UN and US Government Expand Censorship Efforts

Coming Up: Online Age Confirmation, Digital Identification, KYC Procedures for Web Infrastructure, and AI Surveillance of Dissenting Opinions

Envision a battlefield where the titans of technology, those colossal entities shaping the very essence of our digital lives, stand poised, their shadows casting a vast expanse over our freedoms, our privacy.

At the heart of this confrontation lies a sophisticated dance of power, a duel where governments and international coalitions wield the dual forces of coercion and temptation—massive financial penalties paired with irresistible incentives.

This strategy, seemingly effective, hinges on a proposition both alluring and malign for these behemoths of the digital realm. The bait? An expansion of their dominions through increased access to personal data, the very lifeblood of their omnipotence.

It's a disturbing revelation, reflecting a reality where the rights and well-being of the global populace are bartered for the continued aggrandizement of Big Tech's empires and their unassailable bottom lines.

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.

American conservatives in particular face a paradox: their simultaneous opposition to digital IDs and support for online age verification, particularly highlighted by Florida's recent “Online Protections for Minors” bill.

This legislation, which mandates age verification on social media to protect youth, has sparked debate over privacy and free speech, reflecting a broader conservative dilemma between regulation and individual freedoms.

Governor Ron DeSantis's cautious stance mirrors this conflict, balancing social media's harms against its role in free expression. The bill's vague criteria and verification methods have fueled worries about privacy infringement and a step towards digital surveillance, under child protection's guise.

---

This issue extends beyond Florida's borders. In a recent maneuver that has sent ripples through the corridors of power and digital spaces alike, a consortium known as the Digital Trust & Safety Partnership (DTSP)—comprising the architects of our digital ecosystem: Google, Apple, Meta, TikTok, Microsoft, Amazon, and others—has ostensibly aligned with the United Nations' call for age verification.

Yet, beneath this veneer of cooperation lies a strategy cunningly rebranded as “age assurance,” a term that belies its true cost: the potential surrender of even more personal data, including facial imagery or government-issued identification.

This concession, ostensibly in the noble pursuit of safeguarding the digital landscape, masks a deeper, more insidious trade-off. It is the Trojan horse through which these digital overlords seek to fortify their realms, under the guise of compliance and safety.

Critics argue that such measures not only pave the way for increased censorship but also herald the onset of a new, more pervasive form of surveillance, where one's digital identity becomes inexorably linked to the most intimate aspects of their existence, including their financial lifelines.

Herein lies a clarion call to the denizens of the digital age, to scrutinize the motives and actions of these technological titans. It is a summons to challenge the prevailing norms, to question the trade-offs being made in the name of progress and safety.

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.

In a masterstroke of Orwellian doublespeak, the Digital Trust & Safety Partnership (DTSP) has positioned itself as the harbinger of digital safety, weaving a narrative that extols the virtues of its experience in “trust and safety.”

Yet, beneath this polished veneer of concern for the digital well-being of the young lies a more contentious reality. Critics might argue that this so-called experience is tantamount to a sophisticated regime of censorship, cloaked under the guise of protection.

The DTSP's engagement with the United Nations' Global Digital Compact takes a significant turn with its submission, which, among other points, heralds “Guiding principles and best practices for age assurance” as a beacon of their framework's application. This initiative is boldly proclaimed as a measure to safeguard the youth in the digital wilderness.

However, a closer examination reveals a disturbing implication: the path to this supposed digital utopia is paved with the stones of increased surveillance and personal data extraction.

Leveraging a report that delineates various methodologies for implementing age assurance—or more bluntly, age verification—the DTSP subtly signals its preference for what it describes as an “effective approach.” This euphemism barely conceals the organization's inclination towards methods that would imbue service providers with the unwavering certainty of a user's age.

Yet, this assurance comes at a steep price—the potential requisition of users' facial imagery or government-issued identification, a strong testament to the lengths Big Tech is willing to go in its quest for compliance and control.

This thinly veiled proposition to the United Nations is Big Tech's subtle nod to the power dynamics at play, a reminder of their willingness to collaborate, provided their voracious appetite for personal data is satiated. It's a gambit that reiterates their mastery in navigating the delicate balance between offering solutions and expanding their surveillance capabilities under the pretext of protecting vulnerable demographics.

---

In a revelation that raises the specter of Orwellian oversight, allegations have surfaced accusing the U.S. government of covertly allocating tens of millions of taxpayer dollars towards the development of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. The purported aim of these tools is to stifle dissent and censor critiques of government policies, all while meticulously concealing these actions from the public eye.

This concerning information has been unearthed by an interim report published by the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government Committee.

The document singles out the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the conduit through which the administration funnels funds, sanctioning grants to various entities for the creation of these controversial tools. It paints a grim picture of a government enlisting the prowess of AI not to advance societal welfare but to police thought and speech.

As if to add a more dystopian hue to this scenario, the report accuses Big Tech of complicit involvement, charging these corporate giants with the deployment of the government-funded tools in a sweeping effort to monitor and manipulate public discourse. This symbiosis between governmental ambition and technological might represents a chilling encroachment on the fundamental freedoms of expression and information.

But the narrative takes an even darker turn with allegations against the NSF for devising a “blacklisting strategy.” This nefarious tactic is reportedly aimed at media organizations attempting to illuminate the NSF's clandestine operations—activities that purportedly encompass censorship and the propagation of propaganda.

By promoting certain narratives while suppressing others, the NSF stands accused of not merely influencing the public discourse but actively shaping it to serve an undisclosed agenda.

This cascade of revelations underscores a profound and unsettling paradox: institutions designed to foster innovation and safeguard the public good may be leveraging their power to undermine the very principles of democracy and free speech they are meant to uphold.

---

Opponents have coined the term “censorship industrial complex” to describe a sprawling network that encompasses government entities, non-profit organizations, technological behemoths, and academic institutions, such as the University of Michigan, the University of Washington, the University of Wisconsin, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

This alliance is at the forefront of orchestrating a comprehensive campaign of mass censorship, with its inception linked to pivotal events such as the pandemic and the 2020 presidential election. The ostensible motive behind these efforts is the battle against “misinformation,” a term that has increasingly become synonymous with any narrative or information that does not align with governmental preferences.

This alarming conflation has led to allegations of unconstitutional activities, necessitating the involvement of private entities endowed with significant sway over public discourse.

These accusations find a basis in the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee's report, which asserts that the multi-million dollar grants ostensibly aimed at “combating misinformation” are, in reality, fueling the development of AI-driven tools for censorship and propaganda. These tools are designed to sculpt public opinion by either suppressing dissenting viewpoints or amplifying preferred narratives.

In defense, a spokesperson for the NSF has vehemently denied these allegations, insisting that the agency's initiatives strictly adhere to statutory and congressional mandates. The grants, they argue, are directed towards understanding the intricacies of communication technologies, such as deep fakes, and their societal interactions.

Moreover, the NSF seeks to shift the focus from domestic free speech concerns to the threats posed by “adversaries,” scammers, and other actors contrary to national interests, while denying any intention of media blacklisting.

Despite these denials, the subcommittee's report delves into the specifics of the tools developed and deployed under NSF's auspices. Notably, the University of Michigan's WiseDex, a project funded with $750,000 of taxpayer money, emerged as a “misinformation service” aimed at facilitating censorship decisions for social platforms.

This fact-checking tool represents just one facet of a broader arsenal that includes Course Correct, SearchLit, and Co-Insights, which have found application across major social media platforms.

Amidst the beneficiaries of NSF's largesse, Meedan stands out, a non-profit dedicated to enhancing journalism and digital literacy with a $5.75 million grant to bolster these efforts through Co-Insights, aimed at “disinformation interventions.”

Similarly, MIT's SearchLit initiative promises effective interventions, even as it disparages the discernment capabilities of the general public, including military veterans, conservatives, and minorities. This derogatory stance underscores the contentious nature of these projects, which, despite their purported scientific basis, have drawn criticism for serving as instruments of political and ideological censorship.

The report casts a critical eye on the practice of fact-checking, challenging its scientific validity and highlighting its potential misuse in the so-called “war on disinformation.”

This scrutiny is particularly relevant in the context of NSF-funded endeavors like the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Course Correct, which purports to empower journalistic and civic fact-checking efforts related to crucial issues like election integrity and vaccine efficacy.

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

In the closing days of January, the US Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security unveiled a draft proposal aimed at introducing a new Know Your Customer (KYC) regulation for cloud infrastructure providers, a sector collectively referred to as Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). Central to this proposal is the implementation of a Customer Identification Program (CIP), among other mandates specifically designed for the IaaS industry.

This announcement, which also opens the floor for public feedback until the end of April, is rooted in the government's pursuit to fulfill directives from the January 2021 Cyber Executive Order.

This order, initially put forth by the Trump administration, seeks to mitigate the national security threats posed by significant malicious cyber activities. Notably, this move aligns with a subsequent Executive Order on AI by the Biden administration, which similarly compels foreign resellers of US IaaS services to engage in stringent KYC procedures, mirroring those proposed for US providers.

The motivation behind this proposed rule is the government's intention to bolster US national security by thwarting the efforts of malevolent foreign entities and hackers who target the nation's critical infrastructure or otherwise jeopardize national interests.

Should this regulation come into effect, it would obligate both US-based IaaS providers and their international resellers to authenticate the identities of their foreign clientele rigorously.

This is especially pertinent when their services are utilized in the development of extensive AI language models, necessitating the collection of comprehensive identification details, including the customer's name, address, payment method and source, email, phone number, and IP address.

Failure to comply with these regulations could result in severe repercussions for US IaaS providers, encompassing both civil (monetary fines) and criminal sanctions as stipulated by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The civil penalties may reach up to $250,000 or double the transaction's value, whichever is greater, with criminal penalties potentially escalating to $1 million in fines and/or up to 20 years of imprisonment.

The proposal is underscored by concerns over the use of US-based cloud servers by hostile foreign actors for purposes such as espionage, intellectual property theft, and assaults on critical infrastructure. The government leverages these concerns to advocate for the necessity of the new KYC rule.

Additionally, the ease with which these cloud services can be temporarily registered and replaced poses a significant challenge for governmental agencies in monitoring and tracking malicious activities.

The current regulatory landscape, which does not obligate foreign resellers to maintain records of user identities, further complicates efforts by US law enforcement to acquire essential information about malevolent actors through legal channels.

The time has come to confront these practices head-on, to demand transparency and accountability, and to reclaim the sanctity of our personal freedoms in the face of an ever-encroaching digital empire.

For readers who find this kind of in-depth, insightful reporting more engaging than mainstream journalism, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support enables the continuation of such detailed analysis and coverage of crucial societal developments, a task that demands significant time and resources. By subscribing, you can help ensure that these vital insights continue to be shared and understood.