Post

@SBF_FTX

https://twitter.com/AutismCapital/status/1592960812733587458

More from @shellenberger

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

Dec 22

It was "corporate censorship" for CBS @bariweiss to delay her story, says "60 Minutes" reporter Sharyn Alfonsi. But Alfonsi presented no evidence to support her allegation. And Alfonsi has a history of biased reporting that even liberal "fact-checkers" denounced as inaccurate.

In April of 2021, CBS’s “60 Minutes” falsely claimed that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis exclusively chose Publix, a major Florida supermarket chain, to distribute Covid vaccines because it had donated to his political campaign.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz, a Democrat who helped oversee the state’s vaccine distribution at the time, repeatedly debunked the accusation. He did so first in response to a March 2, 2021, Miami Herald piece.

“This idea why @Publix was picked has been utter nonsense,” Moskowitz wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “We reached out to all pharmacies and they were the only one who at the time could execute on the mission.”

On April 4, the day the “60 Minutes” segment aired, Moskowitz tweeted, “@60Minutes I said this before and I’ll say it again. @Publix was recommended by @FLSERT and @HealthyFla as the other pharmacies were not ready to start. Period! Full Stop! No one from the Governor’s office suggested Publix. It’s just absolute malarkey.”

Now, the same reporter who did the flawed DeSantis piece, Sharyn Alfonsi, has accused her employer of censoring her story about deportees El Salvador’s prison. “The public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship,” Alfonsi wrote in an email to her colleagues that has been viewed four million times on X.

However, Alfonsi offered no evidence to support her allegation of “corporate censorship,” implying that people to whom Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss reports caused her to delay the piece.

Neither Weiss nor Alfonsi responded to a request for comment. If either does, we will update this story immediately. Moreover, we will report any evidence that we or others find that shows that corporate executives above Weiss directed her to kill the story. So far, there is none.

And an editorial decision is not the same as censorship, particularly since Weiss said she is delaying, not killing, the segment.

Alfonsi, in her leaked email, said she tried to get a response from the Trump administration but couldn’t, which was one of the reasons Weiss cited in her email to CBS staff for holding back the piece.

An experienced television news journalist, who has been in the business for three decades, said CBS could have done what it has often done in the past, which is to ask a Trump official at one of the many press availabilities.

“They could have sent a CBS reporter to the White House press briefing,” the person said, or had a reporter ask President Trump directly during one of his frequent press conferences at the White House and on Air Force One. The CBS website shows that it has at least six full-time reporters at the White House.

“The episode shows Sharyn’s poor investigative skills,” the person added. “She should have doorstepped the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security or sent someone to the White House.”

To “doorstop” a person is when a journalist confronts someone, such as a senior government official, often when they are coming or going into their workplace.

“Sharyn could have gone to the briefing herself, or CBS could have gone in and said ‘CBS has finished an investigation. Here are the allegations. How do you respond?’”

Alfonsi falsely claimed in her segment that DeSantis gave an “exclusive” to Publix. Floridians could get the Covid vaccine from many different sources, including county health departments, other major pharmacy chains including CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart, and mass vaccination drive-thru sites with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Three major liberal or left-wing fact-checking organizations and the liberal Boston public TV station WGBH all criticized the piece. “60 Minutes’ misses the mark in its story about Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and COVID-19 vaccines,” wrote Poynter. “A sloppy moment on Sunday’s show is raising serious concerns.”

Wrote Politifact, “While “60 Minutes” focused on his emphatic denial, it left out the background that he offered about how the state had been working with other retail pharmacies to distribute coronavirus vaccines at long-term care facilities in December and his own interactions with Publix customers.”

Said the progressive Media Nation, “It’s a rare day when we encounter as blatant an example of liberal media bias as in the “60 Minutes” report last Sunday on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis…Unfortunately, the botched story on DeSantis, a Republican, will be cited by conservatives for a long time as evidence that you just can’t trust the media.”

And a Boston CBS News reporter said, “If you’re going to smear someone by guilt-by-association, or pay-to-play, which is about the most serious offense a public official can engage in, you better have the facts in a row. If you don’t, you’d best leave it out.”

There are other signs of “60 Minutes” bias....

x.com/shellenberger/…

Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

x.com/shellenberger/…

Here is the liberal Boston PBS member station segment on Sharyn Alfonsi's biased and inaccurate story. Every single person in it criticizes Alfonsi's piece about Ron DeSantis' vaccine roll-out.

Nobody who looks at this walks away thinking that Alfonsi did anything other than an irresponsible hit piece.

Read 4 tweets

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

Dec 10

https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1852450486575845789

Days before last year’s election, the media claimed Trump wanted to kill Liz Cheney, which we debunked at the time. @BBC has now admitted it was a lie. @CNN should do the same. Notably, BBC & CNN have, for years, promoted censorship of their competitors for “misinformation.”

https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1852450486575845789

https://twitter.com/newstart_2024/status/1997318746306732488

The media around the world demand government censorship on the basis of the disinformation it produces on Trump, covid, climate, gender, Ukraine, etc. The EU is currently paying European media to act as “trusted flaggers” — censors — of social media.
It’s digital totalitarianism.

https://twitter.com/newstart_2024/status/1997318746306732488

x.com/shellenberger/…

A Norwegian newspaper spread misinformation about the demolition of the Nord Stream pipeline and Facebook censored on the basis of that censorship

x.com/shellenberger/… x.com/shellenberger/…

Read 6 tweets

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

Dec 2

Marco Rubio is the most powerful Secretary of State since Kissinger. As such, it is significant that he believes the US has recovered alien tech and given it to private military contractors. A senior Rubio advisor says, “We’re headed toward massive disclosure.”

Since May of this year, Marco Rubio has served in a dual role as President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. The National Security Advisor is the President’s principal in-house advisor on all national security matters, chairs the National Security Council, coordinates the interagency process across the government, and briefs the President daily.

As Secretary of State, Rubio negotiates treaties, appoints and directs ambassadors, controls the $84 billion State Department and USAID budget, oversees 80,000 employees at more than 270 diplomatic posts worldwide, and has direct authority over diplomatic security, intelligence sharing, sanctions enforcement, and emergency evacuations of U.S. citizens abroad.

The last official to hold both such positions was Henry Kissinger from 1973 to 1975. For Rubio, who was also the former ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and vice-chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to play both roles reflects President Trump’s high confidence in him.

As such, it is significant that Rubio believes that elements within the US government have recovered technology from a nonhuman intelligence, reverse-engineered it, and let private military contractors take control of it in ways that could be undermining national security and result in a Pearl Harbor-like event.

“The real risk in transferring technology that is not useful to us today to a corporate entity over decades,” says Rubio, “is that the corporate entity comes to basically possess and control access to it for their own purposes, not for the purposes of national security.”

Nick Pope, who investigated Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) for the UK Ministry of Defence, said, “It’s hard to overstate the significance of [Rubio’s] statement. Rubio’s remarks are so forthright that one could speculate they’re officially-authorized prelude to Disclosure, to test the waters ahead of an official, Presidential announcement.”

The State Department declined to provide an on-the-record comment to Public for this story. A spokesperson for the Department of War said it had no “verifiable information to substantiate claims that any U.S. government or private company programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials and technology have existed in the past or exist currently...."

Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism and to read the full article!

x.com/shellenberger/…

Any true skeptic of this issue should want significantly more government transparency and disclosure on UAP. Anyone arguing against greater transparency and disclosure is telling you that they want to continue the cover-up.

If you belive that this is all a dangerous delusion and social contagion resulting from years of government disinfo to cover up secret weapons programs, which has now infected the highest levels of government, then you should be the loudest advocate for UAP transparency and disclosure in the world.

The secrecy has gone on for too long. It is destablizing for our highest security, defense, and intelligence officials say one thing to journalists and filmmakers and for the DOD to say something completely different. The State Department, CIA, ODNI, and White House all declined to comment publicly for my piece. We need our government officials to be honest about what is going on.

There is no security justification for this level of secrecy. We are free people governed by a constitution that protects us against unaccountable government actors. We must fight to maintain that status.

Read 7 tweets

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

Nov 18

https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1971960403082236027

We can trust Oracle to centralize our data in a single place to create digital IDs, says Larry Ellison. We can't. Thanks to a "previously unknown & widespread vulnerability" in Oracle's "E-Business Suite software" thousands of us recently had our personal data stolen.

https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1971960403082236027

"The Washington Post... didn’t explain why it took almost a month to determine the amount of data stolen and has not responded to multiple requests for comment." @JeffBezos @CyberScoopNews

@JeffBezos @CyberScoopNews "Oracle quietly admits data breach, days after lawsuit accused it of cover-up"

Read 10 tweets

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

Nov 15

New Epstein files show Rep. @StaceyPlaskett got real-time help via text messages from Jeffrey Epstein on how to hurt Trump during 2019 congressional hearing with former Trump attorney. Plaskett is the person who smeared us during Twitter Files hearing & falsely accused @mtaibbi

From WaPo:

"At 10:02 a.m., Epstein texted Plaskett: 'Great outfit'
'You look great,' he added at 10:22 a.m. 'Thanks!' she replied shortly afterward.

"'Cohen brought up RONA - keeper of the secrets,' Epstein texted, misspelling Graff’s first name."

“'RONA??'” Plaskett responded. “'Quick I’m up next is that an acronym,' she added, suggesting she would question Cohen soon."

Documents here

journaliststudio.google.com/pinpoint/docum…

Read 5 tweets

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

Oct 28

In 2022, Obama gave a speech at Stanford Cyber Policy Center advocating sweeping censorship of the Internet. Now, Public has discovered the same Center last month hosted a secret meeting with EU, UK, Brazil, & Australia officials to plot global censorship — including of the US.

In the spring of 2022, former President Barack Obama gave a major policy addressat Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, where he laid out a sweeping proposal for government censorship of social media platforms through the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Six days later, President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had created a “Disinformation Governance Board” to serve as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth with the clear goal of controlling the information Americans could access online.

At the heart of Obama’s vision for Internet censorship was legislation that would have authorized the US government’s National Science Foundation to authorize and fund supposedly independent NGOs to censor the Internet. The DHS and Stanford Internet Observatory, which was part of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, pioneered this censorship-by-proxy strategy as a way to get around the First Amendment in 2020 with posts raising concerns about the 2020 elections and in 2021 with “narratives” expressing concern about the Covid vaccine.

The 2024 election of President Donald Trump significantly reduced the threat of Obama, DHS, and NSF censoring the American people. Trump defunded much of the Censorship Industrial Complex. The Platform Accountability Act is going nowhere in Congress. Elon Musk fired most of the censorship staff at Twitter and has allowed a significantly wider range of speech on the platform. And even before Trump’s election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt stopped funding the Stanford Internet Observatory after Public, Racket News, and House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan exposed its central role in the DHS censorship-by-proxy scheme.

But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. Facebook complied with Biden administration demands to censor because it needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. And the Brazilian government forced Elon Musk to continue censoring the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets.

And Public has discovered that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, which is led by Obama’s former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is at the heart of a new, secretive, and possibly illegal censorship initiative that appears even more ambitious than the one Obama proposed in 2022.

On September 24, the Cyber Policy Center hosted a secret dinner between its leaders and top censorship officials from Europe, UK, Brazil, California and Australia. The meeting was titled “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.” Frank McCourt, the same person behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, financed the gathering through his “Project Liberty Institute,” (PLI), toward which he gave $500 million to “strengthen democracy” and “foster responsible technology.”

Public emailed all 21 participants and organizers and only heard from four, PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union, which declined to comment because, even though Public gave it over 24 hours, a spokesperson said, “We would need several days.”

The UK government said, “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.”

A spokesperson for PLI said it “has made unrestricted gifts to several academic research programs, including Stanford University” and that “PLI does not receive funding from governments, intergovernmental organizations, or large technology companies.”

But PLI’s own policy “blueprint” reveals that it is demanding a single total global censorship regime and intends to use the EU’s market power, known as the “Brussels effect,” to force big tech companies to comply. The blueprint calls for governments to “Recommit to a Single, Global Internet,” with “regulatory interoperability and oversight, to achieve a single unified market” and use the large size of the EU market to “drive bilateral and multilateral agendas to formally enshrine reciprocal guarantees.”

A spokesperson for the Australian government said, “Whilst in attendance at Stanford for the 2-day conference, some attendees, including trust and safety researchers, industry, civil society, and government representatives, were also invited to attend an informal evening roundtable event organised by Stanford University entitled, ‘Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.’ This roundtable did not involve any discussion of compliance coordination or regulatory information sharing.”

The Australian spokesperson claimed that “eSafety has no role in regulating hate speech or disinformation. eSafety has no remit or interest in regulating the affairs of other nations, nor does it have any role in diplomatic, trade or other government-to-government relations.”

But it also said, “As the internet is global and functions irrespective of national borders, by necessity eSafety collaborates with law enforcement, other government agencies, and non-government partners around the world, including in the United States.”

The leaked agenda’s stated purpose was to “discuss the state of compliance and enforcement” in order to “identify where data, research, and expertise can enable more effective compliance with and enforcement of existing policy.”

Much of the following two days of the public conference were focused on coordinating government censorship (“regulation”) of social media platforms, and the other nations that attended the meeting are all intensively involved in censoring their citizens and US tech companies.

And, the head of Australia’s eSafety, Julie Inman-Grant, who was a keynote speaker at Stanford’s foreign censorship meeting, is also the head of a global government censorship network that serves as forum, she told the World Economic Forum, “to help us coordinate, build capacity and do just that…. We use the tools that we have, and can be effective, but we know we’re going to be, go, much further, when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe.”

As such, the people who are demanding censorship are once again spreading disinformation about what they are doing.

All of this is happening in a context of global censorship intensifying. The UK government arrests 30 people per day for “offensive” social media posts, is attempting to censor 4Chan, which has no servers in the UK, and will mandate digital IDs for employment, which may give unprecedented control to politicians and bureaucrats to censor. The Brazilian government has, for year,s been censoring journalists and policymakers, incarcerating people for legal social media content, and threatening prosecution of journalists, including this author. And several European nations are censoring and arresting their citizens, preventing opposition political candidates from running for office, and preparing to implement digital IDs.

Why did Stanford Cyber Policy Center hold this meeting, what is its strategy for global censorship? Who leaked the agenda to Public and why? And what can be done to stop Stanford, Brazil, Australia, the EU and others from realizing their totalitarian censorial vision?

Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigatie journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!