IN THE GLOBAL STRUGGLE AGAINST AUTHORITARIANISM, THE WEST’S REAL ENEMY IS ITSELF
American politicians speak constantly about the indispensable role of the United States in leading the free world against authoritarianism. If that is true, why is the White House so silent in the face of new global threats to free speech?
In January, American citizen Gonzalo Lira died in a Ukrainian prison for posting YouTube videos; the State Department didn’t lift a finger to help. Last week, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France for the crime of insufficient content moderation.
Now Brazil has banned X for resisting the diktats of a tyrannical judge, who salivates over the possibility of jailing @elonmusk. The EU is one step behind, with Eurocrat Thierry Breton pursuing a criminal investigation against Elon for “platforming disinformation,” which Breton defines to include a conversation with Donald Trump.
In the UK, the government of Keir Starmer imprisons critics of open borders with more zeal than it prosecutes violent crime. In Canada, Justin Trudeau crushed a trucker protest against vaccine mandates by asserting sweeping new powers to freeze bank accounts.
At no point has the White House expressed concern about this new iron curtain that seems to be descending across the West. Quite the contrary, Mark Zuckerberg confirmed that the Biden-Harris administration repeatedly pressured Meta to censor during Covid. Worse, the FBI primed Facebook to censor true stories about Biden Family corruption by suggesting that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation (even though the FBI knew it was authentic).
Barring court intervention, TikTok will shut down in the U.S. on January 19, 2025 thanks to a new power authorized by Congress to ban websites and applications that the President determines are subject to the influence of a foreign adversary. X may not be far behind if liberal elites and deep state apparatchiks like Robert Reich and Alexander Vindman get their wish. They have called for the U.S. to adopt Brazil’s and the EU’s approach and “rein in” Elon Musk.
Hypocritically, the same voices demanding this crackdown are also the loudest in proclaiming the West to be engaged in a “war on authoritarianism” against countries like Russia and China. But whatever their other sins, Russia and China are in no position to deprive American citizens of their free speech rights; only our own government can do that.
Similarly, if Western leaders truly wanted to prevent authoritarianism, the easiest place to start would be at home, protecting the civil liberties of their own citizens. Instead they seem obsessed with deflecting the public’s attention onto foreign enemies, as Orwell depicted in the Two Minutes Hate in 1984.
As this battle over free speech heats up in an election year, where do the candidates stand? Donald Trump has declared his support for free speech whereas Kamala Harris has said nothing and can be expected to continue her administration’s policy of tacit approval of creeping censorship. In just two months, Americans will decide. Do we actually lead the free world in standing up for free speech, or do we accept the authoritarianism we claim to detest so much?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This was a historic week for AI policy. President Trump gave his first major speech on AI, the White House released its AI Action Plan, and President Trump signed three important executive orders. If you missed it, here is a recap of the major themes and actions. 🧵
1/ America is in an AI Race.
Reminiscent of the way that President John F. Kennedy declared the space race, President Trump declared that America is in an AI race. This competition will reshape the global economy and determine who will be the superpowers of the 21st century:
“Whether we like it or not, we are suddenly engaged in a fast-paced competition to build and refine this groundbreaking technology that will determine so much about the future of civilization.”
President Trump assured America that we will do “whatever it takes” to win this contest that is so vital to our future economic prosperity and national security:
“America is the country that started the AI race, and as President of the United States, I'm here today to declare that America is going to win it.”
2/ We win by out-innovating our competitors.
President Trump declared that innovation was the key to winning the AI race. “America must once again be a country where innovators are rewarded with a green light, not strangled with red tape.”
As the AI industry is just getting started, President Trump made clear that he wanted to see it grow and thrive: “We’re going to make this industry absolutely the top because right now, it's a beautiful baby that's born. We have to grow that baby and let that baby thrive.”
President Trump promised to push back against state over-regulation, maintaining that we need one regulatory regime on AI, not 50 different ones. “You can’t have one state holding you up… We need one common sense federal standard that supersedes all states… We’re going to have one standard, one policy, one idea.”
Similarly, President Trump rejected onerous regulations by global institutions: “We also have to watch Europe, Asia, and all foreign countries so that they don't make rules and regulations that make it impossible for you to do business."
Finally, President Trump endorsed a common sense approach to intellectual property. He reaffirmed that AI models aren’t allowed to plagiarize outputs, but said that model training on inputs do not violate copyright law. “You can't be expected to have a successful AI program when every single article, book, or anything else that you've read or studied, you're supposed to pay for. We appreciate that, but just can't do it—because it's not doable.”
Republicans should understand that when Obama retweets hyperbolic and unproven claims about AI job loss, it’s not an accident, it’s part of an influence operation. The goal: to further “Global AI Governance,” a massive power grab by the bureaucratic state and globalist institutions. The organizers: “Effective Altruist” billionaires with a long history of funding left-wing causes and Trump hatred. Of course, it’s fine to be concerned about a technology as transformational as AI, but if you repeat their claims uncritically, you may be falling for an astroturfed campaign by the “AI Existential Risk Industrial Complex.”
To learn more about the “AI Existential Risk Industrial Complex,” this article does a good job exposing the agenda and who’s funding it:
This is another excellent article explaining how the “AI Existential Risk” ecosystem, with over a billion dollars in funding from a few left-wing Effective Altruism billionaires, expanded to encompass hundreds of organizations:
With Americans becoming exhausted with the Forever Wars in the Middle East, the “democracy promotion” grifters at USAID, NED, and the rest of the NGOs needed a new cause. Ukraine was perfect. As the most corrupt country in Europe, it would allow them to expropriate billions…
It’s no coincidence that the mass pardons for the Biden Family go back to 2014. That’s when Biden authorized the Maidan Coup and Hunter Biden was rewarded with a fake board seat at Burisma.
When Putin threatened to invade Ukraine in response to Biden’s insistence that it join NATO, it was a dream come true. War would allow expropriation on an unprecedented scale. Even Zelensky recently admitted a hundred billion is missing.
On the latest episode of @theallinpod (29:40), I demoed @GlueAI using ChatGPT-4o. Much has already been written about the conversational and multimodal abilities of GPT-4o but I wanted to highlight how good the performance is for SaaS apps like Glue.🧵
Glue is a new work chat app that is based on threads rather than channels and makes AI a full-fledged member of the team. We created a new workspace for the All-In Pod and added all of our episode transcripts so the AI would have that context.
GlueAI (using ChatGPT-4o) did a remarkable job summarizing each Bestie's personality and contributions to the pod. (Glue shows clickable "Sources" for the AI's answers, which is nice.)
In 1991 the Soviet Union fell apart and NATO faced an existential crisis: its reason for being no longer existed. But rather than disband, it came up with a new mission: to expand. And in a self-referential loop, NATO expansion would create the hostility needed to justify itself.
Bureaucracies often take on a life of their own and end up causing the very problems they were supposed to solve.
NIH was supposed to prevent pandemics, so it funded gain-of-function research, causing a pandemic.
NATO was supposed to prevent a war, so it expanded to Russia’s border and sought to encircle it, provoking a war.
People outside the bureaucracy believe its job is to solve problems. People inside the bureaucracy understand that their job is to expand their power. That typically happens when problems get worse.