The Legacy Media’s Descent into Propaganda

The legacy media, once a bastion of journalism, has devolved into a propaganda machine for the political left. With declining influence and revenue, these outlets have abandoned any semblance of objectivity, opting instead to push pre-packaged narratives that serve the interests of the establishment. During the 2024 election cycle, networks like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC provided Kamala Harris with 78% positive coverage, while former President Donald Trump was subjected to 85% negative coverage. This blatant bias was not just a failure of journalism; it was a deliberate effort to manipulate public opinion.

The media’s obsession with framing Trump as a “threat to democracy” and a “Putin puppet” was nothing more than a smokescreen to distract from the real issues — inflation, illegal immigration, and a failing economy. Yet, when Trump won, the media’s response was not introspection but a desperate attempt to blame alternative media for their own failures. The truth is, Americans have rejected the legacy media’s lies, turning instead to alternative sources for truthful information.

Government and Big Tech’s Collusion to Censor Truth

The collusion between government agencies and Big Tech has reached unprecedented levels. The American First Legal team’s litigation against Facebook and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has exposed the chilling extent of this partnership. Facebook employees trained CDC officials on how to censor Americans, creating a portal titled “COVID & Vaccine Misinformation.” Through this system, the CDC censored over 16 million pieces of content, silencing dissent on critical issues like COVID-19 lockdowns, masks, and the dangers of the vaccines.

The Biden administration’s pressure on social media companies to eliminate “misinformation” was a thinly veiled attempt to control public discourse. Facebook, under Mark Zuckerberg’s leadership, caved to this pressure, allowing the government to wield unprecedented power over online speech. This censorship not only violated the First Amendment but also harmed countless lives by suppressing the truth about the vaccines’ adverse effects, including spike protein shedding and increased miscarriage risks.

The Congressional report on the Weaponization of the Federal Government reveals an even more sinister plot: the collaboration between federal agencies, universities, and private firms to censor Americans’ political speech. The Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), funded by the Department of Homeland Security, worked with organizations like the Atlantic Council, Stanford Internet Observatory, and the University of Washington Center for an Informed Public to target conservative voices. These groups used sophisticated algorithms to shadow-ban, de-platform, and defame individuals who dared to question the official narrative.

The Atlantic Council, for example, employs former intelligence officials to “expose falsehoods and fake news,” but in reality, they are censoring the truth and promoting government propaganda. The Stanford Internet Observatory and the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public have built psychological profiles on dissenters, isolating them from public discourse and destroying their reputations. This coordinated effort to control information is not just anti-democratic; it is a direct attack on the First Amendment.

The fight for Free Speech and truth must continue

The Censorship-Industrial Complex has shown its true colors: a network of government agencies, Big Tech corporations, and left-wing organizations working together to silence dissent and maintain control over public discourse. This collusion is not just unethical; it is unconstitutional. The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, yet this right has been systematically undermined by those in power.

It is time to demand accountability. Congress must investigate the collusion between government agencies and social media companies. The Supreme Court must uphold the First Amendment and strike down any laws that seek to regulate “misinformation.” And most importantly, the American people must reject the legacy media’s propaganda and seek out alternative sources of information. It is time to dismantle the Censorship-Industrial Complex and restore the First Amendment to its rightful place as the bedrock of the American republic.

Sources include:

• AMGreatness.com
• Censorship.news
• Censorship.news

The Transparency in Bureaucratic Communications Act, introduced by Republican Senator Eric Schmitt, would have inspectors general (IGs) inform Congress in detail about any communication, and circumstances of that communication, between the agencies these watchdogs are in charge of, and companies benefiting from Section 230 protections.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Judging by a press statement by Schmitt, the concern is that, even with the government accused of such collusion now on its way out, what he refers to as “the deep state” might still continue to “work” with Big Tech.

“The incoming Republican Congress cannot allow deep-state bureaucrats to continue censoring the free speech of our constituents any longer (…) We will find the bureaucratic rot and we will rip it out,” Schmitt stated.

At the same time, the senator urged that “the full extent” of the censorship carried out during the previous administration must continue to be exposed.

Schmitt was behind the 2022 Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, filed in his then capacity as the state’s attorney general, which eventually reached the Supreme Court as Murthy v. Missouri. This case concerned allegations of unconstitutional government collusion with tech companies with the goal of censoring Americans.

Now, Schmitt’s proposed bill also requires that inspectors general – there are currently 74 of those – provide “a comprehensive reporting of all communications on content moderation, user content, and communications related to these (Section 230 protected) companies’ algorithms.”

Although the Supreme Court eventually ruled that Murthy v. Missouri lacked standing, the case brought crucial attention to the issue of online censorship, in the ways it involves the government.

When Elon Musk in 2022 acquired Twitter and then decided to release what turned out to be a damning trove of internal documents, the public had the chance to further learn how the administration leaned on tech companies to censor.

Third parties – various “fact-checking,” “rating,” etc. groups – effectively played the role of intermediaries to bypass constitutional prohibitions.

