European Parliament Approves “European Democracy Shield” Committee to Tackle Online “Disinformation”
Microsoft's Recall is back in Windows Insider builds, but the same old questions loom: Is this tool a digital memory aid or a surveillance nightmare?
Recall periodically screenshots everything you do—websites, forms, apps—organizing it into a searchable timeline powered by AI. Microsoft claims it’s a productivity boost. But how productive is handing over an unfiltered record of your digital life?
Here’s where it gets dicey: Recall now promises encryption and filters to block sensitive info (like credit cards, passwords). Sounds good? In tests though, the safeguards failed repeatedly. Sensitive data slipped through, captured and stored despite the promised protections.
Recall did block screenshots on some payment pages, but entering info in Notepad? Typing on custom-built web forms? The filters missed. Microsoft says they'll improve the tool over time, but that’s cold comfort when Recall is already on track to become a core Windows feature. 
TikTok’s future in the US could be decided by the Supreme Court. Facing a Jan. 19 deadline to divest from ByteDance — or risk a federal ban — TikTok has petitioned for an emergency injunction.
The DC Circuit already ruled against TikTok, rejecting claims the law violates First Amendment rights. Now, with its business on the line, TikTok hopes the Supreme Court will intervene.
The decision could redefine how far the US can go in banning foreign-owned apps, balancing security fears with free speech. If the ban is enforced, it may also open the floodgates for broader app crackdowns.
And then there’s Trump. Once the loudest voice calling to ban TikTok, he’s now in talks with CEO Shou Chew today. A delay could push the decision into his hands.
Meta’s latest idea: break the rules, take a class. First-time "offenders" on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, or Messenger can dodge account strikes by completing an “educational program” to learn the rules they apparently violated. Misstep again after a year? Take the class again.
It’s re-education. Meta says many users “aren’t aware” they’ve broken the rules, but maybe that’s because the rules are a vague, moving target. Instead of fixing that, Meta doubles down on a system that treats users like clueless children needing correction.
And the payoff? A measly 15% of users say they better understand the rules after this digital probation. Meta calls it “promising.” Should we call it effective? Or dystopian?
This is a play straight from the handbook of platform paternalism: obscure rules, corporate-enforced “education,” and users jumping through hoops to stay on the platform that surveils them. 
Trump taps Gail Slater, antitrust expert with a history in Big Tech and policy, to lead the DOJ’s antitrust division. Her mission? Tackle monopoly power in tech—Google, Visa, Apple are on the table.
This isn’t new ground for Slater. She spent years at the FTC pushing back on mergers like Whole Foods/Wild Oats, advised on tech-national security risks at the White House, and worked for JD Vance on economic policy. Her resume also includes stints at Fox and Roku. She’s seen the industry from every angle.
But here’s the wrinkle: Slater once represented tech giants like Google and Amazon. Can the insider now lead the charge against entrenched Big Tech power?
New FCC Chairman Vows to End Big Tech’s Grip on Free Speech
https://reclaimthenet.org/new-fcc-chairman-vows-to-end-big-techs-grip-on-free-speech
The UN just dropped the "Cascais Declaration," a manifesto cloaked in lofty ideals but brimming with calls for censorship. Signed by world leaders at the UNAOC Global Forum, it pushes "information integrity"—code for algorithmic censorship and speech policing.
In his speech, UN Sec-Gen António Guterres targeted AI, "hate speech," and "misinformation" as threats to humanity, accusing platforms of enabling them. His solution? Big Tech, media, and governments doubling down on content control—demonetization and suppression included.
Critics aren’t buying the PR spin. They see the UN's "Global Principles for Information Integrity" and the "Pact for the Future" as Orwellian plays for power: surveillance dressed up as safety, censorship masked as harmony.
Guterres promises a "humane information ecosystem." But when governments, Big Tech, and ad giants get to define truth, the result isn’t integrity—it’s control. 
Australia just passed a sweeping social media law banning under-16s from platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram. The problem: Everyone will need to verify their age with ID — shredding online anonymity and raising huge privacy concerns.
Enforcement is a disaster waiting to happen. Tech platforms must block under-16s or face $50M AUD fines, but the law doesn’t define how. Passports? Birth certificates? No one knows—least of all the government.
Teenagers won’t stop using the internet; they’ll just go to less regulated spaces. Meanwhile, centralizing ID data creates a hacker’s paradise in a country already hit by major breaches.
Critics call the law rushed and unworkable. Even the promised trial of age-verification tech won’t start until 2025 — long after the law takes effect. It’s policy by headline, not strategy.
This could become a global model — or a cautionary tale about sacrificing privacy and practicality for feel-good legislation. Australians deserve better.
The UK’s Online Safety Act was already a censorship tool, but now the government is pushing it further—using vague “misinformation” rules to pressure platforms into silencing dissent. A dangerous expansion of state control over speech. 
The G20 is at it again. Leaders in Rio de Janeiro are demanding more “accountability” from digital platforms to fight what they call “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “hate speech,” and other “harms.” Translation? More control over what you can say online.
The summit’s final declaration praises the transformative power of the internet, then pivots to the supposed dangers of letting people communicate too freely. They highlight the need for platforms to combat speech they don’t like—while wrapping it in words like “responsibility” and “transparency.”
What’s the real story here? A growing push for censorship under the guise of “protection.” The declaration even calls for cracking down on “online misogyny” and says platforms must align with “relevant policies” (read: government-approved narratives). 
The UN’s push for digital IDs in Africa is gaining traction, but not without controversy. Under the banner of “digital inclusion,” programs in Ethiopia and Eswatini are part of the UN’s Global Digital Compact, involving agencies like UNDP and UNESCO. Proponents say these systems will improve access to services, but critics warn they could create centralized surveillance networks ripe for abuse.
While these programs are marketed as tools for progress, global backlash highlights their risks. Without strong safeguards, they could enable unprecedented tracking and data exploitation. If history is a guide, resistance to such schemes is likely to grow.
Senator Rand Paul is calling out CISA for its "intrusions into the First Amendment" and pushing to shut the agency down.
CISA, established in 2018 to protect critical infrastructure, has been accused of flagging online posts for removal and working with social media to suppress dissent. Paul says this includes censoring content to “influence what information is available to people.”
“The First Amendment is important, that’s why we listed it as the First Amendment. I’d like to, at the very least, eliminate their ability to censor content online,” Paul wrote on X.
As the incoming chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Paul plans hearings to investigate CISA, even as Democrats vow to “fiercely” defend the agency. CISA, for its part, claims it’s protecting “freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy”—an extraordinary claim given their actions during events like the 2020 election.
As DC prepares for a power shift, Speaker Mike Johnson is making sure the Biden-Harris admin doesn’t take its censorship secrets with it.
Johnson & top Republicans have warned Labor Sec. Julie Su: don’t destroy records that reveal how the government colluded with Big Tech to silence Americans.
The House promises to dig deeper.
Another quality "fact check" from the New York Times...
🚨 FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr is calling out Big Tech for its role in what he calls a "censorship cartel." In letters to Alphabet, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft, Carr demands answers on their censorship practices, fact-checking partnerships, and ad agency collaborations over the past four years.
Carr links this activity to NewsGuard, a self-proclaimed news rating system, which he argues disproportionately targets conservative outlets while giving better ratings to Chinese state media. According to Carr, NewsGuard and similar groups are weaponized to suppress dissent and harm independent voices, especially those challenging establishment narratives.
Australia is inching closer to making Big Tech the country’s content police, and it’s all being framed as "care."
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland just announced the government’s push for a new “Digital Duty of Care,” which is supposed to make online platforms “safer and healthier.” The catch? Platforms will be forced preemptively to censor and remove content that doesn’t meet government standards.
Canada’s government is doubling down on “disinformation” censorship, with a new report demanding tech giants like Meta and Google “detect, report, and act” on vaguely defined “conspiracy theories” and “foreign interference.”
Canada’s MPs are pressuring American companies to police speech while claiming to fight foreign meddling.
Censorship is the goal, dressed as virtue. Undefined “disinformation” is the excuse.
Michigan’s Senate advanced Bill 707 to fine $1,000–$10,000 for intentionally spreading election "misinformation." Sounds clear? It’s not.
Critics ask: who defines “misinformation”? How do you prove intent? Vague language + state enforcement = potential censorship. Supporters say it fights modern voter intimidation. Opponents fear it erodes free speech. In a swing state, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
UK Care Worker Is Jailed for Live Streaming Riot on TikTok
https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-care-worker-is-jailed-for-live-streaming-riot-on-tiktok
The UK is using veterans as guinea pigs for its digital ID agenda. 250,000 vets are getting a digital “Veteran Card” supposedly for “service access”— but it’s also a testing ground to push digital IDs on everyone. Labour claims they’re “inevitable.”
