If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The controversy surrounding the Texas social media law, initially signed in 2021, continues to unfold as it returns to the lower courts for further examination. This legislation, known as H.B. 20, compels platforms such as X, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube to not only publish regular reports detailing removed content but also to establish a system for complaints and reveal their methods for moderating content. Ostensibly, the law aims to prevent these companies from banning users based on political opinions. We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here. The case was escalated to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit following a decision by the Supreme Court, which refrained from making a definitive judgment on the law’s constitutionality concerning similar statutes in Texas and Florida. Instead, the Supreme Court directed the lower courts to resolve the First Amendment issues presented, leading the Fifth Circuit to delegate the Texas case back to the Western District of Texas for a thorough reevaluation. NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, plaintiffs in the case, have argued that H.B. 20 infringes on the First Amendment rights of social media platforms. This Texas law, enacted in 2021, mandates platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube to generate regular reports on removed content, establish a complaint system, and disclose their content regulation procedures. Its primary aim is to prevent social media companies from banning users based on political viewpoints. Authored by Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldham, the opinion from the Fifth Circuit instructs the district court to identify the full scope of activities and actors covered by H.B. 20, a task that will require a detailed understanding of each platform’s content moderation practices. Judge Oldham’s opinion highlights the necessity of this exploration, countering Texas’s argument against the need for such in-depth inquiry by emphasizing that understanding the specific burdens on websites is crucial to determining if they face undue restrictions on their expressive activities. “Who is covered by Texas House Bill 20 (‘H.B. 20’)?” the order asks. “For these actors, which activities are covered by H.B. 20? For these covered activities, how do the covered actors moderate content?” “The Court stated that H.B. 20, ‘at least on [its] face, appear[s] to apply beyond Facebook’s News Feed and its ilk.'” The order also stated that “To determine if any given application of H.B. 20’s ‘content-moderation provisions’ is unconstitutional, the district court must determine ‘whether there is an intrusion on protected editorial discretion.'” In the appellate court, Circuit Judge Andrew S. Oldham’s ruling underscored the necessity for the district court to clarify the scope of H.B. 20, specifying which entities and activities fall under its purview. Oldham’s instructions came on the heels of the Supreme Court’s assessment that the case was inadequately developed, posing numerous fact-intensive questions needing resolution. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Texas Social Media Free Speech Law Faces New Scrutiny in First Amendment Fight appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. What happens when an agency meant to protect Americans from foreign propaganda starts tiptoeing over the line into the realm of domestic censorship? Enter the Global Engagement Center (GEC), a charming creation of the US State Department that was originally tasked with combating foreign disinformation. It sounds like something out of a spy novel: shadowy entities sowing chaos through whisper campaigns and disinformation dumps. But now, the real drama lies in how this agency has extended its reach beyond foreign threats and into the murky waters of the internet’s free speech landscape. Of course, the GEC would prefer to be seen as a benevolent referee, helping social media giants like Facebook and YouTube play the good guys in the battle against digital deception. In theory, this agency is all about countering Russian bots and Iranian trolls. But somehow, along the way, its mission stretched to a point where the average American scrolling through a feed can almost feel the government’s fingers tapping on their shoulder, cautioning them about what’s “trustworthy.” It’s no wonder people are starting to worry. “Protecting” Free Speech with Blacklists and Bans Let’s break down how the GEC manages to defend democracy in ways that look suspiciously undemocratic. The agency works directly with social media platforms, advising them on what narratives might be feeding the foreign propaganda machine. Sounds reasonable—until it doesn’t. The GEC has dipped into its federal piggy bank to fund initiatives creating online blacklists and flagging content for removal. Some say it’s about “maintaining integrity” online; others say it looks a lot like censorship on the taxpayer’s dime. To critics, this looks like the first few moves of a chess game where the GEC is lining up for a checkmate on free expression. And they’re not alone. Skeptics of the GEC’s approach argue that these actions open the door to a sanitized internet, where only approved opinions make the cut. Who gets to decide what’s misleading or manipulative? Turns out, it’s not entirely clear, and this vagueness is what has civil liberties watchdogs gnashing their teeth. Paul Nakasone: Former Spy, Current AI Board Member, and GEC’s Biggest Fan Amid the ruckus, the GEC does have a few high-profile cheerleaders. One of them is none other than Paul Nakasone, a former NSA Director who now sits on the board of OpenAI. He’s come out swinging in favor of the GEC, showering praise on its efforts to shield American audiences from outside influence. For someone who once helmed the NSA, Nakasone knows a thing or two about surveillance, and his endorsement feels like a tacit nod from the intelligence community itself. But even as he applauds the GEC, some are asking the obvious question: why is a former NSA chief, now positioned at the bleeding edge of AI technology, so invested in this government office’s future? Could it be that he sees a future where government-sponsored “truth” filters bleed into the algorithmic architecture of social media platforms? The GEC’s methods may have started with a noble purpose, but Nakasone’s involvement shines a light on the agency’s proximity to power and influence, making many wonder if the GEC is merely a cudgel for elites to enforce their narrative. Bipartisan Endorsement: The Ultimate Shield Then there’s the bipartisan protection the GEC enjoys, courtesy of Senators John Cornyn and Chris Murphy, the Republican-Democrat duo that co-parented the agency into existence back in 2016. In the world of American politics, finding anything both sides agree on is as rare as a unicorn, so when they do align, it’s usually worth a closer look. Cornyn and Murphy are now pushing for the GEC’s reauthorization, hoping to give it another seven-year lease on life. Their logic? Keep the GEC’s scope foreign-focused and off-limits when it comes to domestic politics. The proposal includes a “strict ban” on US political meddling and tighter financial oversight—measures meant to steer the GEC back toward its original, “noble” mission. Yet, those promises don’t seem to be allaying fears. After all, what constitutes meddling, exactly? And how far does “foreign-focused” go on the internet where “foreign” is about as easy to define as air? If there’s one thing Washington excels at, it’s drawing the line right where it’s convenient, then redrawing it when no one’s looking. The GEC’s Real Legacy: Democracy or Control? At its core, the GEC’s story isn’t one of pure villainy or virtue; it’s the all-too-common tale of mission creep. Born to protect, it evolved into a protector so zealous it could become the very thing it claimed to fight. In a landscape where free speech is already under constant siege, the GEC’s growth raises the age-old question: who watches the watchers? So, here we stand, with two powerful senators asking us to trust that the GEC’s next seven years won’t resemble the questionable track record of the last. Whether you see this as a necessary shield or a potential weapon against dissent, one thing is clear—the GEC’s presence in the digital ecosystem is likely to remain contentious, polarizing, and above all, inescapably tangled in the web of modern-day propaganda wars. The Global Engagement Center, with its sleek mission of unmasking foreign propaganda, has certainly racked up its share of victories abroad, unearthing disinformation from the usual suspects—Russia, China, and other state-sponsored actors. But back home, it’s a different story. While the GEC might like to see itself as an indispensable line of defense, a growing number of Americans see it as something altogether more insidious: a tool for quashing dissent under the shiny guise of “security.” The backlash isn’t just coming from the fringes; it’s led by Republican lawmakers who accuse the GEC of overstepping its mandate, straying from a mission to combat foreign influence and dabbling instead in something far more contentious: influencing American political discourse. Conservatives argue that the GEC has a cozy relationship with major social media platforms, where it’s allegedly advising them to tag and downrank content from right-leaning sources, all under the sanctified banner of “disinformation.” In a country already primed to erupt over issues of free speech, it’s an explosive allegation that’s landed the GEC in the crosshairs of national outrage. The Conservative Media Strikes Back Fed up and ready to push back, some of the biggest conservative media names have banded together with the state of Texas to launch a lawsuit against the Department of State. Platforms like The Daily Wire and The Federalist are taking aim at what they claim is a calculated attempt by the GEC to label their content as “disinformation,” a charge they argue has made them radioactive for advertisers and throttled their visibility on social media. Their argument is simple but searing: a federal agency is directly infringing on the First Amendment by blocking or burying conservative viewpoints in the very same channels it was established to keep open. This accusation has given conservatives a rallying cry, a David-vs-Goliath scenario where state-backed censors go after political speech under the flimsiest pretexts. Leading the legal crusade is Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who’s never one to mince words. Paxton has openly accused the GEC of being on a crusade of its own—one aimed not at safeguarding democracy, but at suffocating it. In Paxton’s view, the GEC has gone