If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The New York Times, Media Matters for America, and The Washington Post are stepping up their pressure on YouTube to demonetize and censor election “misinformation,” particularly statements that the 2020 election was rigged or insecure. As these organizations push for stricter speech suppression, questions are raised about the implications for open discourse on the platform and the legacy media and activist attempts to get it shut down. In the past months, Media Matters undertook an extensive review of content from 30 prominent conservative YouTube channels, identifying 286 videos containing what they classified as election misinformation, which collectively garnered over 47 million views. This report, backed by verification from The New York Times, pointed out that YouTube profited from ads placed on many of these videos. Highlighted in the Times article were figures such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, all of whom have voiced skepticism regarding the legitimacy of various aspects of the 2020 election process. According to The New York Times, “Giuliani, the former New York mayor, posted more false electoral claims to YouTube than any other major commentator in the research group.” Surprisingly, YouTube’s stance, as relayed by a spokeswoman, stresses the importance of open political discourse: “The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is an important value — especially in the midst of election season,” she stated, defending the platform’s approach to content management. Critics argue that the concerted effort by The New York Times and Media Matters may push YouTube towards a censorship regime that could hinder the expression of political ideas and debates. They fear that these actions could set a precedent where content is excessively policed, potentially stifling a broad spectrum of political discussions under the guise of combating misinformation. A YouTube spokesman elaborated on the company’s policy, saying, “YouTube said it removes videos that mislead voters on how to vote, encourage election interference or make violent threats.” The discussion around these policies does not occur in a vacuum. Various community members and commentators have voiced their concerns. Giuliani, a popular YouTube creator mentioned in the article, defended his content, stating, “I am proud to be included with Ben and Tucker — two GREAT Patriots!” The Washington Post in particularly takes aim at podcasts. Podcasts, fundamentally different from other media formats in their distribution, exist primarily as MP3 files that are uploaded and stored on various hosting services before being disseminated across a multitude of directories and platforms. This more decentralized nature of podcast distribution means that unlike posts on a single platform like Facebook or Twitter, which can be centrally monitored and moderated, podcasts can be accessed from numerous sources. This dispersal complicates the ability of activists and tech companies to exert control over content, as removing a podcast from one directory does not prevent it from being available on others. Additionally, the host servers, often separate entities from the directories that list the podcasts, further obscure the line of responsibility and control, rendering censorship efforts fragmented. “Podcasts, whose fast-moving audio format has proved challenging for tech companies and researchers to monitor, can provide ‘a safe space’ for those airing election-fraud narratives, said Valerie Wirtschafter, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. “The shows are an especially impactful vehicle for falsehoods and conspiracy theories because hosts foster intimate, trusted relationships with their listeners, who regularly tune in during their commutes or while doing chores around their homes,” she said. “Fact-checking is so hard on social media,” said Katie Harbath, CEO of the tech consultancy Anchor Change and a former Facebook public policy director, to the Washington Post. “How do you even do that on a podcast?” Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro has launched a scathing attack on mainstream media, particularly targeting The New York Times and The Washington Post for today’s publications which he claims attempt to suppress conservative media outlets. His criticism comes at a critical time, just days before voters head to the polls. According to Shapiro, both The New York Times and The Washington Post released articles “just hours apart” in a coordinated effort to discredit conservative media. Shapiro disparages these pieces as “trash” and indicative of a broader media agenda to quell conservative discourse. Shapiro specifically mentions his own commentary, stating, “The New York Times, of course, argues on the basis of Media Matters (!) ‘research’ that YouTube is essentially making money off election denialism.” He defends his statements as factual, particularly his claims about Democrats manipulating voting rules in 2020 to favor mail-in voting and ballot harvesting, arguing, “Which, of course, isn’t misinformation. It’s true.” Further, Shapiro highlights the discrepancy between media accusations and YouTube’s policies, noting, “To the credit of YouTube, they’ve said ‘none of the 286 videos violated its community guidelines.’” This point underscores his argument that the media’s claims against him and similar content creators are baseless and not in violation of any established platform guidelines. Shapiro also criticizes The Washington Post, which he feels exacerbates the issue by suggesting that podcasts are detrimental to American society. He expresses dismay at being singled out for “the sin” of hosting former President Donald Trump on his show, which The Post characterizes as problematic. Shapiro sarcastically remarks on the publication’s extreme stance: “Their conclusion? You guessed it: SHUT IT ALL DOWN.” Shapiro’s critique extends beyond specific articles, touching on what he perceives as a broader attempt by the Democratic Party and its “apparatchiks” to control media narratives and stifle opposition. He ties these media criticisms to political motives, specifically attacking Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for allegedly wanting to shut down opposition media. Established in 2004 by journalist and activist David Brock, who is described by Time magazine as “one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party,” Media Matters consistently targets what it perceives as conservative misinformation online and in the media. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post NYT & Washington Post Push YouTube To Censor Election “Misinformation,” Highlight Podcast Censorship Challenges appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

