If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In the brave new world of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public (CIP), it seems like “informed” is synonymous with “watched.” Birthed to combat the wildfires of online “misinformation,” CIP and its partners – including the defunct Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) and the short-lived Virality Project – thought they might have been celebrated defenders of truth. Instead, they became poster children for what happens when watchdogs get a little too cozy with power, diving into an experiment that teetered between public good and Orwellian oversight. Election Integrity Partnership: A Marriage of “Good Intentions” and Government Influence The Election Integrity Partnership, a coalition that included CIP as a key player, kicked off its operations with a noble-sounding mission: to shield our fragile electoral systems from the scourge of fake news. For the discerning reader, the term “integrity” in their name may raise eyebrows; it’s reminiscent of government programs cloaked in the language of virtue, their real work a little murkier. Partnering with government entities and social media giants like Facebook and then-Twitter, EIP set out to identify and “mitigate” misleading content related to elections. In other words, they assumed the job of selectively filtering out the lies, or as critics would say, the truths that didn’t toe the right political line. For a while, EIP was in its element, functioning as a digital triage, purging the internet of what they deemed harmful content. But what started as “informational integrity” quickly became a federal hall monitor, policing citizens’ Facebook posts and Twitter threads with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Conservatives, in particular, saw this as more of a censorship scheme than a public service. Their view? EIP wasn’t there to inform – it was there to enforce. The Consequences of Playing Speech Police Predictably, the backlash came hard and fast. Between accusations of censorship, lawsuits, and subpoenas, the EIP got hit with more legal troubles than a tech startup in a copyright infringement scandal. And when all was said and done, EIP disbanded, its ambitions buckling under the weight of public scrutiny and political pressure. The New York Times, ever the mournful observer of lost social crusades, called it a tragedy for public discourse. They framed the dissolution as a loss for those who believe in “responsible” information regulation, i.e., those who think someone should be appointed arbiter of truth, as long as it’s the “right” someone. The lawsuit-laden disbandment sent a message: Americans are more than a little skeptical about government agencies and their academic friends lurking behind the scenes, flagging speech like a hall monitor on a power trip. The public isn’t too keen on playing along with institutional gatekeepers telling them which “facts” are allowed to stand. CIP’s Retreat: Education Over Eradication? With EIP gone, CIP has had to pivot. It’s retreated from the frontlines of digital speech enforcement, now favoring a softer approach – “educating” the public on misinformation rather than erasing it outright. Translation: CIP now hosts workshops and seminars where it teaches researchers and civilians alike about the nature of disinformation, sidestepping its prior role as a social media referee. This rebranding effort is essentially CIP’s way of saying, “We’re not here to censor, promise.” Yet, the academic world’s “shift to education” sounds suspiciously like the fox retreating from the henhouse after getting caught. CIP’s pivot reflects the current climate, one in which watchdogs like it have to tread carefully or risk losing all influence. Now, they’re not shutting people up; they’re merely explaining why certain ideas are wrong, a move that feels less aggressive but still keeps CIP’s finger on the scale of public opinion. The Larger Implications: Free Speech in the Crosshairs CIP’s saga shines a harsh light on the deepening tensions between free speech advocates and so-called “disinformation” experts. On one side, you have entities like the New York Times wringing their hands, lamenting the “tragedy” of these anti-misinformation efforts falling apart. The Times warns of a future in which misinformation spreads unchecked, as though without EIP, social media will devolve into an apocalyptic pit of lies. On the other side, you have critics of censorship, those who see CIP’s previous activities as a government-endorsed grab at control, cloaked in the language of public safety. Now, we find ourselves in a new chapter, with CIP toeing the line carefully, offering lessons in “awareness” rather than flagging posts. This so-called “nuanced understanding” might sound respectable, but it still hinges on a central belief: certain ideas are dangerous enough to warrant intervention, even if the means have shifted from banning to benign “educating.” In short, CIP may be keeping a lower profile, but its ambitions haven’t changed – they’ve merely gone underground. So what do you get when you hand the keys to social discourse over to government-aligned bodies like the EIP? For starters, the inevitable slide toward an overzealous surveillance state. Free speech advocates have been beating this drum for a while, and they aren’t wrong: schemes like EIP carry the perfect storm of potential for overreach and abuse. It’s the classic “trust us” move from government and corporate giants who assure the public that they’re only flagging content for “our own good.” But when a government body is allowed to sift through online conversations, the notion of “our good” quickly morphs into “their control.” The result? People start censoring themselves, fearing that one wrong post might put them on a watchlist or see them “fact-checked” into silence. These watchdog groups claim to target misinformation, but they often mistake dissenting views for danger and critique for conspiracy. The very act of monitoring speech creates a chilling effect, where the public might think twice before posting on sensitive subjects. After all, who wants to risk getting flagged by an algorithm armed with both the moral zeal and clumsiness of a hammer trying to nail jelly to a wall? Transparency and Accountability – Or the Lack Thereof And then there’s the lack of transparency – a time-honored tradition in institutions that insist they know best. When EIP was in full swing, it wasn’t as if users got an email detailing who decided their post was a threat to democracy or what precise reasoning went into labeling it “misinformation.” Instead, decisions were made in rooms far from public view, with opaque policies and an ever-shifting definition of what “misinformation” even means. Political or corporate interests could easily influence this moderation, and, surprise, surprise – with little oversight, the system quickly looks more biased than benevolent. The arbitrary and often political nature of these decisions only stokes public distrust, especially when it’s the very voices challenging authority that find themselves most frequently muzzled. It’s the internet equivalent of a teacher who can’t explain why certain kids always get detention – people quickly learn not to ask questions and go along with the rules, but that doesn’t mean they believe in the fairness of the process. Democracy’s Achilles’ Heel: Stifling Discourse in the Name of Truth In democratic societies, it’s a cornerstone. The ability to voice different viewpoints, even those that shake the system, is essential for a healthy public sphere. When bodies like EIP take it upon themselves to deem what’s acceptable for public consumption, we’re left with a sanitized marketplace of ideas – one in which only the ideas that align with sanctioned narratives get a seat at the table. If only certain perspectives survive the cut, we end up with voters fed a curated set of “truths,” unable to challenge, investigate, or even consider alternatives. And it’s not just a hypothetical fear. History has repeatedly shown that the silencing of controversial or dissenting voices only deepens public division. Ironically, the very thing these “integrity” initiatives aim to prevent – public polarization – often worsens when people feel their speech is being filtered. With an overpowered referee deciding which facts to keep on the field, the game of democracy itself suffers. The Slippery Slope: Setting the Stage for Future Censorship The question becomes, once government-linked entities start moderating our conversations, where does it end? Today, it’s about “election integrity.” Tomorrow, it could be “economic stability” or “public health.” Every crisis invites a new round of justifications for more speech control. After all, if misinformation on elections is a threat to democracy, couldn’t misinformation on any number of other issues pose a similar threat? Accepting censorship in any form opens a Pandora’s box of future government interference, each intervention creating new precedents that make the next round of censorship feel more routine. The free speech argument here is simple: even if an opinion is wrong, unpopular, or offensive, it deserves protection. The minute we concede that it’s acceptable to police ideas – especially by bodies connected to government interests – we make it all the easier for future, more dangerous limitations to slip into place. The Real Effectiveness Question: Censoring Ideas or Fanning the Flames? Then there’s the effectiveness issue. Does suppressing “misinformation” really work, or does it just make it more insidious? Efforts like EIP may well reduce the volume of “dangerous” content on mainstream platforms, but it doesn’t just vanish. Ideas banned in one place tend to bubble up elsewhere – often in online echo chambers where censorship only serves to validate radical viewpoints, feeding a cycle of resentment and extremism. The disinformation crusade might actually be doing more harm than good, driving misinformation underground where it becomes even harder to address. The government’s digital eraser may scrub certain ideas from view, but it often intensifies belief among those already suspicious of authority. For them, censorship itself becomes “proof” of suppression, amplifying distrust and cementing conspiratorial thinking. In trying to stamp out the “lies,” EIP and its ilk may have simply fueled the fire. In the end, the dissolution of the Election Integrity Partnership is perhaps less a blow to public discourse than a win for the democratic spirit. As the Center for an Informed Public pivots from censoring to educating, we’re reminded that the battle against misinformation doesn’t require speech suppression. It requires a trust in the public’s ability to sift truth from nonsense – a trust that, in a healthy democracy, should never be in short supply. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Losing Their Grip: Why Anti-“Misinformation” Crusaders Are Mourning the End of Control appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

I Am Tired of 'Leaders' Who Hate Me

Instead of being the victims of Pompeii-style volcanic eruptions, it seems these dinosaurs’ deaths were less painful, but slightly embarrassing.

The world must be getting so much worse! Activists protest everywhere. Listening to them, I’d think hate, homophobia, racism and environmental threats are at record highs. But it’s not true. Despite our ugly election politics, for most people, life is better than ever. Our air and water are cleaner. People live longer and healthier lives. There’s less racism and homophobia. But if they admit that, activists would be out of a job. In my new video, John Tierney, a journalist who’s covered protests for years, says, “For activists, success is a threat. It is going to put you out of business.” I push back. “They’re not a business. They’re not making money doing this.” “Yes, they are!” Says Tierney. He’s right. Environmental groups probably make the most. The head of the World Wildlife Fund pays himself $1.2 million a year. Somehow, that will reduce climate change? “Climate change is the perfect crisis,” says Tierney, “You can attribute anything to it, and it’s always in the future.” The fund says climate change increased the number of “major hurricanes.” “There’s been no long-term growth in the intensity or the number of hurricanes,” Tierney points out, “but every time one comes, it’s a great photo op for the crisis industry to use to say, ‘This is climate change!’” When it comes to deceitful self-dealing, says Tierney, “The ultimate example is the Southern Poverty Law Center.” When the SPLC opened, it promised legal help to those harmed by racism. After its lawsuits bankrupted chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, the SPLC changed its “Klanwatch” to “Hatewatch,” Tierney points out, “fabricating the idea that there’s a rising tide of hate in this country. ... It scares people, and they get money.” “They think they’re making the world a better place,” I suggest. “But they’re not!” he says. “They’re viciously attacking and smearing.” Smearing groups like “Moms for Liberty” and “Moms for America.” “Scaremongering and giving people the idea that there’s all this hatred and racism,” Tierney continues, “when all the evidence shows just the reverse.” The SPLC’s founder said he’d stop fundraising once they raised $55 million. Now they have $600 million, and they ask people for more money. Another branch of the crisis industry, The Human Rights Campaign, claims that American gays are under attack. They issued a “national state of emergency” for LGBTQ+ people. But “Last year, public support for gay rights reached an all-time high,” says Tierney. “Gays can marry in every state. There’s no stigma against homosexuality. Gay characters used to be taboo on television; now they’re practically obligatory. An anti-gay slur is this career suicide. But these activists need to declare some kind of emergency.” Racial justice activists claim America is still a racist country. “How did this fundamentally racist country elect Barack Obama and reelect him?” asks Tierney. “There’s even been a decline in the search for racist jokes on the internet. People are more committed than ever to treating everyone the same.” I bring up George Floyd’s killing. “But that was a very rare event,” says Tierney. “Studies do not show any racial bias in police shootings. Taking one death and turning that into a ‘national reckoning with race’ was incredibly lucrative for activists.” They raised more than $10 billion after George Floyd was killed. BLM’s leaders spent $12 million of it on luxury properties. And their anti-police protests probably killed people. Violent crime increased sharply. Activists’ self-promotion often kills. “One of the great public health advances (of) this century has been vaping,” Tierney points out. “Once vaping devices were introduced, smoking rates plummeted to historic lows.” Lots of lives are saved because vaping is much safer than smoking. “But this was a huge threat to anti-smoking activists,” says Tierney. “If people were quitting on their own, what happens to us? So, they started scaring people about vaping.” “They’ve succeeded in persuading most people that vaping is as dangerous as smoking,” he adds. “That is a horrible thing to do to the public. But it’s been very good for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. It’s great for their careers. It’s terrible for public health.”

Today's Morning Joe served up a festering stew, a farrago of lies and misrepresentations aimed at boosting Kamala Harris and trashing Donald Trump. The show began by glorifying the Harris campaign closing message. But sadly for Morning Joe, it made the mistake of running a clip of some of her remarks. They were the emptiest, most substance-free platitudes imaginable: "A fresh start. A new way forward." Harris has refused to renounce many of her past radical positions, and has declared that her "values have not changed" since her senatorial days when her record was even more liberal than Bernie Sanders'. So we can assume that her fresh start and new way forward would be a hard turn to the left for America. Kamala also uttered this utterly unbelievable assertion:  "I am not seeking to score political points." Riight! For his part, Scarborough twice recycled the lie to which he had devoted endless airtime last week. As he put it today, Trump "called to have Liz Cheney shot by a firing squad." That lie has been so thoroughly debunked by people across the political spectrum, that it took a special kind of Scarborough shamelessness to mouth it again today.   Let's look at what Trump actually said: "I don't want to go to war. (Liz Cheney) wanted to go, she wanted to stay in Syria. I took (troops) out. She wanted to stay in Iraq. I took them out. I mean, if were up to her, we'd, we'd be in 50 different countries. "She is a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face. You know, they're all warhawks when they're sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, ‘Oh gee, we'll send tens of thousands of troops right into the mouth of the enemy." As our Alex Christy has noted, even Trump hater Bill Maher has acknowledged that Trump was making a classic chickenhawk argument: that it's easy to send people into war when you're sitting safely at home. But that if Cheney had to experience the horrors of war, her views might change.  "Don't lie to me," fumed Maher to the media: but Scarborough obviously wouldn't listen. Along similar lines, far-left, self-described "Young Turk" Cenk Uygur has said: "Donald Trump did not call for the execution of Liz Cheney. That is a bald-faced lie." (By the way, Cenk's 54. At what point does he cease being a "young" Turk?) Trump envisioned Cheney "with a rifle standing there." And as others have pointed out, no one put before a firing squad is given his own rifle! Then there was Katty Kay, doing the obligatory scaremongering about trusting Trump "with the nuclear codes." Katty, Trump had those codes for four years, and never came close to using them! And finally, braggadocious Scarborough—yet again—managed to drag into the conversation on the flimsiest reed a story about having been a congressman! Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 11/4/24 6:00 am EDT KAMALA HARRIS: America is ready. America is ready for a fresh start. Ready for a new way forward, where we see our fellow Americans not as an enemy, but as a neighbor.  I pledge to seek common ground, and commonsense solutions to the challenges you face. I am not looking to score a political point. I am looking to make progress. . . .  JOE SCARBOROUGH: I don't know that I've ever seen as much contrast in a closing message. Not just on energy, and on vitality and on vigor. But also just the overall message of hope, optimism, versus pessimism, grimness. And again, a calling, two days after he called to have Liz Cheney shot by a firing squad, talking about how he wouldn't mind if the press got shot. . . .  He seems more untethered, and more exhausted at the same time.  The contrast -- you know, the first campaign I ever ran, the guy I talked to early on in the campaign, he said, Joe, this campaign's all about contrast. You're young. Your opponent's old. Drive that contrast. It's all about contrast! You get then to this campaign. I've never seen a greater contrast in American politics. . . .  KATTY KAY: When Donald Trump talks about violence like this. When he talks about beating up his stagehands because his microphone isn't working the way he wants it to, that doesn't inspire a lot of women to think, oh yeah, this is the guy we can trust with the nuclear codes, and the key to the Oval Office.

"The View" co-host Whoopi Goldberg told former Congresswoman Liz Cheney she would love to have her be the U.S. attorney general in a Kamala Harris administration should the vice president win Tuesday's election.In an attempt to distance herself from her progressive positions, Harris has promised to have a "Republican" in her cabinet. While Harris has not officially named who the "Republican" might be, Cheney would appear to be a favorite as she has campaigned alongside the candidate.'We have to get Vice President Harris elected tomorrow.'"Are you also a lawyer?" Goldberg inquired when Cheney was on Monday's episode of "The View."When Cheney said she was, Goldberg floated the attorney general idea. "I say this," Goldberg explained, "Your moral core is magnificent. And I know you probably don't want to think about it, but I just feel like I would feel a lot better with you leading the FBI, the CIA. ...That's just me.""Please just think about it," Goldberg pleaded."We have to get Vice President Harris elected tomorrow," Cheney replied.Cheney added it is not enough for Trump to lose the presidential race; the GOP must also lose the majority in the House of Representatives.Goldberg has issued unhinged warnings about what would happen should former President Donald Trump win the election. Last week, Goldberg warned interracial couples that a Trump administration would separate them by deporting one spouse and reassigning the spouse who is staying in the United States to another person."He is talking about you. It’s us. He’s not going to be — he’s not going to, you know, say, ‘Oh, you’re with a white guy, I’m going to keep you from being deported.’ No, he’s going to deport you and put the white guy with someone else. The man is out there," Goldberg yelled.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Muslim community leaders in Minnesota made the best possible closing argument for Donald Trump over the weekend. Speaking at the Minnesota Capitol on Saturday, Muslim and Somali leaders gathered behind a lectern adorned with a "Trump Make America Great Again" sign to explain why they cannot possibly support Kamala Harris for president. 'The Democratic Party is now the party of war. It's the party of the billionaires. It's the party of silencing free speech.' "We're gathered here today to fully support and endorse President Trump and JD Vance," one of the men said. The leaders felt compelled to endorse Trump because they believe he is the best candidate to lead America after four years under the leadership of Harris and President Joe Biden. Specifically, they praised Trump for his vision and record on the economy, education, immigration, personal freedom, crime and safety, and foreign policy and for promoting conservative family values. Interestingly, nearly every speaker said they feel that the Democratic Party has abandoned them — becoming a party that doesn't care about the concerns of every day Americans. One of the most interesting individuals who spoke at the event was Abshir Omar, a man who once worked on Democrat Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign. In no uncertain terms, Omar explained he now supports Trump because the Democratic Party has become everything it once claimed to stand against. "You see all these people in this room were former Democrats — we were die-hard supporters," he said. "We were loyal to the Democratic Party, but that party is no longer loyal to us and no longer loyal to this country. We send billions overseas to prosecute wars against innocent people, yet we can't prosecute war against poverty in this country. We spend billions giving to lobbyists, yet we can't help homelessness in our community. "The Democratic Party is now the party of war. It's the party of the billionaires. It's the party of silencing free speech," he continued. "That is not who I am, and that is not my values. My values are still my values, but the party of the Democratic Party no longer holds those values to be true, and today, in front of my own community and the rest of our society, I'm telling you I am no longer a Democrat. I have left that party. I have left that party, and I'm sticking to my conscience. I don't care what is politically expedient. I don't care what you look like, who you pray to." Omar went on to say: I'm a person of deep Muslim faith. I have Abrahamic religion. I love my Jewish brothers and sisters. I love my Christian brothers and sisters. People come from different communities and backgrounds. We're all the same. We live in a country where we should be working together. Not hurting each other, not defaming each other. We should be protecting the rights of every person to speak. Because today if I am supporting the censorship of a segment of this country — guess what — tomorrow I will be censored too. And I don't want that for myself or for my family. And that's why it's surprising to say Trump is kind of an a**hole. He says a lot of things. He's not the nicest person in the room. He's not going to sugarcoat things for you. But guess what: The four years he was president, nothing happened to me personally. I was safe; this community was safe. This country was safe. Another man who spoke at the event said he loves Trump because "he's a fighter." "More importantly, the left left us. They left us," that man continued. "Thirty-three percent of our kids cannot read — cannot read at grade level. Minnesota in education? We are failing in every standard. Eighth-graders — 60% cannot do math at grade level. These are our kids. We are talking about economic conditions here. Our conditions is [sic] horrible. We can't afford anything as working-class and middle-class people. Now please understand this: We love our brothers and sisters who are Democrats, but you left us. "And because the left left us, join the right and vote for Trump 2024," he declared. Harris is facing a well-known problem with Arab-American and Muslim voters, and Trump is benefiting from it. Not only is Harris viewed as the pro-war candidate, but Muslim voters are often socially conservative, holding values that traditionally align with the Republican Party. Harris' far-left record and progressive vision, moreover, are weighty baggage that blocs of traditionally Democratic voters — like the Muslims endorsing Trump in Minnesota — can no longer ignore. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Donald Trump campaign published early-voting numbers that showed a massive decrease in both urban and female voters. Both categories tend to vote Democrat.Trump press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted a campaign memo that stated: "Democrats are facing a massive turnout deficit.""In every single battleground state, we see President Trump and Republicans outperforming elections past in absentee ballots and early votes cast," the memo claimed."Democrats are facing a precipitous decline in urban turnout according to their own 'data experts' and we are tracking an uptick in rural turnout."The Trump campaign published numbers from Tom Bonier from TargetSmart, which the party described as a "Democrat data expert."The data was a comparison of early-voter turnout in 2024 compared to the 2020 presidential election.For Arizona, urban early-voter turnout was down over 385,000 while female turnout was down about 170,000. At the same time, rural turnout was up more than 14,000.Other stark contrasts were shown for Michigan, where 320,000 fewer urban citizens voted early. There were also 200,000 fewer women who voted, as well. Additionally, rural turnout was up 55,000 in Michigan.Pennsylvania, where many think the election will be decided, saw a decrease in early urban voters by more than 380,000. Meanwhile, a whopping 450,000 fewer women voted early in the swing state. — (@) 'There is a whole lot of spinning going on.'Bonier himself denied the characterization of the data, calling it "not shocking" that the Trump campaign was spinning the numbers in its favor."There is a whole lot of spinning going on in this Trump campaign memo that mischaracterizes our data, and I'm pretty sure I know why," he said on X.However, on its face, the data seems to obviously favor Trump and the Republicans.In 2020, two out of three urban voters reportedly voted for Joe Biden over Trump, a 33-point advantage according to Pew Research.However, the number has narrowed since 2018, when it was a 48-point advantage for Democrats. It was 46 points for Hillary Clinton in 2016.At the same time, Trump took the rural vote by 32 points in 2020, with 65% of the share. He has widened that gap since 2016 when he had just a 25-point advantage over Hillary Clinton among rural voters.According to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers, women favored Biden with their 2020 vote at an average of 56%, while male voters favored Trump at around 52%.The numbers were generally the same with the gender gap at around 10-11 points in both the 2016 and 2020 elections.Despite the claim that the Trump campaign has misrepresented the numbers, it stands to reason that, in general, a decrease in turnout for urban and female voters in swing states would at the very least result in fewer overall votes for Democrats than it would Republicans based on historical voting.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Things That Make You Go Hmm Like ...Why Do We Know So Little About Trump's Pennsylvania Shooter

Not Biased at All Former Clinton Staffer George Stephanopoulos Claims Trump Ends Campaign on a Dark Note