How to Wrap up Davos 2024

All you need to know about this year's World Economic Forum self-aggrandizement orgy.

Davos 2024, the annual spectacle where the world's elite gather to engage in what can only be described as a masterclass in hypocrisy. There they were, the so-called 'globalists,' shedding crocodile tears over the world's woes, while simultaneously patting themselves on the back for their superficial efforts. Amidst the luxurious backdrop, these self-appointed saviors indulged in endless complaints and fear-mongering, all the while masquerading as champions of the common good. It was, in essence, a grand theater of the absurd, where the rich and powerful played their roles with a commendable lack of self-awareness, leaving the rest of us to marvel at the irony of it all.

That wraps up your reading for today. However, if you're interested in more insights and key takeaways, feel free to explore the additional information provided below:

If you appreciate my articles, please consider giving them a like. It's a simple gesture that doesn't cost you anything, but it goes a long way in promoting this post, combating censorship, and fighting the issues that you are apparently not a big fan of.

UN Chief António Guterres Champions Sustainable Development Goals with Focus on Digital ID and Enhanced Data Sharing

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres delivered a speech that resonated with the summit's themes and mirrored the aggressive agendas promoted by the United Nations.

In his address, Guterres highlighted the UN's Global Digital Compact and the Sustainable Development Goals. The Global Digital Compact includes controversial proposals such as digital IDs linked to bank accounts. The Sustainable Development Goals, supported by influential global powers, also encompass digital IDs and the UN's approach to managing disinformation, which critics argue equates to censorship.

Guterres emphasized the Global Digital Compact's role in addressing what he termed “the digital connectivity gap,” describing the initiative as a collaborative, multi-stakeholder effort. He noted the significant role of artificial intelligence (AI) in developing a networked governance model spanning both public and private sectors.

Central to these initiatives is the concept of increased data sharing. Guterres and his team advocate for a collaborative framework involving governments and private tech companies to regulate AI's future applications.

These initiatives will be prominently featured at the upcoming “Summit for the Future” in September. António Guterres proposed further integration of globalist entities such as the G20, international financial institutions, and the UN itself.

A recent UN Policy Brief outlines a complex “pyramid” of initiatives, with “Our Common Agenda” (which includes the Global Digital Compact) being a key mechanism to expedite the Sustainable Development Goals. Now, there's an effort to incorporate the G20 and similar organizations into this framework, with some reports comparing this to an economic equivalent of the UN's Security Council.

There's growing concern about the potential impact on the international banking system and, consequently, on individual financial freedoms. The Global Digital Compact, with its emphasis on digital ID, is seen as a dystopian concept that's emerging globally in various forms.

Incorporating digital ID as a core element, it aims to establish a centralized network of citizens, raising alarms about the ease of control and surveillance it could enable.

While free content and knowledge is undoubtedly something amazing, creating and maintaining it requires a significant investment of time, money, and effort. I don't have the support of a massive media conglomerate; it's just me here. Regrettably, Klaus is still not providing me with free insects to eat. So, if you have the means and are willing to support my work by upgrading to a paid subscription, I would greatly appreciate it.

Czech Republic's Jan Lipavský Advocates for International Measures Against 'False Content'

Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský's appearance at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos was marked by his rather uninspired input on “misinformation,” which he coyly termed “false content.” It's almost as if Davos was the perfect stage for Lipavský to parrot the tired narrative of “global solutions.”

His call for a “global solution” to regulate “the way we communicate” reeks of Orwellian overtones. Is Lipavský subtly advocating for speech control under the guise of fancy rhetoric? It certainly appears so, given his emphasis on “government accountability” and the overt mention of technology “control” through government “regulation.”

One can't help but wonder if Lipavský's remarks might have found a sympathetic audience among certain delegates, perhaps even those from China, who are no strangers to the concept of stringent information control. His comments at the WEF seem less about protecting democracy and more about tightening the noose on free speech, under the convenient banner of combating “false content.”

The Prague government and its representative, in their quest to influence global electoral outcomes, are ironically preoccupied with elections worldwide, with a particular focus on steering voters towards “appropriate” candidates. This fixation extends to the most coveted prize: the US presidential election, a focal point for entities like the WEF.

These gatherings skillfully avoid overt emphasis on this election, instead using vague rhetoric about the potential replication of political phenomena across nations, facilitated by global internet platforms. The underlying strategy? Experiment with “regulation” in one country, then replicate it elsewhere.

Taxpayers globally should be alarmed not just by these persistent attacks on free speech, but also by the lack of originality and independent thought among those pushing these agendas. They seem to be reciting from a universal script, devoid of innovation or creativity.

---

Tedros Advocates for WHO Pandemic Treaty to Tackle 'Disease X’

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus championed the need for a global pandemic treaty, a move with significant implications for speech regulation, increased surveillance, and the implementation of digital vaccine passports.

During his speech, Tedros highlighted the necessity of global collaboration, cautioning against the pitfalls of prioritizing national interests too heavily. He participated in a session titled “Disease X,” emphasizing the urgent need for enhanced preparedness against future pandemics.

Advocating for the WHO Pandemic Treaty, Tedros views it as an essential instrument to improve our understanding and response to emerging diseases. He addressed the Davos attendees, stressing, “This is about a common enemy. Without a shared response, we will face the same problem as COVID.” He used the term “Disease X” to represent potential unknown diseases and underscored the vital need for ongoing research and development in finding treatments and mitigating future health crises.

This week saw a collaborative effort between the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum to push for the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty. Supported by the European Union, the treaty is designed to bolster global preparedness for future pandemics and includes plans to roll out a digital vaccine passport as early as this Spring.

With a target completion date set for May 2024, the WHO, backed by the EU, is striving to secure a binding agreement among United Nations member states to ensure widespread global participation. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of WHO, emphasized the significance of this treaty, stating, “The importance of a legally binding instrument cannot be overstated: it will be our collective legacy for future generations.”

---

Center for Democracy and Technology CEO Expresses Concern Over Injunction Weakening Biden Administration's Censorship Capabilities

Alexandra Reeve Givens, CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, made her appearance at this year's World Economic Forum (WEF) with a seemingly enthusiastic agenda to champion state censorship, interspersed with a few strategic diversions for the sake of appearing credible.

Givens, whose organization is now a part of Spotify's “safety advisory council” and was eager for the Biden administration to establish an online “disinformation” task force, expressed her dismay at the WEF panel over an injunction aimed at curtailing the White House's influence on Big Tech's speech regulation.

She implied that not only should these tech giants remain under governmental pressure, but they should also be publicly scrutinized and held accountable, perhaps even at forums like Davos, for their censorship efforts.

Givens also voiced her displeasure over the increased scrutiny from the U.S. Congress on social media companies and their misinformation research partners. While advocates of free speech might cautiously view this trend as positive, Givens sees it differently. In her view, this scrutiny equates to reduced censorship or “moderation” on social platforms. Contrarily, she believes these companies have an obligation to promote “trusted sources” of information, revealing her inclination towards controlling and filtering online content.

Givens' statements at the World Economic Forum reveal a clear stance, yet she introduces a seemingly contradictory element by voicing concern over governments restricting free speech. Her intention appears to be to add complexity to the narrative, possibly to create an appearance of balance in her approach.

“So in the United States, for example, right now we have congressional investigations and lawsuits against people that study misinformation about elections on social media platforms. There is currently an injunction in place stopping the Biden administration from communicating with social media platforms about interference threats on the topics of elections that’s actually going before the United States Supreme Court this year. So we’re in this bizarre environment where right as the threats are ticking up, the investments in actually doing the day-to-day work of online trust and safety for our information environment is being scaled back and is under attack.”

Givens' stance suggests that while she expresses concerns about governments cracking down on free speech, her approval seems limited to certain governments. Specifically, she appears supportive of the Biden administration's approach to misinformation and content moderation, indicating a desire for more of the same without interference from courts or Congress.

In her presentation, Givens' narrative aligns with those who propagate fears of misinformation, advocating for practices that often lead to censorship under the guise of protecting democracy. She emphasizes the importance of “authoritative information,” likely sourced from journalists deemed politically and ideologically acceptable. Additionally, Givens introduces concerns about AI-generated misinformation, further complicating the discourse around information control and censorship.

---

Andrew Ng Advocates for AI Regulation to Curb Chatbots from Spreading Misinformation

In terms of AI regulations, DeepLearning.AI founder Andrew Ng aptly points out, the focus should not be on regulating the technology itself but on its “applications.”

This perspective might be seen as a natural stance for someone involved in marketing AI solutions. Ng cautioned against amplifying hypothetical problems related to AI and sensationalizing risk assessments, asserting that the real potential issues often go unnoticed.

While advocating for avoiding the vilification of AI, Ng's call for control and regulation, particularly of AI “applications,” takes a somewhat sensational turn. He raises concerns about broadly defined “systems that can emotionally manipulate people for profit” as a justifiable reason for regulation, adding a layer of complexity to the debate over AI governance.

The founder of DeepLearning.AI's reluctance to regulate AI technology itself stems from valid concerns about the potential drawbacks of implementing new rules. These concerns include the possibility of hindering open-source initiatives, stifling innovation, and diminishing competitiveness.

The proposed approach is to allow AI technology to operate freely, driven by noble intentions of preserving openness and innovation. However, when it comes to its utilization, Andrew Ng suggests categorizing AI applications based on their “degree of risk.” The key lies in ensuring a “clear” classification.

Initially, Ng provides reasonable examples of “actually risky” cases, such as AI in medical devices. However, his definition of “clear” classification becomes less distinct as he reintroduces the contentious issue of “disinformation.” According to him, the identification of “chat systems potentially spreading disinformation” is not only straightforward but also qualifies as “actually risky.” Therefore, he advocates for tiered regulation, including censorship, to address this concern.

Additionally, Ng opposes proposals that consider the size of an AI model as a factor in regulation, asserting that both small and large models pose equal risks in two areas he is particularly fixated on: “disseminating inaccurate medical advice” and “generating disinformation.”

