If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Participants in the Democratic National Convention (DNC) were comfortable speaking publicly about what Congress is investigating as conduct that eventually (after the 2020 ballot) turned into government-Big Tech collusion. And they are doing this by reminiscing about “the good old days” after the 2016 election when major social platforms panicked and got cowed into “working” with Democrats. “Election integrity” is how supporters of the practice frame the concern that was and is being addressed as platforms have their “calls” with officials. A University of Southern California Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism panel heard that there is more “deceptive” content and “manipulating voter sentiment” than ever – and yet social media companies are “sharply downsizing election integrity departments,” as one report about the event put it. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chief information security officer Jude Meche shared that the relationship with these companies is now allegedly not what it used to be. “Following the 2016 election, we had calls with X and with Meta all the time. They were working with us. That no longer exists, that all faded quickly. We don’t have counterparts in these companies anymore,” said Meche, whose committee’s job is specifically to get Democrat candidates elected to the US Senate. What happened in 2016, of course, was Donald Trump’s victory. Professor of ethics and finance at New York University Michael Posner cautioned the panel that “we’re back to 2016.” Posner was referring to social media companies backtracking on their promises to increase “content moderation” made in the wake of that election and accused, or perhaps warned them, that they have been allowed to act “with impunity” since. But, the Twitter Files, for example, say that those who have been acting with impunity during that time are actually Democrats, and their administration since 2020. Posner is concerned about the number of people companies like X and Meta these days employ to police and censor speech (election integrity and content moderation are what he calls it) – compared to 2016, when “there was a sense that something had to be done.” If this DNC panel is anything to go by, there is once again “a sense that something has to be done” among Democrats – but roping in social platforms, particularly, it seems, X, to “cooperate” is now a very different proposition compared to what was doable only a few years ago. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Laments Decline in Big Tech Collaboration Since 2016 appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) – a part of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – has been enlisting private entities to help achieve one of its goals. According to CISA, it would be to combat election misinformation and secure “election infrastructure” – while according to critics, it is to continue with the mission of censoring lawful speech “disfavored” by the current authorities seeking to remain where they are after November – by hook or crook. CISA doesn’t feel the need to hide this activity that has been taking place since 2018 through a program called the Election Infrastructure Subsector Coordinating Council (SCC). It is here that US government entities – federal, state, and local – meet private groups (“partners” as CISA calls them). We obtained the latest document for you here. What’s coordinated here, according to the agency, and as was reported by The Federalist, is the reduction of “cyber, physical, and operational security risks to election infrastructure.” The coordination is done to the point where government and private sector have adopted “a unified approach.” Information sharing ahead of the presidential election is also happening as SCC works with the Government Coordinating Council (GCC). According to CISA, this collaboration is now “unprecedented” while what is referred to as “private sector owners and operators” sit, as part of SCC, in meetings with the FBI and election officials. But CISA has other partners – the Election Integrity Project (EIP), formed months before the 2020 election, which has been blasted by the House Judiciary Committee as a tool for the government to bypass the First Amendment and censor speech. The CISA site has a document, “Mis-, Dis-, and Malinformation: Planning and Incident Response Guide for Election Officials,” put together by CISA/GCC Joint Mis/Disinformation Working Group. In it, CISA “defines” what each of its targets is supposed to be, and ends up doing what all “misinformation warriors” do – offer subjective and broad descriptions susceptible to interpretation, instead of clear definitions. For example, “malinformation” is said to be information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” The document mentions “delegitimization of election results” as one form of mis, dis, and mal information. It’s unclear if CISA has both 2016 and 2020 elections in mind – or only one – but this is how the activity is described: “Narratives or content that delegitimizes election results or sows distrust in the integrity of the process based on false or misleading claims.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Government and Private Groups Still Unite to Target Election “Misinformation” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Sign Up To Keep Reading This post is for Reclaim The Net supporters. Gain access to the entire archive of features and supporters-only content. Help protect free speech, freedom from surveillance, and digital civil liberties. Join Already a supporter? Login here If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post A Private, Open-Source, Self-Hosted Alternative to Google Photos and iCloud Photos That’s Focused on Sharing appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Lowe's Joins Other Major Companies Stepping Away from DEI (Post Readers Are Outraged)

RFK: Dems Tried to Destroy Me for Running Against Biden

Progressive Intellectual Elites Weigh In: Elon Musk Is a Big, Dumb Doo-Doo Head

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read. The post Pilot Cosmonaut Pavel Popovich and Soviet UFO Phenomenon appeared first on Anomalien.com.

It's been five weeks and counting since Kamala Harris emerged as the Democrat nominee and we're still waiting for her to submit to her first sit-down interview with the press. She promised to get an interview "scheduled" by the end of August (or Saturday). It's been a while -- she was on Morning Joe two months ago to talk up abortion "access." In Tuesday's Politico Playbook column, the reporters reported on how reporters are being asked which reporter should be selected for this weighty task.  Harris campaign staff have been asking reporters who they think she should talk to. Behind the scenes, TV producers from big name anchors have been calling the campaign to pitch their talent as the person she has to do it with. Harris has had a light schedule since accepting the nomination Thursday in Chicago, and several sources said she has been using the time not just to prepare for her Sept. 10 debate with Trump, but to map out a media strategy for the next few weeks. Asking reporters about how to run your campaign is a classic suck-up tactic, since reporters think they are the smartest political strategists in America. It's not just Democrats that play this game: then-Newsweek reporter Jonathan Alter once praised Republican John McCain for talking to reporters about presidential campaign strategy out on the trail.  Some in "Harris World" want a "lengthy serious interview with a brand-name news anchor." But "Harris herself has expressed disagreement with that view, we’re told by two people, telling some Democrats she doesn’t need a big showy interview. In October, Harris did a sitdown with Bill Whitaker on 60 Minutes and talked foreign policy. Some of the exchanges were testy and some Harris aides came away unhappy with the experience." The real goal is the perception of a substantive interview with a journalist who will gently keep Harris from putting her words in the salad shooter.  Former Harris communications adviser Ashley Etienne nominates CBS morning-show queen Gayle King (naturally, since Etienne has a Contributor gig at CBS.) Who else is in the running?   ABC’s David Muir, who has the highest ratings, is co-moderating the Sept. 10 debate, a fact that several TV veterans said might take him and everyone else at the network out of the running for a pre-debate interview. CBS’s Norah O'Donnell or NBC’s Lester Holt were mentioned the most by people we pinged last night. NBC’s Savannah Guthrie was also a popular choice. Going to a home team booster on MSNBC would not satisfy the media chatter about being challenged in a tough environment, but it can’t be ruled out, and a morning show interview with King might attract the same criticism. At CNN, Dana Bash, Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, Kaitlan Collins and Abby Phillip were all considered possibilities. There's no Laura "Sugar" Coates on this list after her January "I'm struck in your presence" interview on CNN. And no Asma "Cuddle" Khalid at NPR?  Backers of Guthrie haven't noticed she has tended to be tougher than the other morning anchors on Biden administration spokesmen, such as Antony Blinken and John Kirby.  It continues: Going to Holt would make a statement, because he conducted the most famous Harris interview that went off the rails for her. O’Donnell recently announced she’s leaving the CBS Evening News, so it could be a nice capstone for her if Harris cares about that. Almost everyone we talked to said Harris will consider race and gender in making her choice, and that she would be keen to sit down with a Black and/or female reporter, though nobody believes that’s a requirement. "Harris World" is also worrying about how to deploy her running mate Tim Walz in the media, because "he might not have a full command of where Harris is on every issue." They don't think the main problem is having to explain his bucket of lies about his own resume??