rogue, turning from a shield against foreign interference to a battering ram against American freedoms. Enter Congress: The Great Reassessment The uproar has made its way to Capitol Hill, where figures like Rep. Darrell Issa are pounding the drum for a major reassessment of the GEC’s practices. Issa, along with a cadre of similarly concerned lawmakers, has raised the alarm about how far the GEC’s operations have expanded. It’s one thing to combat the well-oiled disinformation machines of Moscow or Beijing. But it’s something else entirely to be monitoring, blacklisting, and deplatforming opinions within US borders under the same disinformation protocols. For Issa, this isn’t just mission creep; it’s an outright defiance of the GEC’s mandate. The agency, he contends, has blurred the line between legitimate counter-disinformation efforts and outright censorship, especially when that censorship just so happens to lean in one political direction. Issa and others argue that under the pretext of fighting foreign influence, the GEC is developing an appetite for policing thought—a role Congress never intended it to fill. Reform or Dismantle: The Fight Over the GEC’s Future And now, Washington is embroiled in a growing debate over what to do with the GEC. On one side are those who argue that the center just needs a tighter leash, and a few accountability measures to ensure it sticks to foreign threats and foreign threats only. On the other side are those who say the GEC’s existence is a danger to American principles — perhaps a well-intentioned experiment gone horribly wrong. They’re pushing for its complete dismantling, arguing that no amount of reform can protect an agency with such sweeping power from abusing it. In an ironic twist, the very tools created to protect democracy now stand accused of eroding it, launching a bitter tug-of-war over the American ideal of free speech versus the unquantifiable need to “protect” citizens from supposedly dangerous ideas. Are we safer for it? Or are we on a slow slide into a digital age where the government, deciding what counts as legitimate speech, becomes the very propagandist it claims to fight? At the least, the GEC seems to have lost its way, now accused of extending its mission to target domestic media—particularly conservative voices. Its partnerships with organizations like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) have turned into a flashpoint for accusations of bias, with critics arguing that these alliances are driving the GEC’s work right into partisan territory. The GDI, a non-profit that presents itself as an impartial watchdog against misinformation, has its own critics, many of whom argue that its “disinformation” classifications are less about protecting the public and more about ensuring the “right” voices dominate the information landscape. Conservative media outlets have consistently found themselves on the wrong end of these classifications, flagged as threats to the sanctity of truth while more progressive-leaning sources, somehow, skate by. This raises questions about how these ostensibly neutral organizations are choosing their targets and how much influence the government-backed GEC has on these classifications. An Ethical Tug-of-War: Security, Truth, or Free Speech? As the debate heats up over the GEC’s impending renewal, we’re not just talking about a procedural rubber stamp. The reauthorization of the GEC is emerging as a proxy battle over far deeper questions: What role should the government play in policing information? And where is the line between safeguarding the public and controlling it? On one hand, there’s the argument that a body like the GEC is essential for a world where foreign states meddle with domestic politics through armies of bots and fake accounts. Without it, we’re told, Americans would be defenseless against the unrelenting tidal wave of foreign-sponsored fake news designed to sow chaos and division. Yet, that same narrative has an underbelly—a creeping encroachment on civil liberties, a kind of censorship wearing the costume of patriotism, where political biases steer the GEC’s focus. Congress at a Crossroads: To Renew, Reform, or Repeal? Congress now faces a critical decision: Do they rubber-stamp the GEC for another seven years and trust that reforms and restrictions can keep it in check? Or is it time to dismantle a mechanism that critics argue is increasingly indistinguishable from the very disinformation campaigns it claims to fight? Senators are debating an array of reforms, from tighter financial oversight to strict prohibitions on domestic content moderation. But skeptics aren’t convinced that a few added layers of oversight will suffice; the GEC’s history suggests that mission creep may be inevitable, and with it, the erosion of free expression. If the GEC’s renewal goes through with little structural change, the implications will reverberate far beyond Washington. It could set a precedent where government-sanctioned “disinformation” monitoring becomes normalized as part of the American media landscape, allowing those in power to define and punish “disinformation” with little accountability. The potential for abuse here is staggering. Setting Precedents for a Digital Battlefield The GEC saga is a window into the heart of a much larger debate over information warfare and the role of government in a digital age. If the GEC continues to exercise its authority as both referee and player in the information space, it could pave the way for similar agencies to wield censorship as an arm of policy. We might soon find ourselves living in a digital landscape where what’s considered “misinformation” conveniently aligns with what’s politically inconvenient for those in power. Ultimately, the GEC’s future will set the tone for how the US balances national security with its commitment to free speech. As the Senate weighs its options, the stakes couldn’t be higher. This decision will define the boundaries of governmental influence over the public’s access to information, shaping the next chapter of American engagement in the digital world. The choice to renew, reform, or repeal the GEC is no small moment—it’s a defining one, with repercussions for every American’s right to think, speak, and decide for themselves what is truth and what is manipulation. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post A License to Censor? The Fierce Fight Over the GEC’s Renewal appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Too Fun to Check: Biden Internal Polling Had Trump Winning 400 Electoral College Votes?

Don’t be fooled — this is planet Earth, not Mars.

The centaur brightened almost 300 times with four ice volcano eruptions in 48 hours, but is now fading again.

To find out, let's venture to the South Pacific Ocean.

And what scientists have found inside.

The tunnel appears to lead towards a superbubble.

On the first Sunday following Donald Trump’s sweeping victory on November 5, CBS’s 60 Minutes featured a somber post-election analysis carried out by Scott Pelley, the former CBS Evening News anchor who previously treated President Biden to two absurd softball interviews. Pelley’s apparent disappointment at the election result was outshone only by his seeming lack of understanding as to what possibly could have led to a second Trump victory. Much of the discussion felt as though it had been plucked out a 2016 election postmortem. Evidently Pelley had only just begun to notice middle class voters abandoning the Democratic party for Trump due to the economy and the border. Pelley’s first interview subject was Roz Werkheiser, a restaurant owner who supported Trump on November 5 for primarily economic reasons: SCOTT PELLEY: You grew up in a Democratic household. ROZ WERKHEISER: Yes. PELLEY: But you just voted for Donald Trump? WERKHEISER: Yes PELLEY: Inflation is down by more than half. Interest rates are falling Mortgage rates are falling Wages are going up. Are you not feeling that?” WERKHEISER: I don’t feel it. No, I don’t feel it. I don’t feel it at all. Everybody I talk to, nobody’s wages went up.       Everyday people understood intuitively that Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 signaled something of a realignment among the working class. Eight years later, a handful of leftwing media people have finally begun to catch on. It’s enticing to blame this near-decade-long lack of understanding on the middling intelligence of many journalists, but that’s a bit too simplistic of an explanation. From the beginning of Trump’s first campaign in 2015, through the end of his first term in 2020, the media’s numerous failed attempts to understand his popularity were hopelessly marred by racialist narratives. If you ask a journalist from 2018 about Trump’s base, they would never mention the working class without first inserting the prefix, “white.” They saw Trump appealing not to a beleaguered working class in aggregate, but rather to a cadre of bitter, closed-minded rubes who happened to share a loosely-defined economic bracket. All of that brings us to the next portion of the 60 Minutes postmortem: Scott Pelley having his mind blown by the news that working-class hispanics turned out for America’s new President-elect. “Democrats would’ve expected to do really well with latino voters,” he remarked to another interviewee, working-class latino man identified as Ronald. He continued: “Donald Trump made a lot of inroads in this election, and I wonder why you think that is.” Pelley was especially fascinated that Ronald actually liked the idea of border security, despite not being white: “Today, Ronald finds some common ground with Trump — even on immigration!” Of course, the piece also included a bout of obligatory head-scratching over why voters had rejected the a wildly unpopular candidate who polled at one percent in 2019 and who did not receive a single vote in the 2024 primaries. When all the votes are counted, Vice President Harris is going to be several million votes short of where Joe Biden was in 2020. Why?… Why would Democrats not turn out in the numbers they had before? Finally, Pelley brought in freshly-ousted Congresswoman Susan Wild (D-PA), who argued that the Democratic party needed to stop focusing so much on unpopular, niche social issues (which she described as “very important”): If you are struggling to pay your rent or feed your kids, you don’t have the privilege of thinking about things like LGBTQ rights… Unfortunately, I think our party needs to figure out that not everybody is just thinking about these very important social issues. Judging by the meltdowns we saw late last week across liberal broadcast, cable, and print news media, it’s hard to see the journalistic class taking to heart any of the lessons Pelley learned in this edition of 60 minutes. Only time will tell.