Even during the previous administration, House Republicans in particular sought to shed light on these practices, including through a Judiciary Committee investigation, which at one point even had Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the government put pressure on the giant to censor, saying it was “wrong.”

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

(Natural News)—ExxonMobil and Chevron, two of the United States’ largest oil and gas companies, are exploring opportunities to enter the power generation business as Big Tech is looking for electricity suppliers for its growing number of energy-intensive data centers.

Both companies are considering leveraging natural gas-fired power plants equipped with carbon capture technology to meet the growing demand for low-carbon electricity.

ExxonMobil announced on Dec. 11 that it is designing a “massive” natural gas-fired power plant with a generating capacity of over 1,500 megawatts. ExxonMobil claims its facility, which would be dedicated to powering data centers, will capture more than 90 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions. The company emphasized that the project aims to address the short-term need for reliable electricity while minimizing emissions.

“There are very few opportunities in the short term to power those data centers and do it in a way that at the same time minimizes, if not completely eliminates, the emissions,” said ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods.

The company has secured land for the facility but has not disclosed its location or cost. ExxonMobil plans to operate the plant independently of the power grid, which could expedite the permitting and construction process. The plant is expected to be operational within the next five years. This would mark ExxonMobil’s first foray into power generation for external customers, as its previous gas-fired plants were built to serve its own operations.

Chevron, meanwhile, has been in discussions for over a year about supplying natural gas-fired power, coupled with carbon capture technologies, to data centers.

Jeff Gustavson, president of subsidiary Chevron New Energies, confirmed the company’s interest in the sector during an interview.

Gustavson highlighted Chevron’s experience in natural gas supply and power equipment operations as key advantages in meeting the growing demand for electricity from data centers.

“It fits many of our capabilities – natural gas, construction, operations, and being able to provide customers with a low-carbon pathway on power through CCUS (carbon capture, utilization and storage), geothermal, and maybe some other technologies,” said Gustavson.

Big Oil’s entry into power generation driven by demand to accommodate AI

Both companies are entering the power market amid a surge in electricity demand driven by the growth of artificial intelligence (AI) and other high-tech industries.

Projections indicate that U.S. electricity demand could reach record highs by 2025, following two decades of stagnation. The urgency to meet this demand has prompted the power industry to invest in new natural gas infrastructure and delay the retirement of fossil-fuel power plants. Natural gas has emerged as a leading option for providing round-the-clock electricity, given its lower cost compared to other sources.

ExxonMobil has also been working with tech giant Intel to develop new liquid cooling technologies for data centers. The partnership aims to design energy-efficient cooling solutions that could reduce emissions and improve operational efficiency. The company has committed $30 billion over the next few years to these efforts, in addition to its plans to increase oil and gas production by 18 percent by 2030.

Chevron, similarly, is leveraging its expertise in natural gas and carbon capture to explore opportunities in the power generation sector. The company’s entry into the market would mark a significant shift from its traditional focus on oil and gas production.

Watch this clip from CNBC discussing how the construction of new AI data centers all over the world is fueling a boom in cooling technology to help prevent these data centers from overheating.

This video is from the TrendingNews channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• OpenAI wants to build data centers that consume MORE POWER than the entire United Kingdom.
• Amazon investing more than half a billion dollars to build small modular nuclear reactors to power its AWS computing centers.
• Google backs construction of first small nuclear reactors to power AI data centers.
• Microsoft to bring infamous nuclear plant back to life to feed POWER HUNGRY AI data centers.
• Big Tech has a growing appetite for America’s electricity and water resources.

Sources include:

• ZeroHedge.com
• PowerMag.com
• Reuters.com
• Brighteon.com

The FTC report published Sept. 19 expounded on how social media and streaming companies endanger children and teens who use their platforms. It also showed how “the tech industry’s monetization of personal data has created a market for commercial surveillance – especially via social media and video streaming services – with inadequate guardrails to protect consumers.”

Staffers at the commission examined the practices of various Big Tech companies, including Meta Platforms (Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp), YouTube, X, Snapchat, Reddit, Microsoft (Discord), Amazon (Twitch) and ByteDance (TikTok).

Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, outlined in the report that “these companies engaged in mass data collection of their users and – in some cases – non-users.” He also wrote that “many companies failed to implement adequate safeguards against privacy risks.”

The report also expounded on the various ways the aforementioned companies made use of personal data “from serving hypergranular targeted advertisements to powering algorithms that shape the content we see, often with the goal of keeping us hooked on using the service.”

“These practices pose unique risks to children and teens, with the companies having done little to respond effectively to the documented concerns that policymakers, psychologists and parents have expressed over young people’s physical and mental well-being.”

In a statement, FTC Chair Lina Khan said her agency’s report “lays out how social media and video streaming companies harvest an enormous amount of Americans’ personal data and monetize it to the tune of billions of dollars a year.”

“With few meaningful guardrails, companies are incentivized to develop ever-more invasive methods of collection. While lucrative for the companies, these surveillance practices can endanger people’s privacy, threaten their freedoms, and expose them to a host of harms, from identify theft to stalking.”

Bills meant to protect kids online could infringe on First Amendment rights

Following the release of the FTC report, child welfare advocates urged U.S. lawmakers to pass a pair of controversial bills that seek to protect the youth from “dangerous and unacceptable business practices.” But the two proposals, the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) and Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), could infringe on young Americans’ rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Josh Golin, executive director of the nonprofit organization Fairplay, lauded the FTC report in a statement. He also called for the COPPA 2.0 and KOSA bills to be enacted into law.

“This report from the FTC is yet more proof that Big Tech’s business model is harmful to children and teens,” he wrote. “Online platforms use sophisticated and opaque techniques of data collection that endanger young people and put their healthy development at risk.”

But rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have condemned the KOSA. According to the ACLU, the KOSA – which the U.S. Senate passed in July – “would violate the First Amendment by enabling the federal government to dictate what information people can access online and encourage social media platforms to censor protected speech.”

ACLU and other rights groups have pointed out that the KOSA won’t keep children safe. It would instead threaten young people’s privacy, limit minors’ access to vital resources and silence important online conversations for all ages. Moreover, the ACLU has also raised concerns about how this bill could be used to limit adults’ ability to express themselves freely online or access diverse viewpoints.

Visit BigTech.News for similar stories. Watch this video about online privacy and security, and how to protect yourself online.

This video is from the Daily Videos channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• Big Government and Big Tech both want your biometric data.
• Social media use linked to TEENAGE DEPRESSION, warn mental health experts.
• Social media is the JUNK FOOD of human connection: Looks and feels like connection, but leaves you empty, just like junk food.

Sources include:

• ChildrensHealthDefense.org
• ACLU.org.
• Brighteon.com

Amazon has introduced a groundbreaking biometric payment system, Amazon One, which allows users to pay for purchases, access loyalty rewards and enter certain restricted areas on Amazon properties all with the wave of a hand. Users who sign up agree to give Amazon data regarding their palm’s unique vein patterns to help verify their identities.

Launched last March 28, this technology is already being used at over 200 Whole Foods locations across 20 states, and Amazon plans to expand it to every Whole Foods in the United States by the end of the year. (Related: More businesses now resorting to BIOMETRICS so that government nannies can literally track everything you do, see and buy.)

The technology is also being adopted by other retailers, such as Panera Bread – appearing in diverse locations like airports, convenience stores, gyms and stadiums.

In a similar manner, TSA has introduced facial recognition technology at airports with a promise that the technology enhances safety and streamlines the travel experience.

Facial recognition is used by the TSA to verify a traveler’s identity by scanning their face. This system captures a live image of the traveler’s face and compares it to the photo on their ID or passport. If the two images match, the traveler is cleared to proceed – often without needing to show physical identification.

For travelers who choose not to use this technology, the TSA continues to offer traditional ID checks. Participation in the facial recognition program is entirely voluntary and those who opt out will not face any delays or negative consequences.

Facial recognition is not just limited to airport security. It is being adopted across various industries, including banking, retail and healthcare – promising benefits like faster service, improved accessibility and a more personalized user experience.

However, as the technology becomes more widespread, so do the risks. These risks include inaccuracies and biases against certain age groups and ethnicities, the vulnerability of stored facial data and the possibility of criminal entities impersonating other individuals.

Biometric technologies spark security concerns

Hafiz Malik, a cybersecurity professor at the University of Michigan, cautioned that these systems are not infallible. Malik pointed out that advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) could potentially enable the creation of fake versions of a person’s voice, handprint or even face.

These AI-generated forgeries could be used to trick biometric payment systems, highlighting the need for robust countermeasures like “liveness detection” – a technology used by Amazon to distinguish between real and fake palms.

Another significant concern is the storage and protection of biometric data. Unlike a stolen credit card, which can be replaced, biometric data can’t be changed if it is compromised. This permanence makes biometric data a highly attractive target for hackers.

Evan Greer, director of the digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future, warned that trusting a corporation with biometric data also entails trusting that same corporation to keep that data safe. He said corporations have a really terrible track record of keeping people’s personal information safe.

Cynthia Rudin, a Duke University professor, further stressed the potential dangers if such sensitive data falls into the wrong hands.

“They can control you in ways you don’t like,” said Rudin. “Those data sets can be used to control us anywhere in the world, including arresting us, or preventing us from entering stores that don’t want customers in our salary bracket, or who have political views that disagree with the owners of the venues.”

Watch this demonstration of an Amazon One palm scanner.

This video is from the Daily Videos channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

• No cash or card allowed: Major supermarkets set to accept only BIOMETRICS payment.
• Mastercard rolls out payment system that uses FACIAL RECOGNITION technology.
• Facial recognition will soon identify shoplifters and ban them from stores, experts say it’s ripe for abuse.

Sources include:

• WSJ.com
• BobsGuide.com
• TSA.gov
• CNBC.com
• Brighteon.com