Monday marked the three-year anniversary of the suicide attack near the Abbey Gate at the Kabul airport in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of 13 U.S. service members. As part of their coverage of the anniversary, CNN’s Phil Mattingly, filling in as host of The Lead, brought on White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby to press him on administration’s lack of a proper remembrance. But while Kirby issued poor explanations, Mattingly refused to demand better answers. Mattingly’s first question was about how the Biden/Harris administration only published statements online while former President Trump was meeting with the families of the service members. “The visual this morning of the former president being at Arlington National Cemetery for the wreath laying. The current President, current Vice President both put out a paper statements, but I’m just wondering, is that — is that enough given what happened three years ago?” he wondered. Kirby responded with a mealy-mouthed excuse about how, “Neither going to Arlington nor any individual paper statement is ever going to be enough to repay these families…” And he ridiculously claimed the PACT Act as the administration’s direct support for families torn apart by the incompetencies of the Biden/Harris administration (Click “expand”): Neither going to Arlington nor any individual paper statement is ever going to be enough to repay these families and to try to make sure that they know their supported and that their loved and they’re respected and admired for what they’re going through and nothing’s going to assuage their grief. Nothing we can say, nothing we can do, no flowers you can lay, is going to take that pain away and that’s why the President, the Vice President, the First Lady, the Second Gentleman have been working so hard for their entire time in office to make sure that we meet, as President Biden said, that sacred obligation to our troops, our veterans, and their families through the PACT Act and through any number of other — ever since joining forces, making sure that our troops — particularly those who fought in Afghanistan and those who didn’t come home that their families have that love and that support that they so rightly deserve. A proper response by Mattingly would have been to agree that there’s nothing at could be done to make the families whole, but one camp’s actions were objectively more meaningful than the other’s.     Instead, Mattingly followed up with a blistering question about why President Biden has never said the names of the service members his poor decisions killed. “There’s been a lot of frustration that he hasn’t said their names publicly. Does he see this as — as he understands the pain the family members have reflected related to him?” he noted, a fact not often admitted on CNN. What came out of Kirby’s mouth was disgraceful. He refused to give a reason for why Biden has refused to say the names of the people who were killed on his watch. Instead, Kirby bloviated about how Biden was the only one who knew how they felt: I don’t think you're ever going to find a commander in chief of the United States of America and our military, who doesn’t bet — who better understands what grief is like, what mourning is like, what sorrow is like, what frustration is like then than Joe Biden. He knows exactly what grief feels like. Now, it’s a different kind of grief. I understand that. We’re talking about men and women who were lost in a combat role at — through a bloody terrorist act. That’s different. I get it, but you’re not going to find a commander-in-chief who doesn’t better understand and can feel the grief that they’re going through and to make sure that they know that they’re going to continue to have the support that they deserve. At no point did Mattingly press for an actual reason for why their names have never crossed Biden’s lips. The final question was about Kirby’s comments on Fox News from April of 2023 when he insanely proclaimed: “For all this talk of chaos, I just didn’t see it. Not from my perch.” “It was that last line that drew some criticism on Capitol Hill from Republicans, but also from those — others who were involved in that…but on that last line, do you wish you had kind of framed differently?” he asked. Mattingly sat back and did nothing as Kirby proceeded to lie about there being “the opposite of chaos on that field” and use the service members who were there as a shield; suggesting that any criticism of the chaos was somehow an attack on those individuals (Click “expand”): What I was referring to was the question was asked of me and that’s — that’s missing in this soundbite. The question was asking me just a blanket sort of bumper sticker adjectives slapped on the withdrawal. I hear it all the time. Chaotic and I don’t apologize for the fact that from where I was sitting at the Pentagon and watching how hard our troops and our State Department civilians and our intelligence community was doing to get that airport up and running and to get it functional and to get more than 120 folks out, you — they created order out of disorder, Phil, They created, you know, the opposite of chaos on that field to try to get those folks out. Now, yes, of course, outside the field, there was — there was lots of confusion and chaos and violence. I recognize that and you can find me saying that but in any number of interviews and press conferences, but I make no apologies at slapping back that criticism that everything about the withdrawal was faulty and everything was wrong and that — that does a disservice to the men and women who so bravely and courageously tried to get so many people out and did so successfully. At one point, Phil, during the withdrawal there was a C-17 team full of people taken off about every hour. Fact, less than every hour at one point during that withdrawal. That’s not chaos to me. So, I understand that criticism I’m coming under there. I think you have to look at the question as well, not just my answer yet. Could I been more contextual? Probably. I — I — I — I freely admit that there are times when I’m not as contextual as possible, but I make no apologies and no bones and I don’t regret saying that because it deeply offends me as a veteran myself that we’re just slapping a bumper sticker on the whole withdrawal and I think that does a disservice to all the brave men and women, civilian and military who pulled that withdrawal off. For what it’s worth, as Kirby was claiming there was no chaos at the actual airfield, the producers in the studio were flipping between different videos of the mobs of Afghans rushing the cargo planes trying to takeoff and clinging onto the side, to later fall to their deaths. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s The Lead 08/26/24 4:16:37 p.m. PHIL MATTINGLY: As Donald Trump marked three years since the Abbey Gate attack in Kabul, Afghanistan that killed 13 U.S. service members, he also lit up his social media feed, calling it “the most embarrassing moment in U.S. history.” Now, President Biden, Vice President Harris both issued statements vowing to remember those lives lost and to counter terrorist threats without troops in combat zones. I want to bring in retired rear admiral John Kirby, assistant to the president and White House national security communications advisor. Admiral, always good to see you. I want to start with — I know you’re not gonna get into campaign trail stuff and I’m not asking you about the politics of this, but the idea of — the visual this morning of the former president being at Arlington National Cemetery for the wreath laying. The current President, current Vice President both put out a paper statements, but I’m just wondering, is that — is that enough given what happened three years ago? JOHN KIRBY: Neither going to Arlington nor any individual paper statement is ever going to be enough to repay these families and to try to make sure that they know their supported and that their loved and they’re respected and admired for what they’re going through and nothing’s going to assuage their grief. Nothing we can say, nothing we can do, no flowers you can lay, is going to take that pain away and that’s why the President, the Vice President, the First Lady, the Second Gentleman have been working so hard for their entire time in office to make sure that we meet, as President Biden said, that sacred obligation to our troops, our veterans, and their families through the PACT Act and through any number of other — ever since joining forces, making sure that our troops — particularly those who fought in Afghanistan and those who didn’t come home that their families have that love and that support that they so rightly deserve. MATTINGLY: You know, Admiral, it’s been striking to me, listening to the families of many of those that were killed at Abbey Gate and their frustrations with the current President and I know in talking to advisors throughout the course of the last three years, that has been a painful issue for him, personally. But it remains true that he hasn’t reached out to them since being at the — when the bodies were brought home. There’s been a lot of frustration that he hasn’t said their names publicly. Does he see this as — as he understands the pain the family members have reflected related to him? KIRBY: I don’t think you're ever going to find a commander in chief of the United States of America and our military, who doesn’t bet — who better understands what grief is like, what mourning is like, what sorrow is like, what frustration is like then than Joe Biden. He knows exactly what grief feels like. Now, it’s a different kind of grief. I understand that. We’re talking about men and women who were lost in a combat role at — through a bloody terrorist act. That’s different. I get it, but you’re not going to find a commander-in-chief who doesn’t better understand and can feel the grief that they’re going through and to make sure that they know that they’re going to continue to have the support that they deserve. MATTINGLY: I want to ask you, you know, there have been several reviews of the bombing at Abbey Gate. There’s a Pentagon report that insists that a single blast caused the deaths there. But there’s also video captured by a Marine’s GoPro camera that shows large bursts of gunfire, not just short as the Pentagon had noted. Our colleague Nick Paton Walsh has done a lot of reporting on this and I wanted to play a bit of his exchange with U.S. military personnel who spoke anonymously to CNN. Take a listen. [Cuts to video] ANONYMOUS VETERAN: It was multiple. There’s no doubt about that. It wasn’t onesies and twosies. It was — it was mass volume of gunfire. NICK PATTON WALSH: Down towards the Abbey Gate sniper tower from roughly an area not too far away from where the blast had gone off? That’s where you heard the shooting emanate from. ANONYMOUS VETERAN: It would have been around that area, yes. [Cuts back to live] MATTINGLY: Is there any concern inside the white house that the reviews haven’t accurately captured what actually happened on that day? KIRBY: Well, we know that the Pentagon did an exhaustive review after Abbey Gate and then went back and did more and interviews because other information from — from veterans, from folks that were there made public some — some concerns, particularly about whether or not they had a visual on the bomber and were denied a chance to shoot at them, for instance. And the Pentagon went back and interviewed additional veterans that they hadn’t talked to him for the first investigation. And still, they had not been able to corroborate this idea that there was gunfire against Afghan civilians, as was portrayed in the CNN reporting. So, the Pentagon’s looked at this pretty exhaustively. And we know and they’ve said so, Phil, that, you know, if additional information comes to light in weeks and months ahead, that — that would compel them to take another look and then they’d be open to doing that. MATTINGLY: Admiral, before I let you go, you received blowback last year for comment that you made after one of the administration’s reviews came out — KIRBY: Yeah. MATTINGLY: — and I want to give you a chance to respond it, but first this is what it was. Listen. [Cuts to video] KIRBY [TO PETER DOOCY] [on 04/06/23]: Proud of the fact that we got more than 124,000 people safely out of Afghanistan? You bet. Proud of the fact that American troops were able to seize control of a defunct airport and get it operational in 48 hours? You bet. Proud of the fact that we now have about 100,000 Afghans, our former allies and partners living in this country and working towards citizenship? You bet. Now, does that mean that everything went perfect in that evacuation? Of course not. [SCREEN WIPE] For all this talk of chaos, I just didn’t see it. Not from my perch. [Cuts back to live] MATTINGLY: It was that last line that drew some criticism on Capitol Hill from Republicans, but also from those — others who were involved in that. I don’t ask about the impassioned point you were making before that last time, but on that last line, do you wish you had kind of framed differently? KIRBY: Look, I think the line’s being taking a little bit at a constant — context and look, I’d be the first one to admit that I could always be more contextual in answering questions. I don’t regret saying. Look, I had said many times and I did too briefings a day during the withdrawal at the Pentagon and I was nothing but honest and forthcoming about that the things that didn’t go well in that withdrawal and yeah, of course, there was chaos, of course there was confusion, there was blood, there was violence at different times during that evacuation and you can find me saying that on the record at numerous times during the withdrawal and afterward. What I was referring to was the question was asked of me and that’s — that’s missing in this soundbite. The question was asking me just a blanket sort of bumper sticker adjectives slapped on the withdrawal. I hear it all the time. Chaotic and I don’t apologize for the fact that from where I was sitting at the Pentagon and watching how hard our troops and our State Department civilians and our intelligence community was doing to get that airport up and running and to get it functional and to get more than 120 folks out, you — they created order out of disorder, Phil, They created, you know, the opposite of chaos on that field to try to get those folks out. Now, yes, of course, outside the field, there was — there was lots of confusion and chaos and violence. I recognize that and you can find me saying that but in any number of interviews and press conferences, but I make no apologies at slapping back that criticism that everything about the withdrawal was faulty and everything was wrong and that — that does a disservice to the men and women who so bravely and courageously tried to get so many people out and did so successfully. At one point, Phil, during the withdrawal there was a C-17 team full of people taken off about every hour. Fact, less than every hour at one point during that withdrawal. That’s not chaos to me. So, I understand that criticism I’m coming under there. I think you have to look at the question as well, not just my answer yet. Could I been more contextual? Probably. I — I — I — I freely admit that there are times when I’m not as contextual as possible, but I make no apologies and no bones and I don’t regret saying that because it deeply offends me as a veteran myself that we’re just slapping a bumper sticker on the whole withdrawal and I think that does a disservice to all the brave men and women, civilian and military who pulled that withdrawal off. MATTINGLY: Yeah, unquestionably a heroic effort on ground during those couple of weeks. And I should note, Admiral, you’ve never avoided any question that I’ve asked to over the years, even those that I’m sure you didn’t want me to ask you and I’ve always appreciate did that as well. Admiral John Kirby, your time. Always appreciate, sir. Thank you. KIRBY: Thanks, Phil.

After going 0-for-3 on Monday night’s broadcast network newscasts with the bombshell of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitting his platforms (Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) censored Covid-19 content and Hunter Biden posts over the last four years, ABC and NBC ended the brief blackout on Tuesday with a full segment on Good Morning America and brief on NBC’s Today. This left CBS as the only network yet to have acknowledged these acts of anti-American, anti-free speech behavior sanctioned by the government.     NBC’s Today had a 39-second news brief, but there was no real substance to it with Saturday co-host Peter Alexander heavily underbaking it. “Also ahead this morning, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is making headlines, saying he regrets the social media company giving into pressure from the Biden administration to censor Covid content during the pandemic,” Alexander simplistically explained. He noted Zuckerberg said in a letter to the House Judicary Committee that he wouldn’t acquiesce again and “regrets the decisions in 2021 to remove certain content, including humor and satire from Facebook, Instagram, as well as WhatsApp.” That was all Alexander had to say about Zuckerberg as the rest was dedicated to the Biden-Harris administration defending censorship on Big Tech platforms because they felt the need to demand “responsible actions to encourage public health and safety.” ABC’s Good Morning America had just about as close to an acceptable segment as one will get from liberal network news. First, the time spent was hefty with two minutes and 31 seconds in the first half hour. “We do turn now to a story breaking overnight. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg claims he was pressured by the White House to censor content related to Covid-19 during the pandemic,” weekend co-host Whit Johnson began before tossing to senior investigative correspondent Aaron Katersky. Katersky hit the nail on the head by explaining much of the hubbub about censorship of views about Covid-19 wasn’t just about the virus itself (or, in a topic he left unsaid, vaccines), but “views that challenged the general consensus in the medical community, especially about the origin of Covid-19” (i.e. the lab-leal theory). “Now, Facebook’s founder surprisingly says they’re right. This morning, Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg admitting he bowed to pressure from the Biden administration to censor content,” Katersky astutely added. Katersky then ran through two key lines and one public admission from President Biden about Facebook that showed the levels of contempt the regime had for the platform (and thus a willingness to bully it) (click “expand”): KATERSKY: The Facebook founder issuing a letter to the House Judiciary Committee that said senior administration officials pushed the social platform to censor posts about Covid-19 and expressed a lot of frustration when the company resisted. Zuckerberg saying: “I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret we were not more outspoken about it,” adding “I feel strongly we should not bow to pressure from any Administration in either direction - and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.” President Biden was asked about misinformation online in the summer of 2021. PETER ALEXANDER [TO BIDEN] [on 07/16/21]: On Covid misinformation, what’s your message to platforms like Facebook? BIDEN [on 07/16/21]: They’re killing people. I mean, really — look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated and that — and they’re killing people. KATERSKY: Biden later walked back the comment insisting he wasn’t attacking Facebook. After running through the White House’s response that Alexander touched on, Katersky then brought up the Hunter Biden censorship: Zuckerberg going on to express regret for demoting content related to corruption allegations against Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 election, alleging the FBI warned information circulating online was a Russian disinformation operation. “It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story” Zuckerberg went onto say the company has “changed its policies and processes to make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Katersky concluded by crediting The Wall Street Journal for the first reporting the Zuckerberg letter and then acknowledged what’s obvious to readers here, but isn’t to Katersky and his fellow lefty journalists: “And, Whit, there really is a tension going on here between the government and Big Tech over how content on social media should be policed and whether conservative voices often get silenced.” “Absolutely. The story getting a lot of attention this morning,” Johnson replied. To see the relevant transcripts from August 27, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC).