot program in which low-risk travelers with TSA PreCheck can check into their flight and pass security on domestic flights without showing ID. The UK has also been testing similar digital crossings for British and EU citizens but no similar push for international travelers is currently being planned in the U.S.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending