In 2021, the UK government said it had not weaponized the Army's "information warfare" unit, the 77th Brigade, against the British people. But it had. Thus, it lied.

Now, newly released and never-before-reported documents show that the UK government mislabeled accurate information as "malinformation" and sent defamatory misinformation to the US government.

How did the Army get away with it?

According to a new whistleblower from the 77th Brigade, it was by having soldiers pretend that the British citizens upon whom they were spying could, perhaps, be foreigners.

Most disturbing of all, newly obtained minutes from the UK government’s “Disinformation Board” show that senior UK officials considered embedding civil servants in social media companies.

Was that also the intention of the Biden Administration’s near-identically named “Disinformation Governance Board” of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?

Bombshell new reporting by @JHurfurt from @BigBrotherWatch UK Government Used Army “PsyOps” Division To Monitor Citizens And Then Lied About It

British military officials also spread misinformation to the US, treated domestic victims of their spying as foreigners, and considered embedding government censors within social media companies

by @JHurfurt
British Army General Sir Nicholas Carter leaves number 10 Downing Street in central London on March 12, 2020, as a COBRA meeting on the government's response to the novel coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak takes place. (Photo by ISABEL INFANTES/AFP via Getty Images)

In January 2021, the UK government said that members of its infamous “77th Brigade do not, and have never, conducted any kind of action against British citizens.”

But it did. And thus, it lied.

In 2022, the NGO I work for, Big Brother Watch, began investigating the UK government's efforts to monitor social media posts and demand their censorship by the platforms. Over the next few months, we filed dozens of Freedom of Information requests, including for information on the 77th Brigade.

In other words, we discovered that the UK government had spread disinformation in the name of fighting misinformation.

The Army unit was not just involved in “countering misinformation,” it led the effort. The 77th Brigade monitored social media platforms throughout 2020 and worked alongside soldiers from the Royal Air Force (RAF).

The British Ministry of Defense (MoD) did not respond to requests to comment for this piece.

MoD created the 77th Brigade in 2015 to serve as its “information warfare” or “psychological operations” unit. The 77th Brigade would consist of “a new generation of ‘Facebook warriors’ who will wage complex and covert information and subversion campaigns,” reported the Financial Times in 2015.

When the Army created the 77th Brigade, its leaders told British Members of Parliament (MPs) that its job was to “build stability overseas,” not spy on citizens at home.

How did the UK military evade the ban on spying on UK citizens? A whistleblower from the 77th Brigade, who spoke to Big Brother Watch on condition of anonymity, said it did so by pretending that the British citizens who UK soldiers were spying upon could, perhaps, be foreigners

“To skirt the clear legal issues with a military unit monitoring domestic dissent,” the whistleblower told us, “the leading view was that unless a profile explicitly stated their real name and nationality, which is, of course, vanishingly rare, they could be a foreign agent and were fair game to flag up.”

By “flag up,” the whistleblower referred to the process by which UK government officials sent content to social media companies that they thought should be censored.

As in the United States, UK government officials insist that the flagging of social media content by officials was legal because the officials were just making suggestions, not demanding censorship.

But Facebook’s oversight board said in 2022 that government demands for censorship are hard to ignore.

And during a 2022 House of Commons debate on the UK’s Orwellian-titled “Online Safety Act,” then-Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries told MPs that the CDU was in “daily” contact with social media firms as part of work to remove content.

There are now many instances where social media companies said they only censored because the US government had asked them to. Just last week, a US Congressman revealed that, on July 16, 2021, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg texted his colleaguesand noted that “the [Biden] WH put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory…”

Now, exclusive documents obtained by Big Brother Watch and revealed for the first time here show that UK government officials labeled accurate reporting from a Guardian journalist, Jennifer Rankin, that the UK would not take part in the EU’s PPE procurement scheme as “malinformation.”

And newly obtained minutes from the UK government’s “Disinformation Board” show that senior UK officials considered embedding civil servants in social media companies. Was that also the intention of the Biden Administration’s near-identically named “Disinformation Governance Board” of the Department of Homeland Security?

What exactly happened in the UK? Why did the UK military violate its promise not to spy on the British people?

On Her Majesty’s Secret Censorship
British Army General Sir Nicholas Carter leaves number 10 Downing Street in central London on March 12, 2020, as a COBRA meeting on the government's response to the novel coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak takes place. (Photo by ISABEL INFANTES/AFP via Getty Images)

In its 2015 article about the 77th Brigade, the FT wrote that its soldiers would “use a range of activities to make adversaries do what they want them to do — a technique known as reflexive control. Among their weapons will be social media campaigns on Twitter and Facebook, spreading disinformation or exposing truths in war zones, ‘false flag’ incidents — which are designed to fool people into thinking they were carried out by someone else — and intelligence gathering.”

The UK officials said the unit was inspired by information warfare in Ukraine. “The undercover activities of Russia’s “little green men” in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, as well as the Kremlin’s extensive cyber and information warfare campaign in the country, have prompted worry throughout NATO’s military commands over how to combat such tactics.”

Starting in 2020, an interwoven network of “counter disinformation teams” monitored and sought to censor disfavored views. The names of the various UK government agencies tasked with censorship are confusing, anodyne, and unmemorable—perhaps by design....

Kids need computers in their classrooms, claimed @BillGates. But they didn't. In fact, the evidence is now overwhelming that they hinder learning. Many high-tech execs know this and send their own kids to schools that rely on paper and pencils. Schools need to go back to basics. Big Tech Hubris And Greed Behind Digital Education Failure

It’s time to go back to paper and pencil

by Denise Champney
Bill Gates, then-Chairman of Microsoft, works with student Eli Philippe at Booker T. Washington High School's computer lab on July 9, 2001 in Miami, Florida. Gates was at the school to announce a series of grants totaling more than $1 million in computer technology and services to South Florida schools to support technology enrichment and create opportunities for teens in underserved communities. (Photo by Jeff Christensen/Getty Images)

In 2010, the US Department of Education released its ambitious National Educational Technology Plan, setting a goal to transform the future of education through technology. In many ways, this vision has now been realized. Today, students across the country use computers to learn English, Math, Science, and History. Tech companies and curriculum developers claim that this is helping them. Personal devices and digital platforms, they say, increase student engagement and have huge educational benefits.

Yet in my experience as a speech-language pathologist, digital programs are ineffective and distracting for kids.

I recently asked a 5th-grade student to show me how he uses My Path, an individualized math program through Curriculum Associates iReady Math. This student has a diagnosis of ADHD and is a struggling reader. Although he understood the math concept the program presented to him, he had trouble solving problems because of the presentation on a screen. Using a computer for math increased his ADHD tendencies, impacted his reading, and caused him to become so frustrated that he impulsively clicked and swiped. He would have had far less difficulty if he’d been given the same problems on paper.

To be sure, technology has a role in the classroom. Students must develop digital literacy and digital skills. Tech tools can also be used for enrichment and advanced instruction.

But this student is not the only child who struggles to learn from a computer. The optimistic vision of technology in education from 2010 does not match the realities of 2024. If you walk through the halls of a high school or middle school (and sadly some elementary schools), rather than the fantasy of students enthusiastically engaging in self-directed learning, you’ll instead see many students in a zombie-like stance staring at a Chromebook or laptop opened in front of them while only half listening to the teacher.

“It would be great if our education stuff worked. But that we won’t know for probably a decade,” billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates said about his edtech initiatives in 2013.

In truth, over a decade later, it’s clear that this “education stuff” has not worked at all. Despite billions spent, test scores have declined since then, and mental health issues among teens have risen.

Some K-12 curriculum developers, such as McGraw Hill, claim their digital programs are supported by research. Yet they often use small sample sizes, do not include control groups, and admit that their results have major limitations. Other studies from RAND are funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has invested tens of millions of dollars in personalized programs.

The best available evidence shows that excess technology is detrimental to learning and development. An increasing amount of research demonstrates that screens have a negative impact on reading comprehension.

One study published last year suggests that cognitive engagement is higher in children when reading printed books versus digital media. Another such study in 2018 found that there was higher functional connectivity in the brain when reading from print versus a decrease while reading from a screen. And yet another research review highlights, “Paper-based reading yields better comprehension outcomes than digital-based reading.”

Other studies reveal the harms of screen time on brain development. More alarmingly, new research shows changes in brain structure of children with higher screen time use. There may be a physiological and psychological effect as well. One research review found, “Excessive digital media use by children and adolescents appears as a major factor which may hamper the formation of sound psychophysiological resilience.”

A United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report released in 2023 provides an in-depth evaluation of technology in education. The findings are mixed, but one that stands out is that “There is little robust evidence on digital technology’s added value in education.”

In my experience as a professional trained to work with struggling students, most children’s developing brains are not equipped to engage in the self-directed learning imagined years ago, especially online. As a result, students multitask and divert their attention to popular games such as Roblox or streaming videos off YouTube and Netflix while simultaneously completing assignments, degrading their capacity to learn.

Tech developers are skilled at designing their products to keep kids using them while maximizing profits. Tristan Harris, former Google employee and Co-Founder of the Center for Humane Technology, describes this as the race to the bottom of the brain stem. Since classrooms inundate kids with access to technology throughout the day, their precious attention is constantly being robbed.

The evidence against screen time is strong enough that executives with ties to Big Tech and edtech often send their own kids to private schools that don’t use technology.

So, how did we go from the promise of self-directed learning with unlimited information at our fingertips to what we see now, impacting an entire generation of kids? Many point to virtual learning due to Covid-19 as the time when technology took over and student achievement levels dropped. But those paying attention saw the insidious technology creeping in long before then...

@JamesOKeefeIII @CIA @NSAGov Multiple credible sources told us that the CIA asked foreign allies to spy on 26 Trump associates:

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1757486508570030462

@JamesOKeefeIII @CIA @NSAGov Credible sources say the U.S. government is hiding a binder of documents because they incriminate the intelligence community for illegal spying and election interference:

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1757923702770196800

Most people think they understand the meaning of free speech but recent events show that many don’t. People have the right to say hateful things. Words on their own are not violence. The test of incitement to violence is its immediacy. Congress should not expand the definition of anti-Semitism. And freedom of speech doesn’t include the freedom to occupy buildings, block free movement, or camp illegally. You’re Only For Free Speech If You Defend It For People You Hate

We should protect people physically, not emotionally

by @galexybrane & @shellenberger
A Israel supporter (left) shouts slogans against Pro-Palestinian demonstrators as they hold a protests outside Columbia University on February 2, 2024 in New York City. A pro-Palestinian demonstrator (right) shouts slogans as he marches on January 15, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Eduardo MunozAlvarez/VIEWpress) (Photo by Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/VIEWpress)

Pro-Palestine protests on college campuses around the country have inflamed debates about free speech and antisemitism. Some Republicans and Democrats claim that government oversight and censorship of hate speech is needed to address these protests. Representatives Richie Torres (D-NY) and Mike Lawler (R-NY), for example, have introduced the COLUMBIA Act, which will create “antisemitism monitors” at select universities.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who in 2019 signed a bill to guarantee freedom of speech in Texas universities, suggested that protesters should be arrested for their views. “These protesters belong in jail,” he wrote about students at the University of Texas Austin. “Antisemitism will not be tolerated in Texas. Period.”

And most recently, the House Rules Committee advanced the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, a bipartisan bill to expand the definition of antisemitism in Title VI federal anti-discrimination law. The bill refers to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which includes criticism of Israel, such as characterizing the state of Israel as a racist endeavor, or applying double standards to Israel’s conduct. Because all schools that receive federal funds must comply with Title VI, the bill would lead to greater censorship of speech on campus.

All of these efforts are violations of freedom of speech and we condemn them unreservedly. It’s once again time to remind ourselves and our fellow citizens that the test of our commitment to free speech is when we demand its protection for our enemies and for speech we hate, not for our friends and for speech we like.

To be sure, there have been hateful incidents at protests. Outside Columbia University’s gates, for instance, pro-Palestine protesters shouted “Go back to Poland!” at demonstrators holding Israeli flags. Multiple incidents of harassment have been reported on both sides. A leader of Columbia’s protest said on a livestream in January that Zionists “don’t deserve to live,” adding, “I feel very comfortable, very comfortable, calling for these people to die.”

Columbia students also pushed pro-Israel Jewish students out of their Gaza solidarity encampment on the campus lawn. In a similar incident, pro-Palestine protesters prevented a pro-Israel Jewish student at UCLA from accessing his route to class.

In these instances and others, protesters infringed on the rights of fellow tuition-paying students. University rules place limits on the time, place, and manner of protests. Constructing encampments, blocking parts of campus, and occupying buildings are clear violations of these rules and are not forms of protected speech.

Yet the conduct of some young protesters in no way requires placing greater restrictions on political speech for all students and infringing on academic freedom. Nor does it justify more government interventions to combat hate speech, expansion of counterproductive campus “safetyism,” and excessive use of police force on college campuses.

We know that readers may be displeased and disappointed that we are not unequivocally supporting one side of the Israel-Palestine debate and are instead presenting criticisms of both overreaching pro-Israel politicians and radical pro-Palestine protesters. But our position is unchanged from what it was last year: we reject the far left’s ideological extremism and its endorsement of Hamas’ actions on October 7. At the same time, we share the left’s concerns about civilian deaths in Gaza, violations of the Geneva Conventions, Israel’s political leadership, and potential escalation to a wider conflict.

We believe there is currently a great deal of confusion and hypocrisy around free speech on both sides of this debate. Some on the right who once claimed to believe in absolute free speech are now calling for a crackdown on “hate speech.” Meanwhile, many on the left, who have endorsed “cancel culture” and basically all censorship of their opponents since 2016, are now crying “Free speech!” without recognizing or admitting to how their own activities have set a terrible precedent.

Yet the line between speech and unlawful conduct is quite clear. Blocking traffic, taking over buildings, and constructing encampments are acts of force, and are not protected by the First Amendment. A central purpose of civil disobedience historically has been to provoke arrest in order to bring awareness to a cause, and students should know that arrest is a possible outcome of civil disobedience. While we believe that universities must aim to protect the right to protest as much as possible, encampments can disrupt learning and free movement around campus, and it is at universities’ discretion to suspend and expel students or call police to clear encampments.

The line between political speech and harassment or incitement to violence is also almost always clear...

O Procurador-Geral do Brasil acaba de me acusar de um "provável" crime por publicar "Twitter Files - Brasil". É uma mentira monstruosa. Presidente @LulaOficial está me perseguindo porque expus a censura ilegal do governo. Vou lutar e vencer.

gov.br/agu/pt-br/comu… O governo do @LulaOficial está espalhando desinformação e teorias conspiratórias ridículas e fáceis de desmascarar, como eu fiz aqui:

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1781739188955783410

Brazil's Attorney General just accused me of a "probable" crime for publishing "Twitter Files - Brazil." It's a monstrous lie. President @LulaOficial is persecuting me because I exposed the government's illegal censorship. I will fight back, and win.

gov.br/agu/pt-br/comu… The @LulaOficial is spreading disinformation and ridiculous conspiracy theories that are easy to debunk, as I did here.

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1781733287070937253

Brazilian Judge Pushes Nationalist Conspiracy Theory To Weaponize Federal Police Against Defenders Of Free Speech

Brazil’s Federal Police discuss me in new report commissioned by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes

Yesterday, a Brazilian Supreme Court Justice, who is also the President of the Superior Electoral Commission, lashed out angrily at X owner Elon Musk. At an event heavily promoted by Globo News, Alexandre de Moraes claimed that Musk is part of a vast extremist conspiracy to undermine Brazil’s sovereignty and democracy. He claimed that Musk was an “irresponsible mercantilist” motivated solely by profits who had “united” with “extremist Brazilian politicians.”