It Could Never Happen Here: Many People Won’t Consider the Grim Reality of Long-term Survival

PA Democratic Party Illegally Suppressing the Vote

It's in its initial stages of construction after a cash injection from the EU.

This kitty deserves all the treats (and an author credit).

“You get an ocean world, you get an ocean world, and you get an ocean world…”

Pretty hard to record something of this scale.

As the presidential campaign enters its final week, Laura Barron-Lopez, White House correspondent for the PBS News Hour, got the vote out for Kamala Harris in Pennsylvania, while on assignment on the Ellipse near the White House in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, covering Harris’s “closing argument” speech which Harris delivered later that evening. Laura Barron-Lopez: Geoff, we expect to hear the vice president lay out her vision and her values, what she would do if she were elected. Specifically, she's going to say that Donald Trump is busy creating an enemies list, while she's creating a quote "to-do list." And based on prepared excerpts of her remarks that we have, she is going to call Donald Trump unstable, obsessed with revenge, and also say that Americans that don't agree with her, she doesn't consider them enemies, and she wants to give them a seat at the table. She's also going to talk about her economic plans and talk about the opportunities that she wants to create for Americans and working Americans. Bennett: And Laura, considering the message and the choice of location tonight, what does the Harris campaign want folks to take away from her speech this evening? Barron-Lopez: This location was chosen intentionally, Geoff. We are on the Ellipse, and this is where Donald Trump gave that speech on January 6, 2021. Harris' campaign manager, Jen O'Malley-Dillon, said that they specifically wanted it here to create a stark visualization and remind voters about Donald Trump's speech, where he encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol to stop certification and overturn the 2020 results. They also like the fact that the White House is going to be directly behind the vice president and that the White House -- that people, Americans, can hopefully visualize the vice president as the next commander in chief. PBS pounced, naturally, on Donald Trump’s controversial rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday. Bennett: And, of course, this comes just days after Donald Trump's rally at Madison Square Garden, which was really marked by racist and sexist comments from some of the speakers. Based on your reporting, has that broken through with voters at all? The reporter agreed that it was good news for Harris. Laura Barron-Lopez: It appears that it has, Geoff. The campaign believes that it's breaking through. They say that they are seeing a lot of movement amongst Puerto Rican voters, specifically in states like Pennsylvania. And I also spoke, it's not just the campaign, I also spoke to the owner of a Spanish-language radio station in Allentown, Pennsylvania, where a lot of Latinos, specifically Puerto Ricans, live. And he said that people are calling in angry about the comments made about Puerto Rico and that some that weren't necessarily going to vote are planning on voting now. Why does that matter, Geoff? Because there are more than half-a-million Latinos in the swing state of Pennsylvania, and the vast majority of them are Puerto Rican. So the Harris campaign sees a potential momentum here in a key battleground state, Geoff. Barron-Lopez had previously ended her campaign trail segments with encouraging words for Democrats in four of the seven swing states of North Carolina, Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia. Is there still time for Wisconsin and Michigan to be the recipient of PBS's taxpayer-boosted partisanship? This pro-Democratic segment was brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 10/29/24 7:07:14 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: Tens of thousands of people are expected to be in attendance on the National Mall tonight, according to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. And our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, is there at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C., ahead of Vice President Harris' closing argument. So, Laura, what can we expect to hear from the vice president tonight? Laura Barron-Lopez: Geoff, we expect to hear the vice president lay out her vision and her values, what she would do if she were elected. Specifically, she's going to say that Donald Trump is busy creating an enemies list, while she's creating a — quote — "to-do list." And based on prepared excerpts of her remarks that we have, she is going to call Donald Trump unstable, obsessed with revenge, and also say that Americans that don't agree with her, she doesn't consider them enemies, and she wants to give them a seat at the table. She's also going to talk about her economic plans and talk about the opportunities that she wants to create for Americans and working Americans. Geoff Bennett: And, Laura, considering the message and the choice of location tonight, what does the Harris campaign want folks to take away from her speech this evening? Laura Barron-Lopez: This location was chosen intentionally, Geoff. We are on the Ellipse, and this is where Donald Trump gave that speech on January 6, 2021. Harris' campaign manager, Jen O'Malley Dillon, said that they specifically wanted it here to create a stark visualization and remind voters about Donald Trump's speech, where he encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol to stop certification and overturn the 2020 results. They also like the fact that the White House is going to be directly behind the vice president and that the White House — that people, Americans, can hopefully visualize the vice president as the next commander in chief. Geoff Bennett: With a week to go until Election Day, who is the Harris campaign trying to reach at this point? Laura Barron-Lopez: She is trying to intimately speak to people who may not feel engaged, who may not feel as though it's worth getting engaged, to those remaining undecided voters, according to the campaign officials that I spoke to today, Geoff. And that includes also they really want to drive turnout among suburban women, independents, moderate Republicans specifically. And Harris' campaign manager, Jen O'Malley Dillon, also said that they are trying to make sure that those voters that turned out in 2022 about abortion turn out again this year. Geoff Bennett: And, of course, this comes just days after Donald Trump's rally at Madison Square Garden, which was really marked by racist and sexist comments from some of the speakers. Based on your reporting, has that broken through with voters at all? Laura Barron-Lopez: It appears that it has, Geoff. The campaign believes that it's breaking through. They say that they are seeing a lot of movement amongst Puerto Rican voters, specifically in states like Pennsylvania. And I also spoke — it's not just the campaign. I also spoke to the owner of a Spanish-language radio station in Allentown, Pennsylvania, where a lot of Latinos, specifically Puerto Ricans, live. And he said that people are calling in angry about the comments made about Puerto Rico and that some that weren't necessarily going to vote are planning on voting now. Why does that matter, Geoff? Because there are more than half-a-million Latinos in the swing state of Pennsylvania, and the vast majority of them are Puerto Rican. So the Harris campaign sees a potential momentum here in a key battleground state, Geoff. Geoff Bennett: Laura Barron-Lopez reporting from the Ellipse tonight. Laura, thank you. Laura Barron-Lopez: Thank you.

Less than a week from Election Day, six crucial Senate seats remain within striking distance for Republicans. Republicans are currently in the minority, holding 49 seats, while Democrats and Independents combined hold the remaining 51 seats. While Republicans would have to flip only two seats to win back the majority, there are several pickup opportunities for the GOP. Despite his previous double-digit wins, Casey's polling advantage has plummeted to just a few points, which is a good sign for his Republican challenger. The two most likely seats Republicans are looking to secure are in Montana and West Virginia. West Virginia's Senate seat is an open race between Republican Gov. Jim Justice and Democratic candidate Glenn Elliott. The candidates are running to replace Independent Sen. Joe Manchin after he announced his retirement in November 2023.Cook Political Report has rated the Senate race in West Virginia as "solid Republican," which is reflected in the massive polling advantage Justice boasts over Elliott. In addition to the Mountain State, Republicans are enjoying some rosy poll numbers farther west. In Montana, Republican candidate Tim Sheehy has pulled Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester, who has previously won his seat by narrow margins. Recent polls put the three-term Democratic Senator at a substantial polling deficit, and Cook Political Report rated the seat "lean Republican."Although the race is closer than the one in West Virginia, the tide has turned in Sheehy's favor, and Tester is taking notice. Tester's campaign has repeatedly labeled him "bipartisan" and has even held off from endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris, making him the only Democratic Senator to do so. Tester's decision to distance himself from his party is reflective of Sheehy's momentum in the red state. While winning Montana and West Virginia would be enough for Republicans to flip the Senate, there are four more seats rated "toss-ups" that the GOP could secure. In Michigan, Republican candidate Mike Rogers and Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin are going head-to-head in the race to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Although Slotkin initially had a several point polling advantage, Rogers has narrowed her lead and even surpassed the Democrat in some polls. Another key race Republicans have managed to tighten is in Ohio, where Democratic incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown is battling GOP candidate Bernie Moreno. Although Brown has won all three of his terms by a substantial margin, Moreno has chipped away and even pulled ahead of the incumbent's increasingly narrow polling advantage. In Pennsylvania, Democratic incumbent Sen. Bob Casey is facing a similar challenge from Republican candidate Dave McCormick. Casey first won in 2006 by a significant margin and easily held onto his seat for two more terms. Despite his previous double-digit wins, Casey's polling advantage has plummeted to just a few points, which is a good sign for his Republican challenger. Further east in Wisconsin, Republican candidate Eric Hovde has gained ground against Democratic incumbent Sen. Tammy Baldwin. Like other races along the Rust Belt, Baldwin's initial polling advantage has rapidly diminished as Election Day approaches. Although the race remains tight, Republicans remain optimistic. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Shocking documents have revealed that San Jose State University asked other schools for financial compensation after they forfeited against SJSU, following reports that SJSU has a male athlete on its women's volleyball team.SJSU features a 6'1" male — Blaire Fleming, born Brayden — on its roster, which has resulted in five schools issuing forfeits: Boise State, Nevada, Southern Utah, Utah State, and Wyoming.Thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request to Boise State, it has been confirmed that SJSU asked for money from two of those schools over alleged lost revenue from home games.'I would ask to be made whole at the very least.'Through the FOIA request, it was revealed that Jeff Konya, San Jose State athletics director, sent an email to Boise State Athletics Director Jeremiah Dickey asking for compensation for its September 28 forfeit."Your institution's arbitrary decision not to play an otherwise eligible NCAA team has resulted in harm to SJSU financially and our institution's brand," Konya wrote, according to OutKick.Konya claimed just over $1,000 was lost when factoring all game-day revenue streams."We estimate we missed out on approximately $1,250 in game day revenue by not playing the [match] on Saturday when you add all of the various revenue sources (i.e., concessions, parking among others). I would ask to be made whole at the very least," the SJSU exec wrote.OutKick confirmed with SJSU that it asked both Boise State and Utah State — who forfeited an October 23 game — for compensation in the same amount.SJSU did not ask for money from Nevada, Southern Utah, or Wyoming, however.While its October 26 game against Nevada was moved to SJSU's campus, this was only a formality to prevent SJSU from having to travel to Reno to accept the forfeit.SJSU staff has remained fairly silent over the ordeal, largely ignoring the issue at hand while claiming the true injustice came in the form of denying their athletes a chance to play."I know that it's definitely taken a toll on many of them. They're receiving messages of hate, which is completely ridiculous to me," coach Todd Kress said in mid-October."When we had our first forfeit, there was a lot of heartbreak," the coach continued. "And now, we've kind of, not come to expect it, but we know the certain programs that may forfeit. It still does hurt our student athletes when we don't play a match, but I think they've come to accept it a little more, and I think that's a very unfortunate thing to say."However, SJSU player Brooke Slusser painted a different picture, stating that meetings with school officials have predominantly focused on the well-being of Fleming, not his female teammates.Over at Nevada, women's volleyball captain Sia Liilii made shocking allegations against her school's athletic director after players organized the forfeit.Liilii said players were told they "weren't educated enough" on the topic, and "didn't understand the science" behind transgenderism. Liilii also said Nevada Athletic Director Stephanie Rempe told the girls that it was actually Fleming who is "at a disadvantage" when competing against women, due to being on testosterone blockers and estrogen supplements.In a statement to Blaze News, Rempe firmly denied the accusations made against her and said she did not say those things. When asked whether or not Rempe believes that men or "transgender women" should be able to compete in the female category of NCAA athletics, a Nevada spokesperson simply said the school "stands by" its statement.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!