"European Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen Urges Partnership Between Public and Private Sectors to Combat 'Disinformation' in the 2024 Election

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, delivered a concerning message advocating for increased censorship during her address at the annual Davos World Economic Forum. She voiced her apprehension regarding the impact of “misinformation” and societal polarization on the global business community, signaling a heightened call for content control.

“For the global business community, the top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate,” she said in her speech to elites. She argued that the bigger problem is “disinformation and misinformation, followed closely by polarization within our societies.”

During her address, Leyen emphasized the necessity of forming partnerships between governments and the private sector to combat “disinformation.”

She articulated, “Many of the solutions require not only collaboration between nations but, critically, a collaboration between businesses and governments, as well as businesses and democracies.”

Leyen underscored the significance of this collaboration, especially in the context of 2024, which she referred to as “the biggest electoral year in history.”

Furthermore, she cautioned, “Even as the insidious spread of misinformation and disinformation threatens the cohesion of societies, there is a risk that some governments may respond too slowly, facing a dilemma between countering misinformation and preserving freedom of speech. Meanwhile, repressive governments could exploit enhanced regulatory control to undermine human rights.”

The true power to shape this world has always lain in your hands. Choose well!

Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes Attributes 'Disinformation' on Social Media to Trump and Urges the Private Sector and WEF to Address the Issue

During the World Economic Forum, Professor Naomi Oreskes, specializing in the History of Science at Harvard University, voiced her concerns regarding the proliferation of disinformation on social media. She notably attributed a substantial portion of this problem to social media companies, President Trump, and specific businesses.

Her suggested remedies raise significant concerns about potential threats to free speech and underscore the perils associated with censorship.

“President Trump; it’s been well written about, he had over 30,000 false or misleading claims in his four years as president. If that comes from the top, is that part of the issue and the problem as well?” asked Urs Gredig, the moderator.

“Yeah, absolutely,” Oreskes responded. “I mean and it’s one of the reasons this issue has become so vexed in the United States because now ordinary people are getting a lot of disinformation in social media, almost much of which is coming from private sector interests, but then it gets amplified when it gets reposted and resent by ordinary people who think, oh this is interesting, I’ll pass this on.”

Oreskes complained that what she called “disinformation” was being “amplified at the top” by social media companies, and said that the “business community has a big role to play” in challenging this.

Despite President Trump and his supporters facing the brunt of online censorship over the last several years, Oreskes suggested that it was the opposite and that social media platforms aren’t censoring Trump, saying they’re “biting their tongue” because they think Trump will “cut corporate taxes.”

Oreskes called upon the elites at the WEF to challenge this and suggested that the private sector should be censoring more. “I really hope that the World Economic Forum will take this issue on board and think harder about the role that the private sector can play in standing up against disinformation, even if they might like the fact that that politician would cut their taxes,” she said.

Constant Complaining About the Lack of “X” Censorship

The World Economic Forum has become a battleground over Elon Musk's social media network X, which staunchly supports free speech, drawing the ire of global elites who are frustrated by its lack of censorship.

Prominent figures within the educational sector of the conference have expressed their discontent with Musk's platform, labeling it as problematic and “toxic.”

Luciana Vaccaro, the head of swissuniversities, and our delusional friend Naomi Oreskes both expressed their concerns about X and Elon Musk during a panel discussion at the event. A video capturing their criticism of X and Musk has been circulating on the platform.

“For a long time I was on Twitter, and now it’s become such a toxic place that I’ve concluded it’s not a worthwhile place to spend time,” Oreskes remarked. “I have given up on X. What a scary name that even is, right?” (Yes, sure, make it emotional, we all did a course on rhetoric by now.)

“It’s [a] very toxic environment and…I have no solution for that,” Vaccaro responded, expressing her belief that there will eventually be a “code of conduct” on X. “I think there will be a societal reflection on how information is disseminated there. Of course, on X, there is also the policy of the owner that is problematic, but I think this is a challenge for the society of the future.”

Elon Musk, who has consistently resisted calls for censorship from governments, the media, and corporate advertisers, responded to the comments with a simple, mocking laugh emoji.

Bonus: Milei is a Psy-Op

The so-called “speech that broke the Internet” amounted to nothing more than a display of Davos' attempt to portray itself as open-minded and receptive to criticism. It was as though they wanted to showcase their willingness to engage in discussions and rebuild trust by inviting a “known critic” of the forum, all while engaging in a rather tiresome rhetoric.

I really don’t want to explain psy-ops to tail-wagging conservatives anymore. If you find comfort in believing this, no problem. However, my faith in individuals who were once associated with Klaus Schwab as scholars remains rather limited, regardless of the narratives they may currently be promoting. This skepticism is amplified by the realization that there is a simple yet powerful word that could have been employed prior to embracing the title of a “Young Global Leader,” and that word is “No”; and uttering it in the appropriate context and moment is called “integrity.”

If you don’t want to commit to a paid subscription but still wish to support me, you can donate an amount you choose here. Most of my content is free to read, so it is greatly appreciated. Thank you!