But there is no evidence of any conspiracy. Musk did not know I would publish the Twitter Files Brazil. Nor did the Brazilian politicians who reacted to them. And many of the politicians and journalists who de Moraes is demonizing as “extremist” are advocates of freedom of speech, including the right to criticize de Moraes.

It’s true that some of the people who de Moraes is censoring have urged a military intervention and have made unsubstantiated claims about elections and Covid. I do not agree with many of the statements made by the people whom de Moraes has censored.

But freedom of speech means nothing if it does not protect people and ideas you disagree with. If we aren’t going to allow people to criticize democracy, elections, and vaccines, how will we ever know if they are bad? If people are spreading false information about democracy, elections, and vaccines, the best way to deal with the false information is with accurate information, not censorship.

The real extremist spreading disinformation here is de Moraes. If Musk were solely motivated by money, then he would not have stood up to de Moraes, which resulted in the Brazilian government halting all advertising on X, the resignation of X’s top lawyer in Brazil, who feared for his safety, and may result in de Moraes shutting down X in Brazil.

He is not simply demanding that social media platforms censor specific content by controversial journalists and politicians. He is demanding that all social media platforms ban them for life. He often does so through secret hearings without the right of appeal.

In fact, it’s all much worse than that. You can’t be a politician or journalist if you can’t communicate on social media. And so de Moraes is not just violating the Brazilian constitution’s protections of free speech, he is also attacking the freedom of the press, destroying careers, and interfering in elections.

De Moraes has acted unilaterally to invent entirely new laws. He is thus interfering and taking over the role of Congress and of the president. That means he is behaving like a dictator.

And now de Moraes has weaponized the Federal Police, including against me, for publishing the Twitter Files in Brazil. The Federal Police delivered two reports to de Moraes, one on April 18 and the other on April 19. The reports consist of a gigantic conspiracy theory, suggesting connections and relationships that simply do not exist.

The reports single me out and suggest it is somehow suspicious that I only have paid for one subscription on X, which is to Elon Musk. But there is nothing suspicious about this. I am paying Musk, not the other way around. And, as the Police report notes, Musk takes a percentage of the revenue of the people who subscribe to my content on X.

And the reports claim that people who de Moraes had demanded be censored had gained limited access to communicate on X, in particular through X’s Spaces, which allows for live conversation.

In other words, de Moraes is totally obsessed with silencing his enemies. It’s not enough for X to have blocked profiles. He also doesn’t want them to be able to use their voice.

It helps that the Brazilian government directly pays the Brazilian news media. The new Lula government increased government funding by 60% for Globo alone. Globo is the biggest media in Brazil. It has been demanding more censorship and running propaganda for de Moraes.

De Moraes is a brutish authoritarian. His censorship is as bad as the censorship imposed by Brazil’s military dictators. He is seeking, as a judge, to eliminate particularly politicians and journalists from public life.

This is hardly the first time de Moraes has weaponized the Federal Police. And in calling Elon Musk a foreign mercantilist, de Moraes is using the exact same kind of nationalist rhetoric that he has attacked his enemies for using.

Why does Moraes have so much power? In Brazil, people told me it was because de Moraes controls so many court cases involving rich and powerful people, including politicians and other judges.

The solution is for Brazil’s Congress to open an investigation, known as a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI). A CPI can evaluate judicial abuses of power, and that is obviously what is happening here. Under a CPI, Brazil’s Congress could gain access to communications between police and judges or anyone else.

A CPI could also hear from the victims of censorship. It could bring light to thousands of cases under secrecy. And it could discover how social media platforms were compelled to obey or collaborate with the regime.

Musk has taken extraordinary and historic actions to protect free speech. So, too has the US Congress. Now it’s time for Brazil’s Congress to act against the anti-democratic extremism of de Moraes. It must do so before the extremist de Moraes starts arresting his political enemies and shuts down X, and thus free speech, in Brazil. Aqui está a mesma coisa em português para todos os brasileiros que amam a liberdade e odeiam a tirania

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1781739188955783410

Brazil’s high court demanded that Twitter censor, under threat of penalty of nearly US$20,000/day, a state legislator who shared ACCURATE and PUBLIC information.

This is just one case among dozens or hundreds of ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL censorship demanded of politicians & journalists. The Brazilian high court and electoral court began by demanding censorship of specific content and then segued into demanding that people — including elected leaders — be entirely BANNED from all social media.

This is madness and psychopathology institutionalized at the highest level of government.

This is outrageous totalitarianism and must be condemned by all Western political leaders, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum.

Police officers in Brussels shut down a conservative political gathering while former UK politician @Nigel_Farage was on stage.

This is the kind of thuggish gangsterism that we rightly associate with Nazism and Communism.

Shame on the police and mayor of Brussels for this totalitarian tactic!

"The police document," reports The Telegraph, "suggested speeches by speakers including Nigel Farage and Suella Braverman could lead to public disorder or display racist and homophobic views."

Apparently, the police have, for now, allowed the conference to go on.

But they have blocked any new people from entering. This goes far beyond "cancel culture."

This is the mayor of Brussels, the seat of the European Union's government, preventing conservatives from their Constitutionally protected right to free speech.

The leaders of the Western world have lost their minds.

The President of the European Commission is not supposed to interfere in national elections.

And yet that's what President @vonderleyen is doing by spreading what appears to be disinformation about her political enemies in Germany.

What's worse, it appears she has weaponized the intelligence agencies of the Czech Republic and Poland in order to do so.

Neither Von der Leyen nor anyone else has presented any evidence to support their conspiracy theory that Russia bribed German politicians. Every single accused person has hotly denied the accusations.

And in the Politico article below, Von der Leyen even says that her enemies are guilty "Whether they have taken bribes for it or not"!

That makes what @vonderleyen is doing a McCarthyite witch hunt.

It is illegal for politicians to weaponize their national intelligence agencies and interfere in national elections.

There needs to be an immediate investigation into Von der Leyen and the intelligence agencies of Czech Republic and Poland are doing.

Voice of Europe must also make a clear statement as to what is happening, where its money is from, and who it has paid.

I am horrified by Putin and his violent war in Ukraine. I am no fan of AfD.

But the weaponization of intelligence agencies to demonize political enemies, interfere in elections, and demand censorship by social media platforms is totalitarianism, and must be denounced. Von der Leyen's election interference may also be related to a disinformation operation by the French military it announced in February. Back then, French military officials claimed that “websites” were promoting “an anti-French narrative.” Then, as now, they made without any arrests or prosecutions, which likely means they do not have any evidence of criminal activity.

And both NATO-funded and government-funded NGOs are working with government bodies to interfere in German elections. Their “influence operation” aims to keep Germany in line with American foreign policy objectives and undermine the European peace movement. The evidence suggests that European intelligence agencies and NATO are breaking domestic EU laws against foreign election interference.

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1776199792567136276

O governo brasileiro quer censurar as teorias da conspiração e ainda assim aqui está, espalhando teorias da conspiração: " O governo brasileiro suspeita que os ataques de Elon Musk ao ministro Alexandre de Moraes e agora também diretamente ao presidente Lula estão sendo feitos em cooperativa com deputados bolsonaristas..." relata a CNN.

A CNN publicou este segmento embora admitisse que “Ainda não temos provas sobre isso, está sendo investigado”.

Boa sorte em encontrar evidências porque não há nenhuma!

Fui convidado há muitos meses para palestrar no Fórum pela Liberdade no Rio Grande do Sul. Antes de chegar, meus colegas jornalistas brasileiros, David Agape e Eli Viera, me pediram para ver se havia algum arquivo do Twitter no Brasil.

Olhei e descobri que havia. O que descobrimos nos chocou: Alexandre de Moraes e outros funcionários do governo ameaçaram processar criminalmente o advogado do Twitter no Brasil se ele não entregasse informações *privadas* e *pessoais*, incluindo números de telefone das pessoas e suas mensagens diretas pessoais!

Publiquei os Arquivos do Twitter logo após desembarcar em Porto Alegre.

*Ninguém* além de David, Eli e mais um colega meu sabia que eu iria publicar o Twitter Files Brasil.

Depois que ficou claro que muitos brasileiros estavam interessados em falar comigo sobre os Arquivos do Twitter, adiei em uma semana meu retorno aos EUA. Depois que decidi fazer isso, o Diputado Federal Marcel Van Hattem cancelou a sua viagem há muito planejada a Bruxelas.

Conheci Van Hattem em Londres no ano passado, numa conferência, e ele estava no Fórum pela Liberdade, em Porto Alegre. Aceitei com gratidão a oferta de Van Hattem de ser apresentado a diversas pessoas que ele conhecia no Brasil.

É isso. Essa é toda a “coordenação”. Se a CNN tivesse feito o seu trabalho, poderia ter aprendido tudo isto comigo antes de publicar a sua “desinformação”. Na verdade, a CNN me entrevistou há duas noites e contei aos dois repórteres como surgiu o Twitter Files – Brasil. Aparentemente, os repórteres da CNN não conversam entre si.

Aparentemente, a CNN também não fez o dever de casa com Elon Musk. Com Elon, o que você vê é o que você obtém. Ele respondeu publicamente ao Twitter Files Brasil. Não falamos sobre eles nem nos correspondemos sobre eles. Ele ouviu falar deles no mesmo momento em que o mundo ouviu falar deles.

Será realmente tão difícil acreditar que os políticos que foram censurados tenham respondido em X a mais provas das exigências de censura de Moraes? Que idiota.

Estou tentando ser gentil com isso, mas com o segmento abaixo, a CNN não está se comportando como uma mídia de notícias justa e equilibrada. Está se comportando como um teórico da conspiração irresponsável, carregando água para o governo Lula.

Pelo menos você não me verá exigindo que o governo censure a CNN. @CNNBrasil @raquellandim @LulaOficial @marcelvanhattem

BRASIL À BEIRA

Este é Michael Shellenberger, e estou reportando a vocês ao vivo do Brasil, onde uma série dramática de eventos está em andamento.
Às 18h52, horário do Sao Paulo a corporação X, anteriormente conhecida como Twitter, anunciou que um tribunal brasileiro a forçou a “bloquear certas contas populares no Brasil”.

Menos de uma hora depois, o proprietário do X, Elon Musk, anunciou que o X desafiaria a ordem do tribunal e suspenderia todas as restrições.

“Como resultado”, disse Musk, “provavelmente perderemos todas as receitas no Brasil e teremos que fechar nosso escritório lá. Mas os princípios são mais importantes do que o lucro.”

A qualquer momento, o Supremo Tribunal Federal poderá bloquear todo o acesso ao X/Twitter para o povo brasileiro.

Não é exagero dizer que o Brasil está à beira da ditadura nas mãos de um ministro totalitário do Supremo Tribunal Federal chamado Alexandre de Moraes.

O presidente Lula da Silva está participando desse impulso em direção ao totalitarismo. Desde que assumiu o cargo, Lula aumentou enormemente o financiamento governamental dos principais meios de comunicação, a maioria dos quais incentiva o aumento da censura.

O que Lula e de Moraes estão fazendo é uma violação escandalosa da Constituição do Brasil e da Declaração dos Direitos Humanos das Nações Unidas.
Neste momento, o Brasil ainda não é uma ditadura consolidada. Vocês ainda têm eleições e outros meios de enfrentar o autoritarismo que já não existem em tiranias mais avançadas.

Mas o Supremo Tribunal Federal e o Tribunal Superior Eleitoral interferem em eleições por meio de censura.

Há três dias eu publiquei os Arquivos do Twitter para o Brasil. Eles mostram que Moraes tem violado a Constituição brasileira. Moraes exigiu ilegalmente que o Twitter revelasse informações privadas sobre usuários do Twitter que usaram hashtags que ele considerou impróprias. Ele exigiu acesso aos dados internos do Twitter, violando a política da plataforma. Ele censurou, por iniciativa própria e sem nenhum respeito ao devido processo, postagens no Twitter de parlamentares do Congresso brasileiro. E Moraes tentou transformar as políticas de moderação de conteúdo do Twitter em uma arma contra os apoiadores do então presidente Jair Bolsonaro.
Digo isso como jornalista independente e apartidário. Não sou fã nem de Bolsonaro nem de Trump. As minhas opiniões políticas são muito moderadas. Mas eu reconheço a censura quando a vejo.

Os Arquivos do Twitter também revelaram que Google, Facebook, Uber, WhatsApp e Instagram traíram o povo do Brasil. Se forem comprovados tais indícios, os executivos dessas empresas comportaram-se como covardes: forneceram ao governo brasileiro dados cadastrais pessoais e números de telefone sem ordem judicial e, portanto, violando a lei.
Quando o Twitter se recusou a fornecer informações privadas dos usuários às autoridades brasileiras, incluindo mensagens diretas, o governo tentou processar o principal advogado brasileiro do Twitter.

Quando eu morei no Brasil em 1992, eu era muito de esquerda. Na época, as palavras de ordem de Lula e do PT eram “Sem medo de ser feliz”.

Nos últimos dias, conversei com dezenas de brasileiros, incluindo professores, jornalistas e advogados respeitados. Todos me disseram que estão chocados com o que está acontecendo. Eles me disseram que têm medo de falar o que pensam e que o governo Lula é cúmplice na criação desse clima de medo.

O Brasil é o seu país, não o meu. Existem limites para o que sou capaz de fazer. Sei bem até onde posso ir.

Mas prometo que eu vou apoiar vocês na sua luta pela liberdade. E posso dizer uma coisa que muitos brasileiros não podem mais: Alexandre de Moraes é um tirano. E a única maneira de lidar com os tiranos é enfrentando-os. Cabe aos seus senadores enfrentar o tirano. E cabe ao povo do Brasil pressionar seus senadores para que façam isso. Por favor, junte-se aos nossos “Spaces” para discutir a repressão totalitária do governo brasileiro à liberdade de expressão!

https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1776776869666328896

TWITTER FILES - BRAZIL

Brazil is engaged in a sweeping crackdown on free speech led by a Supreme Court justice named Alexandre de Moraes.

De Moraes has thrown people in jail without trial for things they posted on social media. He has demanded the removal of users from social media platforms. And he has required the censorship of specific posts, without giving users any right of appeal or even the right to see the evidence presented against them.

Now, Twitter Files, released here for the first time, reveal that de Moraes and the Superior Electoral Court he controls engaged in a clear attempt to undermine democracy in Brazil. They:

— illegally demanded that Twitter reveal personal details about Twitter users who used hashtags he did not like;

— demanded access to Twitter’s internal data, in violation of Twitter policy;

— sought to censor, unilaterally, Twitter posts by sitting members of Brazil’s Congress;

— sought to weaponize Twitter’s content moderation policies against supporters of then-president @jairbolsonaro

The Files show: the origins of the Brazilian judiciary’s demand for sweeping censorship powers; the court’s use of censorship for anti-democratic election interference; and the birth of the Censorship Industrial Complex in Brazil.

TWITTER FILES - BRAZIL was written by @david_agape_ @EliVieiraJr & @shellenberger

We presented these findings to de Moraes, to the Supreme Court (STF), and to the High Electoral Court (TSE). None responded.

Let’s get into it... “We are… pushing back against the requests...”

On February 14, 2020, Twitter’s legal counsel in Brazil, Rafael Batista, emailed his colleagues to describe a hearing in Congress on “Disinformation and 'fake news’”

Batista revealed that members of Brazil’s Congress had asked Twitter for the “content of messages exchanged by some users via DMs” as well as “login records - among other info.”

Batista said, “We are… pushing back against the requests,” which were illegal, “because they do not meet [Brazilian Internet law] Marco Civil legal requirements for disclosure of user's records.”

Batista noted that some conservative Twitter users had gone to the Supreme Court “after they learned from the media that the Congress was trying to get their IPs and DM content. In light of this, the Supreme Court granted an injunction suspending the requirement given its failure to fulfill legal requirements.”

The head of the @BBC says it will “Pursue the truth with no agenda by reporting fearlessly & fairly.” But, according to current & former BBC journalists, the BBC is suppressing the truth about "gender-affirming care," mislabeling men as women, and failing to safeguard children. Bullying, Cowardice, And Careerism Behind BBC Disinformation On Gender

Current and former BBC journalists condemn the British media giant for corruption of language and failing to safeguard children and vulnerable adults

by @shellenberger
Tim Davie (left) Director-General of BBC (Getty Images)

The highest purpose of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is to “Pursue the truth with no agenda,” said its Director-General, Tim Davie, last week. BBC would do this “by reporting fearlessly and fairly.” In his speech, “A BBC For the Future,” Davie added that “Disinformation, propaganda, and partial news is [sic] weakening our shared understanding of the world, undermining trust in our institutions and our democratic process.”

To combat this disinformation, the BBC launched a special initiative, “BBC Verify,” last year. Last week, the BBC released a 9-page report to reporters that required a “careful and accurate use of language” regarding gender.

But according to current and former BBC journalists, the BBC itself is spreading disinformation, failing to pursue the truth without regard to any agenda, and behaving fearfully and unfairly on issues relating to transgenderism.

Three days before Davie gave his speech, The Times of London reportedthat BBC had buried a large package of investigative stories on the problems with giving children and adolescents puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in an effort to change their sex or gender. Former BBC journalist Hannah Barnes said, “The BBC didn’t really back our work at all.”

It’s true that BBC ran part of Barnes’s article. She told the Times that it “wasn’t blocked.” Barnes went on to write a book, Time To Think, based in part on her reporting, which started at BBC. And in 2020, the BBC, after facing criticism, stopped working with a transgender advocacy group.

But Barnes told the Times, “There’s a really big difference [between running a story and properly projecting it].” Her documentary films “weren’t promoted across the BBC. It wasn’t like Panorama. You didn’t hear it on the news bulletins. You didn’t see it on the Six or the Ten [O’Clock News].”

And BBC buried a major part of her story, said Barnes. She had learned that the medical director of Britain’s main gender clinic, Tavistock, had “failed to mention a number of safeguarding concerns raised by [gender clinic] Gids staff in a review he had published of the service.”

The Times of London described Barnes’ scoop as “a turning point in the story: a revelation that prompted the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct its own review, in which Gids would ultimately be rated ‘inadequate.’” The Times reported that none of it ran. Said Barnes, “It wasn’t anywhere on the BBC. The online piece was so buried that even though I had written it, I couldn’t find it.”

And two years after distancing itself from one trans activist group, in 2022, BBC gave seed funding directly to another group, “All About Trans.”

In response to our questions, a BBC spokesperson told Public, “The BBC is committed to reporting all stories impartially, in accordance with its publicly available editorial guidelines.” The BBC spokesperson referred us to BBC editorial guidelines, an article in Dateline about the 9-page reporting guide, and the transcript of testimony given by Davie and two other BBC executives to a parliamentary committee.”

For years, the BBC’s decision to refer to trans-identified men as “women” has inspired controversy. In 2022, BBC changed the pronouns of a trans-identified male attacker. The Times of London reported at the time that “The woman referred to her alleged rapist as ‘him’ but [BBC] insiders said that her words were changed to avoid ‘misgendering’ the abuser in an article on the corporation’s website.” BBC has, on several other occasions, referred to male rapists and male sexual predators of children using female pronouns

A male suspect of child pornography mis-identified by BBC as a woman.📷
The BBC Style guide requires BBC employees to use female pronouns with “a person born male who lives as a female… We generally use the term and pronoun preferred by the person in question unless there are editorial reasons not to do so.”

Barnes isn’t the only former BBC reporter to level concerns at BBC for bias. “The BBC is telling its journalists to lie about a person’s sex under almost all circumstances if the person requests it,” wrote Cath Walton, who worked at BBC for 25 years before leaving in 2023.

“How is a presenter or reporter to explain why there is a controversy at all about trans-identified men in, say, women’s sports or prisons if they are unable to say that they are male?” Walton asked. “It should be a requirement, not a punishable offense.”

And now, yet another BBC journalist has decided to speak out publicly and has even agreed to record a podcast interview, below...

A representative for the EU says, in response to our reporting, “We are not censoring anyone’s opinion.” In truth, she and the EU are putting in place a sweeping totalitarian system of censorship and lying about it.

https://twitter.com/AtlanticCouncil/status/1772702182413889901

Four days ago, Czech investigative journalist @CecilieJilkova exposed the censorship efforts of @VeraJourova. Jourova ignored repeated requests for an interview.

Now, supposedly coincidentally @VeraJourova is claiming to have uncovered a vast “Russian disinformation” effort

https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1772311154305409287

You are not crazy, you are right: elites across the West are imposing a crackdown on speech. They have weaponized intelligence and security agencies. The news media are helping them. But they will lose in Ireland and could lose elsewhere. We will support your fight for freedom.

https://twitter.com/jakubsimek/status/1772381321467138370

They are cracking down in Germany…

https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1752126861998715244

We should trust @BBC to fight misinformation, it says. But we shouldn't. Last year it spread false information about hate speech, Nigel Farage, and Israel-Gaza. Now, a former BBC reporter says it killed a major story about the coverup of medical mistreatment of gender confusion. The former BBC reporter @hannahsbee went on to write a book, "A Time To Think," about the scandal of giving drugs and surgeries to gender-confused kids. Last year, her book was short-listed for the prestigious "Orwell Prize."

amazon.com/Time-Think-Col…

For years, experts said we should give drugs and surgeries to kids confused about their gender. Given the sterility, loss of sexual function, and regret, that's been changing. Now, a French Senate report calls it “one of the greatest ethical scandals in the history of medicine." "Maud Vasselle, a mother whose daughter underwent gender transition treatment, told Le Figaro: 'A child is not old enough to ask to have her body altered.

"'My daughter just needed the certificate of a psychiatrist, which she obtained after a one-hour consultation. But doctors don’t explain the consequences of puberty blockers,' she added.

“'My daughter didn’t realise that life wasn’t going to be so easy with all these treatments... She was a brilliant little girl but now she’s failing at school. And she is far from having found the solution to her problems.'"

telegraph.co.uk/world-news/202…

Victory! Quack trans group @WPATH has deleted its pseudoscientific "Standards of Care v8" from its website!

This comes two weeks after the release of the WPATH Files, which revealed widespread medical mistreatment and fraud

WPATH yesterday:

WPATH today:
h/t @Janedoeordont
WPATH may also have removed its president, Marci Bowers.

Here's WPATH's website yesterday:

Here's WPATH's web site today:

The Internet means we should rethink the First Amendment, say the media. But it doesn't. Telegraphs, radio, and TV didn't require restricting free speech. There's something wrong with anyone so intolerant of their fellow citizens that they want the government to censor them. Jeff Kosseff: "Hey, Let's Not Rethink The First Amendment"

Leading free speech scholar pushes back against widespread claim that "peer-to-peer misinformation" on the Internet justifies government censorship

by @shellenberger

Many journalists, university professors, and Democrats say we must change how we think about the First Amendment for the Internet age. Maybe the government had no role in regulating speech before there existed social media platforms like X and Facebook, where “peer-to-peer misinformation” thrives. But now, given the threat such misinformation poses to democracy, we need the government to restrict what can be said on the Internet, claim Stanford researchers, the New York Times, and the Biden administration.

All of that is dangerous nonsense, according to Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of a new book, Liar In A Crowded Theater. “Starting about a century ago,” he told me in a new podcast, “the Supreme Court gradually developed robust [free speech] protections for all but a handful of exceptions…. And I think that, for the Internet, it needs to be the same, where we start off with the premise that this speech is not subject to regulation.”

Kosseff recognizes the Internet’s massive impact and the limits to freedom of speech. “I think, obviously, you need to have some somewhat different rules to make [the First Amendment] make sense on the Internet,” he explains. “And you can't [for example] lie in court and then say, ‘My rights are protected by the First Amendment.’”

However, the Supreme Court already ruled in Reno v. ACLU in 1997 that the First Amendment applied to speech on the Internet. After the Communications Decency Act passed in 1996, an aspect of it was challenged as unconstitutional. “The government's defense of it was, ‘Well, the Internet is not really like your average speech.' You don't get the full scope of First Amendment protections for the Internet. Instead, you get lesser protections, kind of like you get for radio and TV because the FCC can regulate cursing and pornography.’

“The Supreme Court very soundly and clearly rejected that. It said, ‘No, the Internet is not like broadcast because broadcast has scarce spectrum that has to be regulated by the government. The Internet is this new medium. ' It's a beautiful opinion. Justice Stevens wrote it, and most of it was joined by all of the justices. There were two minor dissents. I think that principle needs to carry on.”

I wanted to interview Kosseff before tomorrow’s Supreme Court hearing on Murthy v. Missouri, a potentially landmark First Amendment case involving government demands for online censorship....

Gender medicine looked like the future. Now, the Times of London, one of the most respected newspapers in the world, calls it "Quack Medicine," and is urging that it be "reined in entirely." US media, medical associations, and politicians should follow the UK's lead. "Quack Medicine"

Citing WPATH Files, The Times of London denounces "gender-affirming care"
Well, somebody had to say it. All the better that it’s one of the most respected newspapers in the world.

The prescription of puberty blockers to children is “Quack Medicine,” thunders The Times of London, one of the most influential center-left newspapers in the West:

"In the Western world at least, it is normal for new treatments to undergo rigorous testing before being accepted into mainstream medicine. Often, the complaint from those who might benefit from therapies is that approval takes too long. This ­excess of caution may be frustrating for those who need help but far worse would be a system in which patients became guinea pigs in unregulated mass experiments with potentially life-altering and irremediable consequences. Such is the case with puberty blockers, which for years have been fed to children in this country who are confused about their identity and sexuality."

The editorial accompanies a long news story and a column by Janice Turner. “One day, we’ll look back on the era of puberty blockers with horror,” Turner writes. “This shocking chapter in medical history, where the ideological objectives of trans rights campaigners trumped the welfare of disturbed children, is coming to an end worldwide.”

Turner cites the WPATH Files as evidence. “Leaks from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the body which formulates guidance on “trans healthcare,” reveal doctors perplexed at how they should explain to an 11-year-old child that drugs will render them infertile.”...