CENSORSHIP: A shocking discussion on CBS News' 60 Minutes has highlighted the stark limits of online speech in Germany, where oppressive scenes once thought to be relegated to history and dystopian fiction, show law enforcement has been conducting pre-dawn raids and confiscating electronics from individuals accused of posting content deemed as "hate speech." 
Germany was last week trying to convince people it supports free speech.
Meanwhile:
60 Minutes: "Is it a crime to insult someone in public?
German Prosecutors: "Yes"
60 Minutes: "And it's a crime to insult them online as well?"
German Prosecutors: "Yes...the fine could be even higher." https://m.primal.net/OzqQ.mp4
FREE SPEECH: Former United flight attendant Ruben Sanchez is suing for wrongful termination after expressing Catholic views on gender. A passenger complaint led to an investigation of his private social media. X backs his case, calling it a free speech issue. 
SURVEILLANCE: Oracle’s Larry Ellison advocates centralizing national data for AI-driven governance, promoting surveillance, biometric IDs. 
Polish MEP Patryk Jaki faces trial for a 2018 "like" on X, with prosecutors seeking three years in prison. 
Democrats deflect and dismiss as House Judiciary Committee exposes deepening censorship collusion.
https://reclaimthenet.org/house-democrats-deny-big-tech-censorship-collusion
It’s obvious that power, money, and influence shape narratives, and that platforms like X are being pulled in multiple directions by competing interests. But if the solution is to "burn it all down," what exactly replaces it? Authoritarianism and censorship? Rule by a self-proclaimed enlightened few? If you justify censorship, you also have to make sure that those in power see things your way. Every historical attempt at "fixing democracy" by replacing it with a more "efficient" system has ended in mass repression, violence, and even more manipulation of the public. These things will always be true no matter what. There will always be a power structure.
Yes, propaganda is real, and yes, most people are easily swayed by emotion-driven narratives. But the alternative to free speech isn’t "better governance" — it’s centralized control over what is acceptable to think and say. And those same powerful forces you despise? They thrive in those conditions. The more control governments and corporations have over speech, the easier it is for them to manufacture consent without resistance. That's why decentralization is important because there is less centralized and corporate control.
If you’re worried about people being manipulated, the answer isn’t to take away their say in governance. It’s to educate them, expose them to more viewpoints, and demand accountability from those in power. Censorship doesn’t stop manipulation — it just makes it easier for the most powerful actors to dominate the narrative without challenge.
Free speech isn't the same as government-controlled propaganda. The problem isn’t speech itself — it’s deception, manipulation, and coercion. Censorship isn’t the answer, because giving the government the power to decide what is "propaganda" opens the door for abuse. That same power can be used to silence whistleblowers, dissidents, and independent journalism.
The real solution is transparency (so people can see what's happening and how it's funded) and media literacy. Expose foreign propaganda, counter it with facts, and let people see the evidence for themselves. If a democracy is truly free, its people should be trusted to analyze information and make their own decisions — not have the government act as a gatekeeper of truth. Historically, when governments claim to be "protecting" the public by controlling information, it has led to more oppression, not less.
Censorship isn’t strength.
If your democracy can be undone by a few social media ads, was it ever strong to begin with?
Free speech makes nations stronger — not weaker.
JD Vance calls out Big Tech collusion and defends the right to speak freely to the faces of Munich Security Conference attendees. https://m.primal.net/Ofqn.mp4
German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier: "We cannot and will not allow [social media] platforms" such as TikTok or X to "destroy our democratic societies."
Steinmeier has previously called influence on X a "danger to democracy."
Free speech is no danger to a true democracy. https://m.primal.net/Ofop.mp4
FREE SPEECH: A German court ordered X to share data, raising concerns over state-backed speech monitoring. Critics warn of selective enforcement and growing pressure to control online discourse. 
NEW DEMAND: Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has demanded Google revert its renaming of the "Gulf of Mexico" to “Gulf of America” for US users, warning of legal action. She criticized Google for ignoring Mexico’s complaints, insisting the name is globally recognized. 
FREE SPEECH: The UK may revise its online censorship law to secure a US trade deal. With President Trump opposing the law and US tech firms pushing back, