h/t Angela S

79 years ago today, Plaid Cymru or the Party of Wales, was founded with the aim of supporting Welsh culture in government as the progress of the 20th century led to fears that the Welsh language would become extinct. From the beginning, Plaid Cymru was stuck between Labor, the Liberals, and the Tories, arguing that the greatest […] The post Good News in History, August 5 appeared first on Good News Network.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Here we go again – another US election is coming up, and there’s another push to find ways to censor “disfavored” voices, and one of those ways is the focus on the foreign malign influence (FMI) boogeyman. Americans (and the world) have seen this play out already before and after the contested 2020 vote. The infamous case of the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop news story came after the FBI issued a warning to social media companies about an incoming FMI “disinformation dump” – from Russia. We know how that went and was eventually debunked, the laptop being authentic, rather than a figment of some “disinformation” peddling operation’s imagination. But here is the FBI again, more than just emboldened by the recent Supreme Court’s ruling in the Murthy v. Missouri case. That decision lifted an injunction that banned the US government from colluding with Big Tech in order to promote censorship. Now the case is back in the lower courts, and in the meanwhile, mere months before the election, the legal hurdle to resume suspected collusion has been cleared. And so the FBI will now “resume regular meetings” with social media companies, the pretext being finding ways to combat “potential” FMI threats. The Hunter Biden laptop scandal illustrates very well how the supposed hunt for FMI can go astray, straight into the political censorship territory. But none of that seems to matter now, as the current White House presses on with the old practices. On July 12 this year, just after the Supreme Court’s decision, Department of Justice (DOJ) Associate Deputy Attorney General George D. Turner penned a memo that shows the collusion never really stopped – even after last October’s court injunction restricting this type of “collaboration.” We obtained a copy of the memo for you here. The memo reads that after this, the DOJ – always “appropriately accounting for First Amendment considerations” (wouldn’t it be easier to say – without violating the First Amendment?) – “began developing a standardized approach for sharing FMI information with social media companies.” Come February, and the FBI started using that standardized approach and “actively sharing FMI threat information with social media companies on a continuing basis.” And now, on top of that, the FBI is free to resume regular meetings with social media companies. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post FBI To Resume Meetings With Social Media Companies, Ignoring Censorship Concerns appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Argentina’s new initiative to launch the Applied Artificial Intelligence for Security Unit (UIAAS) represents a concerning step toward a surveillance-heavy approach to tackling crime. Under the guise of innovation, this unit, embedded within the Ministry of Security, integrates artificial intelligence to not only sift through vast amounts of historical crime data but also to monitor social media activities ostensibly to predict and preempt criminal behavior. This approach raises significant ethical questions, especially regarding privacy and civil liberties. The idea that AI can predict future crimes based on patterns might sound efficient, but it harbors risks of overreach, profiling, and potentially unjustified surveillance. The emphasis on monitoring social media activities and detecting “potential threats” could easily slide into invasive scrutiny of everyday citizens’ lives under a loosely defined mandate. Critics have voiced many concerns. Their skepticism highlights a broader apprehension about the trade-offs between using AI in law enforcement and the erosion of personal freedoms. The capacity for AI to be misused under the pretext of security could set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to a dystopian reality where personal spaces and freedoms are heavily compromised by state surveillance. Argentina’s pioneering step, therefore, should be viewed critically, demanding rigorous scrutiny and debate to ensure that the pursuit of security does not trample the very liberties it aims to protect. The line between safeguarding citizens and surveilling them must be navigated with caution to prevent an unsettling shift towards an AI-driven surveillance state. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Argentina’s AI and the Rise of Pre-Crime Digital Surveillance appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan on August 1 requested documents from more than 40 companies that are members of the controversial, powerful advertising initiative, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The Committee has long had GARM (set up by the World Federation of Advertisers, WFA) in its sights in the context of a broader investigation into the government colluding with tech companies, but also other corporations, to censor online speech. In this case, GARM is suspected of getting the world’s biggest brands to effectively demonetize, by withholding ads, various platforms, podcasts, news sites, “and other content that GARM and its members deem disfavored,” Committee Chairman Jim Jordan writes in his letter sent to dozens of GARM members. We obtained a copy of the letters for you here. GARM’s official purpose is to provide brand safety to its clients (and theirs amounts to some 90% of marketing spending globally) – but Jordan says that this WFA initiative (with ties to the World Economic Forum, WEF) has significantly deviated from that goal. Instead, it has “collectively used its immense market power to demonetize voices and viewpoints the group disagrees with – even intervening in situations that do not have a so-called ‘brand safety’ concern,” Jordan writes. Among those who received the letter are Electronic Arts, Red Bull, McDonalds, General Motors, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Verizon, Volvo, American Express, Chanel, CVS, Pepsi, Adidas, Nike, IKEA, Sony, Shell – and that’s just a third of the corporations listed, but it gives a clear idea of the power GARM, as their “brand safety umbrella,” has to make or break any entity “disfavored” for their speech. Jordan informed these corporations that the committee he chairs “has learned that collusive activity is occurring within the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, of which your company is a member.” That activity included boycotting sites, podcasts, etc., that GARM decided should be excluded from the members’ marketing spending. Among those that were allegedly targeted in this way are conservative media outlets like Daily Wire and Fox News, but also Joe Rogan’s podcast. A WFA spokesperson denied that GARM was involved in “operational steps relative to monetization eligibility” nor things like content ratings, platforms assessments – “or media investment decisions.” But a recent Judiciary Committee interim report said that GARM head Rob Rakowitz was influencing members to make their decisions based on what “fact-checkers” like Global Disinformation Index (GDI) and NewsGuard had to tell them. These are considered “left-leaning” while those who suffered “censorship through demonetization” are entities considered conservative or libertarian. Famously, one of them was Twitter – as soon as Elon Musk acquired it, that is. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post House Probes Major Businesses for Censorship Collusion With GARM’s Alleged Ad “Cartel” 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 USPS and Federal Agencies’ Shocking Hidden Data Trail appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The D.C. Circuit Court has declared that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) violated the Constitution by using keyword filters to censor comments on its social media platforms. The court’s decision stems from a dispute involving People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which argued that their comments were unfairly targeted by NIH’s filtering system on Facebook and Instagram. This case highlights ongoing tensions between government control and free speech on digital platforms. We obtained a copy of the order for you here. The crux of the court’s decision hinged on three critical findings regarding the nature of the forums in question. First, the NIH’s social media accounts were determined to be limited public forums, a classification that allows for certain restrictions but not indiscriminate censorship. Second, while the NIH has the authority to curtail off-topic discussions, the court found that the agency’s keyword filters overstepped this boundary by blocking on-topic and potentially valuable contributions, particularly those from PETA on posts related to animal testing. In delineating the scope of acceptable moderation, the court noted that NIH’s social media guidelines were intended to keep discussions relevant to the posted content. However, it criticized the agency’s keyword filters as overly broad and lacking sensitivity to the context, which, according to the court, resulted in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Notably, NIH’s keyword list included terms directly related to animal rights activism such as “animal,” “cruel,” and even specific hashtags like “#stopanimaltesting.” The court was particularly scathing in its assessment of the keyword strategy, labeling the approach as not only unreasonable but also inflexible and disconnected from the nuances of real discussions. This misstep, according to the court, skewed the public discourse significantly against PETA’s viewpoint, disrupting a fair and balanced dialogue about NIH-funded activities. The implications of this ruling are profound. The court’s decision could push government agencies to either significantly improve how they manage social media interactions or retreat from interactive engagements altogether, perhaps choosing to use their platforms solely for broadcasting information without allowing public feedback. This potential shift could have chilling effects on public discourse, particularly in digital spaces typically viewed as democratic venues for diverse opinions and debates. The outcome is a clear victory for PETA, securing both the validation of their claims and a precedent that may deter future governmental overreach in social media moderation. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Court Slaps Down NIH for Unconstitutional Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.