A Democratic National Committee official skewered the Harris campaign, proclaiming it to be a "$1 billion disaster." President-elect Donald Trump trolled the Democrats' lavish spending on the failed campaign. Lindy Li — who sits on the Democratic National Committee's finance committee — slammed the Harris campaign for allegedly misleading Democratic donors about Kamala's chances of winning the 2024 presidential election. 'I think that was a big f*** you to the party.'Li told “Fox & Friends” on Saturday, “The truth is, this is just an epic disaster — this is a $1 billion disaster. They’re $20 million or $18 million in debt. It’s incredible, and I raised millions of that."Campaign filings show that the Harris-Walz campaign took in at least $1 billion, plus an additional $600 million from other aligned groups. Citing sources, Politico's Christopher Cadelago reported that Kamala's campaign ended with at least $20 million in debt.Li then blasted Harris campaign chairwoman Jen O’Malley Dillon and accused her of misleading Democratic donors into wasting millions of dollars.“I have friends I have to be accountable and explain things to because I told them it was a margin-of-error race," Li stated. "I was promised, Jen O’Malley Dillon promised all of us that Harris would win. She even put videos out saying Harris would win. I believed her, my donors believed her, and so they wrote massive checks. I feel like a lot of us were misled.”Li noted that even on Election Night, people within the campaign assured her that Vice President Kamala Harris would win. Li — a now-former campaign surrogate for Harris — said, "I looked somebody in the eye, and said, 'Are we gonna do this? Are we gonna pull this off?' She told me, 'Yes.'"Another Harris campaign member told Li that the election was in the bag for Kamala because "we're gonna win Iowa." Li recalled thinking, "I was like, 'What?'" Li said the relationship was "terrible" between high-profile supporters of President Joe Biden and Harris even "before the campaign.""There was backstabbing, they wanted to hand her the least favorable agenda," Li stated. "She was stuck with immigration, civil rights." "There was backstabbing by the press, they were leaking all the time," Li continued. "The White House was leaking like a sieve when it came to Kamala Harris." Li said if Democrats truly felt like Trump was an "existential threat" then they should have had a primary to get the best candidate instead of "coronating" Harris. “I actually think President Biden, the whole endorsing her 30 minutes after he dropped out, I think that was a big f*** you to the party," Li said. "‘If you don’t want me, here’s somebody you may not like, deal with it.'”Li admitted that Harris had a lot of staff turnover. As Blaze News reported, the Harris team spent millions on celebrity and influencer endorsements as well as high costs related to "event production."Meanwhile, Trump also lampooned the Harris campaign for spending a record amount of money and having nothing to show for it. "I am very surprised that the Democrats, who fought a hard and valiant fight in the 2020 presidential election, raising a record amount of money, didn’t have lots of $’s left over," Trump declared on the X social media platform. "Now they are being squeezed by vendors and others."Trump stated on Saturday, "Whatever we can do to help them during this difficult period, I would strongly recommend we, as a party and for the sake of desperately needed UNITY, do. We have a lot of money left over in that our biggest asset in the campaign was 'earned media,' and that doesn’t cost very much. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"According to campaign finance filings, Trump raised just over $1 billion in donations from his campaign committee and other groups. Following the election, the Trump campaign has roughly $125 million cash on hand. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!