1. UK FILES EXTRA:
The Center for Countering Digital Hate, the IRS, and 501 (c)(3) status
2. The Center for Countering Digital Hate, or CCDH, is one of the most powerful players in the global "anti-disinformation" space, with a reputation for successfully pressuring Internet platforms to remove disfavored speech:
3. CCDH is currently being sued by this platform, X, which has accused it of manipulating X data to make it "appear as if X is overwhelmed by harmful content":
4. In March, 2021, CCDH's new US entity applied for tax-exempt status in the U.S., claiming it was a registered charity in the UK:
5. Later in April, 2021, an outside law firm engaged by CCDH sent the IRS a letter asking for expedited review, saying, "the Charity has the potential to receive significant funding contributions of various sizes”:
6. "WE'VE DETERMINED YOU'RE A PUBLIC CHARITY"
Soon after, on April 23, 2021, the IRS sent the CCDH the good news that it had been granted tax-exempt status:
7. The CCDH rarely misses an opportunity to underscore its 501 (c)(3) status. Look at its X page, for instance: twitter.com/CCDHate?ref_sr…
8. When @CCDHate CEO Imran Ahmed gave a speech at the 2023 "Eradicating Hate" summit, he mentioned the group's 501 (c)(3) status in his opening sentences:
9. The only problem: the CCDH is not a registered charity in the UK.
Reporter Paul Holden was told by the UK Charity Commission the CCDH never applied for such status.
10. The CCDH did not respond to requests for comment on this issue.
11. "LABOUR TOGETHER HELPED SET UP..." Labour Party documents also show CCDH was created under the auspices of Labour MP and Shadow Minister Steve Reed, using resources of the Labour Together think tank.
This is from a memo called “Steve’s record on fighting antisemitism.”
12. "STEVE DISCUSSED HIS WORK WITH... THE CENTRE FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE..."
There are also minutes of a meeting between MP Reed, the Community Service Trust, and the Jewish Leadership Council:
13. Press outlets unfailingly refer to the group using neutral terms like “online hate watchdog," “anti-hate campaigners," “hate-speech watchdog," “anti-hate group," or even just “disinformation researchers," never mentioning its political affiliation.
14. Outlets reporting on CCDH’s high-profile takes on say, X, or @rustyrockets, or @RobertKennedyJr never bring up its ties to Labour, or note the coincidence that CCDH targets are invariably critics of centrist Labour policies.
15. The CCDH appeared often in #TwitterFiles documents. A typical scenario saw the company receive a query from a media outlet, asking why this or that account identified as hateful/bigoted/inaccurate by the CCDH had not yet been banned:
16. "THEY WANT JACK TO ANNOUNCE TOMORROW..." In another example, an outside PR firm gave Twitter the bad news that 12 state attorneys general were demanding immediate action from then-CEO Jack Dorsey on accounts identified as Covid misinformation sources.
17. Outlets ranging from @nytimes to @BBC to @guardian should tell readers the CCDH is a partisan political project, created by a think-tank tied to Labour centrist and current poll leader Sir Keir Starmer. Embarrassing also that none checked its charitable status before.
On December 9th, 2016, @BarackObama ordered a new Intelligence Community Assessment to find out: "what happened" that election year?
News outlets within hours leaked the answer: Vladimir Putin "aspired" to help Donald Trump, for whom he had a "clear preference."
The report released today, which was conducted eight years ago and has been locked at Langley ever since, reveals that conclusion was based on just four pieces of evidence:
1. TWITTER FILES EXTRA: Special "Eight Years of Smears" Edition
The Ugly Subtext to the Gabbard, Patel, and Kennedy Confirmation Hearings
2. Last week's hearings involving Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Kash Patel were linked.
The nominees were denounced as proxies for Russia by the same source, exposed as a fraud in the Twitter Files.
3. Senate interrogators from both parties, from Mark Warner to Adam Schiff to James Lankford to Richard Blumenthal, were also involved in those episodes.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, a Barack Obama appointee, conducted an extensive investigation of the issuance of four FISA warrants that required an in-depth review of the Steele dossier: justice.gov/storage/120919…
"CORROBORATED LIMITED INFORMATION... MUCH OF THAT WAS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE."
There is NOT ONE piece of original reporting in the Steele dossier that turned out to be true. The only "confirmed" details were from prior public news reports, and even got some of those wrong...
PEE TAPE: "JUST TALK" OVER "BEERS" AND IN "JEST"
Horowitz noted the sources of Steele's spiciest revelations, like the "pee tape," were tracked down and stunned they'd been taken seriously. They laughed the story off as "just talk" told over "beers" in "jest":
On the new piece about Jeffrey Sachs and “Shock Therapy”:
I see people already suggesting this story is propaganda that paints Putin’s Russia as a victim. That’s not what this account says at all (cont’d)
The victims here are the Russian and American people, not the governments. After the Cold War we had a historic opportunity. Instead of making Russia a quasi-partner like Japan or Germany, we went the other way:
The result was economic disaster in Russia (which Westerners bailed out btw), which thanks to help from U.S. ended up ruled by rapacious oligarchs. Anti-US sentiment exploded during my time there.
When I first started covering policing I was taken aback by the complexity. Post-Broken Windows, big cities essentially gave up on high-end enforcement and used tactics closer to commercial fishing: sweep up everyone on small offenses, throw back some innocents.
The infamous 2015 Mike Bloomberg address to the Aspen Institute confirmed that NY busted young black men on drug offenses with the aim of pre-empting a statistical probability of them committing more serious crimes like murder - Minority Report stuff
The American speech system is a simple premise. A free press delivers the information, voters make the political decisions. We’re supposed to trust audiences to know what’s best for them. (1/4)
The new digital censorship movement is based on two fallacies. The first is that voters are too stupid to sort out information on their own, so they need institutional vanguards to weigh information, “help” them choose. (2/4)
The second is that the state has special responsibility to “protect” us from bad speech. The opposite is true. The constitution specifically enjoins the government from restricting citizen-to-citizen discussion. (3/4)