If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. YouTube CEO Neal Mohan has a post up on the company blog just in time to‚ well in advance‚ reiterate the giant platform’s policies regarding the upcoming elections. Even though Mohan’s “letter” is supposed to deal with the “four big bets for 2024‚” the bit concerning the elections is of most interest‚ given the ramifications of YouTube’s previous and continued restrictive approach and unprecedented levels of censorship. Just in case anyone worried things might improve‚ the post reassures them: YouTube will use its massive resources and the way the platform is structured‚ such as search and recommendations‚ to wipe out what it chooses to consider “hate speech” and at the same time “boost authoritative sources” even more. Related: Microsoft CEO Says the Company Is Working To Address Election “Disinformation and Misinformation” This will be done when users search for topics related to the elections. Mohan spends a good while talking up the importance of creators and how YouTube intends to make their YouTube businesses even better. But there is one glaring failure by omission in this pitch: explaining what happens to creators and their content and channels‚ often built for years‚ when they cross the sometimes invisible censorship line drawn by Google’s video behemoth. What happens is demonetization‚ deplatforming – “disappearing.” Finally Mohan addresses (obviously not framing it that way) how the censorship machine – the one responsible for destroying many creators – works when facing users‚ and what YouTube’s plans on that front are for 2024. Tucked in the section about “protecting creator economy” and the obligatory “think of the children” bit‚ the YouTube CEO writes: “Another way we uphold our responsibility is connecting people with high quality information. This is more important than ever as elections take place across the globe – more than 50 countries will hold elections this year.” Mohan repeats what’s highly likely contained in some memo circulated to the usual Big Tech/government collusion participants. It might go something like this: “When talking about 2024 elections and how you’re going to censor around them‚ mention the many ballots happening around the world‚ rather than focusing on‚ or even mentioning‚ the only one that really matters to us – the US one.” The YouTube figurehead goes on to say that the platform is “ensuring that when people look for election news on YouTube‚ authoritative sources are prominent in their searches and recommendations.” No details are given as to how YouTube is “ensuring” this. But‚ Mohan is defiant about the past years’ often shocking levels of censorship‚ and he has his own “language” to describe it – and leaves no room for doubt that the trend will continue. “We spent years investing in a playbook to responsibly manage content on YouTube including longstanding‚ rigorously enforced policies against hate speech‚ incitement to violence‚ election interference‚ and more. We quickly evolve and adapt when new challenges emerge‚ and we’ll do so again (…)‚” Mohan writes. The post YouTube CEO Vows To Censor “Hate Speech” and Boost “Authoritative Sources” in Recommendations When People Look for Election News in 2024 appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Sistine Chapel Is White Supremacy

The Squad Might Be in Trouble Over Its Anti-Israel Politics

'No Way': Israel Rejects Hamas Demands for Full Withdrawal‚ UNRWA‚ and Massive Aid for Hostages

Since the creation of nuclear weapons‚ we have lived in a world where an all-out war could destroy humanity many times over. Studies have found that just 100 or so warheads could plunge the world into nuclear winter‚ which could claim up to 1 billion lives. As of 2023‚ we have an approximated 12‚500 nuclear warheads.But what if there was a way to find these weapons and destroy them‚ from a distance‚ without anyone knowing what's happening? That is the futuristic scenario painted by a pre-print paper titled‚ quite dramatically‚ "Destruction of Nuclear Bombs Using Ultra-High Energy Neutrino Beam"."Our basic idea is to use an extremely high energy neutrino beam which penetrates the earth and interacts just a few meters away from a potentially concealed nuclear weapon‚" the team explains in their paper‚ which is yet to be peer-reviewed. "The appropriate energy turns out to be about 1‚000 TeV. This is the energy where the neutrino mean free path becomes approximately equal to the diameter of the earth. The neutrino beam produces a hadron shower and the shower hits the plutonium or the uranium in the bomb and causes fission reactions. These reactions will heat up the bomb and either melt it down or ignite the nuclear reactions if the explosives already surround the plutonium."The beam would be used to cause a controlled "fizzle explosion". At the time of writing – back in 2003 – the team believed they could cause a controlled explosion around 3 percent of the weapon's strength‚ but that would need to be reduced in order to disarm the bombs safely. Too much energy could lead to a full explosion‚ which is what we are trying to avoid.While destroying nuclear bombs is a cool idea‚ we would also need to be able to locate them. The team believes that a neutrino beam using less energy in conjunction with detectors could be used to detect nuclear bombs‚ making the problem a lot easier. The team proposed that neutrinos could be used to study the internal structures of the Earth‚ much in the same way as we use seismic tomography but without the hassle of waiting around for earthquakes.So‚ what would the downsides to such a tech be? An obvious one‚ acknowledged in the paper‚ is that the weapon's use would not be limited to nuclear weapons."We are certainly aware of the fact that this kind of device can not only target the nuclear bombs‚" they write‚ "but other kinds of weapons of mass destruction and also‚ unfortunately‚ any kind of living object including human."The team believed that the radiation dosage would be low enough that it would not be practical to target people‚ or a group of people‚ in this way. Moreover the technology – still out of our current grasp – would be so cost-prohibitive that it would need multiple countries to collaborate in building it."We strongly object to the ungrounded worry that this kind of device‚ even its downgraded version could be used by certain irresponsible organization as a weapon of mass destruction‚" the team concluded. "On the contrary‚ we sincerely hope that our proposal will motivate and stimulate the revival of the old idea of 'World Government' which has so far been discarded as unrealistic."The paper is published on pre-print server arXiv.

The centaur Chariklo has two dense rings orbiting it. In attempting to explain their survival astronomers have proposed a yet-to-be-detected satellite‚ which they say may be keeping the rings in line.Saturn’s rings have been known for almost four centuries‚ but in the last 50 years we have learned they are only the most dramatic examples of a common phenomenon. The Voyager probes revealed smaller ring systems around the other three gas giants. Between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune‚ the bookends of the gas giants are smaller objects known as centaurs. In 2013‚ the largest of these‚ Chariklo‚ briefly blocked the light of a star (known as an occultation). The star winked out to Earthly observers when Chariklo occulted it‚ but it also temporarily dimmed four other times‚ twice each before and afterwards. These dips revealed Chariklo’s own pair of rings‚ with orbits either side of 400 kilometers (240 miles) from the planet’s core.From the start there was puzzlement as to how an object with so little mass – Chariklo is only 250 kilometers (150 miles) in diameter and thought to be primarily made of ice – could hold onto rings. Since then‚ reanalysis of what were first thought to be rings around fellow centaur Chiron indicated rings could be common‚ without explaining them‚ before we learned Chiron’s rings are probably an evolving lumpy disk. Adding to the mystery‚ Chariklo’s rings are outside the centaur’s Roche limit‚ unless their density is much lower than that of Chariklo itself. Outside the Roche limit‚ rings should rapidly combine into moons.Subsequent occultations have confirmed the rings’ existence and shown the inner one blocks 10 times as much light as its companion‚ leaving astronomers to model what is going on. The moons Pandora and Prometheus and Saturn's F ring. These two moons‚ around 80 kilometers (50 miles) wide‚ keep the F ring‚ which would otherwise be too far out to survive‚ in line. It was thought something similar was happening with Chariklo‚ but only one moon may be required.Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute. Source: https://science.nasa.gov/resource/a-pair-of-shepherds/The Planetary Science Institute’s Dr Amanda Sickafoose is one of those tackling the problem. “Planetary rings will naturally spread or disperse over time. Chariklo exhibits two thin rings‚ a few kilometers in width‚” she said in a statement. In order for the rings to stay 7 and 3 kilometers (4 and 2 miles) wide‚ there needs to be “a mechanism to confine the material and prevent it from dispersing‚” she added.Sickafoose and co-author have shown that without such a mechanism the rings increase linearly in size with time‚ contradicting the dense‚ narrow bands indicated by the fairly brief drops in brightness. Unless we happened to see Chariklo almost immediately after the rings formed‚ something must be keeping the rings tight. The same modeling shows that a suitably positioned satellite would do this; one about 3 kilometers (2 miles) wide and weighing a few tens of billions of tons would do the trick. We couldn’t see such an object at this distance unless it happened to be perfectly positioned to also block out the star back in 2013.Simulated rings around Chariklo from this research‚ with an approximate 3-kilometer (2-mile) radius satellite in a 6:5 mean-motion-resonance‚ producing rings similar to those we have observed. Ring particles are shown in white.Image credit: Sickafoose &; Lewis‚ The Planetary Science Journal 2024 (CC BY 4.0)Previously it was thought two shepherding moons might be required.Sickafoose noted‚ “We think that the ring particles are primarily made of water ice‚ like those at the giant planets. We do not know the exact characteristics‚ such as how ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ the ring particles are when they collide‚ or the particle-size distribution.” Rings made of hard particles would be maintained indefinitely by the proposed moon‚ but outside the Roche limit soft particles would be much more likely to become moons themselves.An alternative explanation is a gravitational anomaly on Chariklo’s surface‚ and a rotation rate that allows the force of this anomaly to keep the rings in line. Although Sickafoose described the physics of the two scenarios as similar‚ such a mass concentration on the surface appears less in keeping with what we know about minor planets. On the other hand‚ it is far easier to imagine that an earlier ring turned into a moon‚ and then kept the remaining moons stable‚ something that is thought to explain Saturn’s F ring‚ maintained by the small moons Pandora and Prometheus. Although the idea of Chariklo having a moon may appear to resolve the mystery‚ Sickafoose’s recent re-evaluation of Chiron’s rings suggests we shouldn’t get too confident without more observations. If the two centaurs turn out to have quite different surrounds it will open up even more questions‚ such as which provides the better analog for Haumea‚ or Quaoar‚ and how many other arrangements exist.The study is published open access in The Planetary Science Journal. 

Most of us have marveled at parrots who can mimic a few words in human language‚ but have you ever encountered one that takes it to the next level? Picture this: a parrot so adept at communication that it can engage in a full-blown conversation with Siri‚ Apple’s virtual assistant. This isn’t just a figment... The post Parakeet activates Siri on owner’s phone and they most hilarious ‘conversation’ together appeared first on Animal Channel.

The Daily Signal released an exclusive piece Monday indicating that the Department of Justice advised a Washington D.C. medical examiner to dispose of aborted baby bodies in over to hide criminal evidence. In March 2022‚ a group of pro-life activists including Terrisa Bukovinac and Lauren Handy from the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising group‚ discovered the remains of five dead preemie babies as well as the remains of over 100 pulverized remains of first-trimester babies. The five older babies‚ who’ve since been named by mourning pro-lifers‚ look like they were brutally murdered late in their mothers pregnancy. It appears that two of the babies were murdered after they were born alive and that the other babies were victims of illegal partial birth abortions. This was at the same clinic in the Foggy Bottom of D.C. where abortionist Cesare Santangelo admitted that if he accidentally delivered a baby during an abortion‚ he’d leave it to die. D.C. doesn’t currently have any restrictions on how late a baby can be aborted in a pregnancy so‚ as The Daily Signal noted‚ “D.C. police shrugged off the matter” at the time. The death of those five babies needs to be investigated in order to determine whether the cause of death was the abortion or if the death occurred after they were already born‚ infanticide. The D.C. Medical Examiner as well as the DOJ have “stonewalled any questions about the babies’ death.” Now‚ nearly two years later‚ it appears that Biden’s DOJ has repeatedly told the D.C. clinic to dispose of the babies and reject any need for autopsies.  Attorney Martin Cannon who is representing pro-life activists who the DOJ charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act back in 2020‚ got a call from the D.C. Medical Examiners office on Monday. “Just today‚ I got a call from the medical examiner’s office indicating that the DOJ has advised them that there is no reason to keep those babies anymore‚” Cannon told The Daily Signal‚ “And the medical examiner’s office accordingly tells me that if we don’t have an order to the contrary‚ by the end of this week‚ a court order‚ they will dispose of the babies.” Cannon noted that he’s been in talks with a forensic pathologist who was considering examining the babies and that the D.C. Medical Examiner was on board but the pathologist ended up being unable to conduct the exam.  The information on how those babies died is vital information for the pro-life activists who found them. One of whom is currently in jail in Alexandria‚ Virginia. In just a few short weeks Handy will be sentenced for her charge of violating the FACE act. Lauren Handy was the one who had the aborted babies in her freezer in an attempt to save the remains so that the D.C. Clinic could be held accountable for their brutal murder. “The condition of those babies and the circumstances under which they died is still relevant to the case‚” Cannon said before noting that‚ “It’s pertinent to sentencing.” When word initially broke about the babies bodies being found‚ the National Abortion Federation even sent an email out attempting to help the DOJ cover up what happened. The group insisted that claims of infanticide were “false” and a copy of that email was released this week. 🚨BREAKING: Public records emails show @NatAbortionFed "assisting" @TheJusticeDept in case involving bodies of 5 late-term babies aborted at 3rd trimester NAF clinic in DC. Is NAF behind DOJ's new push to DESTROY the bodies‚ and cover up evidence of infanticide at a NAF clinic? pic.twitter.com/QerdBUwbpj — David Daleiden (@daviddaleiden) February 6‚ 2024 Cannon was also perplexed that the D.C. Medical Examiner even took such “stark marching orders from the DOJ.” If I understand the structure of things correctly‚ there’s no real reason the DOJ should have such sway over the examiner’s office. Beyond Lauren’s case‚ there is a general need to have these babies examined. There is literally exactly a 50% chance that two of these babies … there’s a 50% chance that each of them was born alive and left to die… There’s some chance that the others were subject to illegal partial birth abortions. Cannon noted that the DOJ “knows” that the way those babies died are “federal crimes” insinuating that the DOJ is trying to cover up the way those babies were killed. Biden’s Department of Justice is attempting to “burn” the bodies of those babies which would permanently destroy the potential criminal evidence of how they were killed. Many groups including PAAU are calling on Congress to intervene as these remains could be destroyed as early as February 13‚ LifeNews indicated.  

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) blasted a university-affiliated censorship AI project funded by the National Science Foundation for the purpose of silencing free speech. Cammack suggested  during a Tuesday Congressional hearing that the project was really just an attempt by University of Michigan censors to filter content they didn’t like away from prying eyes and to shield social media companies from liability for censoring. Cammack was sitting on the House Select Weaponization Subcommittee for a hearing on the weaponization of AI to censor online content. She was specifically referring to the contents of a grant proposal to the NSF sent from the University of Michigan to develop a service for its “WiseDex” tool that could identify the veracity of a piece of content on social media and screen it for “misinformation.” George Orwell turns over in his grave.  .@RepKatCammack exposes how National Science Foundation grants are used to dodge accountability‚ "get people off our backs"@JudiciaryGOP @Weaponization pic.twitter.com/iUcXQb6Db5 — Christian (@MonteCristo1837) February 6‚ 2024 In the grant proposal‚ researchers highlighted the supposed usefulness of “WiseDex” because of its potential for “externalizing the difficult responsibility of censorship.” Instead of social media companies having to decide who is going to be censored‚ they can simply outsource the responsibility to third parties and “Get people off our backs for how we act on misinfo.” [Emphasis added.] The NSF gave a taxpayer-funded $750‚000 grant to the University of Michigan through its “Track F” program. The goals of the program were to create a “‘golden set service’ that determines what content is misinformation” and an API “that can tell a social media platform ‘for any content item’ how true that content is…”   “On their overview slide‚ the mission of their grant‚ as explained‚ was: ‘Our misinformation service helps policymakers at social media platforms get good PR for their actions on misinformation by having a clear benchmark for outcomes and eliminating the need to defend internal procedures‚’” Cammack highlighted‚ before appearing to cringe.  She continued‚ “The slide deck also notes that they ‘do things that we know work without backlash’ and then‚ ‘We push responsibility for difficult judgments to someone outside of the company.’ It goes on to say‚ ‘We get people off our backs for how we act on misinformation‚’”she said‚ continuing to cite from the grant. “And it goes on to say‚ ‘We eliminate the need to defend specific procedures.’” Cammack concluded:“Now this is an NSF-taxpayer funded project and they say‚ ‘We eliminate the need to defend specific procedures’ as though accountability is more of a suggestion‚ more of a yellow light.” Cammack’s remarks followed the release of a damning Weaponization Subcommittee interim report that revealed that the NSF spent $39 million on various “Track F” programs. The programs were launched by NSF on March 18‚ 2021‚ which was “...ultimately asking applicants to propose solutions involving AI-powered tools to help Big Tech combat misinformation…”    Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand government agencies and Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

The top left corner of Monday’s New York Times tackled the “book bans” in Idaho and Iowa. “Culture Wars Put Librarians On Front Lines‚” warned the headline. “Combating Book Bans and Threats of Jail.” Reporter Elizabeth Williamson began with how a “Rainbow Squad” of teenagers caused a ruckus at the library in Post Falls‚ Idaho. This went on for 2‚600-plus words and the entirety of page A-16. But wait – what about “book bans” or challenges from the Left? Are those not News‚ too? It turns out that Williamson had another story – this time from Maine‚ where the lefties tried to stop the “anti-trans” book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters by Abigail Shrier. But that story was about 800 words….and didn’t make the paper. That headline:  ‘My Heart Sank’: In Maine‚ a Challenge to a Book‚ and to a Town’s Self-Image The obvious question: Why wouldn’t the Times take these two stories and merge them‚ instead of highlighting the anti-conservative narrative and burying the opposite “book ban” activists? This underlines how the Narrative is everything. The comparatively hidden fraction would upset the Times subscribers‚ so that can’t be front-page material. A huge photo at the top of A-17 is the book Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. Over the cover of the book is Idaho librarian Denise Neujahr talking about her "Rainbow Squad" teens. "They're really good kids. It just makes me so sad that they have to go through all this hate. This is not what libraries stand for."  Naturally‚ Williamson and the Times chose to censor the actual disputed images and text. Their subhead was 'What Is Explicit Is Subjective‚" but this is how they summarized the book's contents: "The author‚ who is nonbinary‚ explores puberty and sexual identity in the book‚ which includes some drawings of nudity and sexual scenarios." So they won't show or describe Kobabe envisioning having her imaginary penis in mid-fellatio‚ as well as talk of masturbation and blow jobs. Conservatives are criticized for not even reading the "banned books‚" but the Times sheltered their own readers from the explicit content. Aren't leftists the open-minded ones?  The Maine story has a hero: the best way to demonstrate leftist censorship is to donate conservative books to the library and watch what happens:  Wealthy‚ liberal-leaning Blue Hill prided itself on staying above the fray — until the library stocked a book that drew anger from the left. Rich Boulet‚ the director of the Blue Hill Public Library‚ was working in his office when a regular patron stopped by to ask how to donate a book to the library. “You just hand it over‚” Mr. Boulet said. Boulet was sad when the book was Irreversible Damage‚ but in the spirit of the librarian lobby‚ decided to include it. (He didn't do it on his own. He was pushed.) Many transgender people and their advocates say the book is harmful to trans youth‚ and some have tried to suppress its distribution. “If I’m being totally honest‚ my heart sank when I saw it‚” Mr. Boulet recalled. There was community outrage. "One patron told him that if a trans youth checked out the book and died by suicide‚ 'that’s on you‚' Mr. Boulet recalled. Critical Facebook posts and negative Google reviews poured in." It's a fascinating story. It's too bad it couldn't make the "paper" edition. PS: The contrast in the American Library Association quotes in these two stories is the best cognitive dissonance: Anti-conservative front-pager: “We’re no longer seeing a parent have a conversation with a teacher or librarian about a book their child is reading‚” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone‚ the director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom. “We’re seeing partisan groups demand the removal of books that they’re told are bad books‚ that they are not even reading‚ because they don’t meet the political or moral agenda.” Vs. Hidden leftist censorship story: Mr. Boulet appealed to the American Library Association for a public letter of support‚ which it offers to libraries undergoing censorship efforts. “They ghosted me‚” he said. Asked about the letter‚ Deborah Caldwell-Stone‚ director of the A.L.A.’s Office for Intellectual Freedom‚ said Mr. Boulet’s request had generated internal debate‚ and delay. “Our position on the book is‚ it should remain in the collection; it is beneath us to adopt the tools of the censors‚” she said in an interview. “We need to support intellectual freedom in all its aspects‚ in order to claim that high ground.” Months after Mr. Boulet requested the letter‚ Ms. Caldwell-Stone saw him at a conference and apologized.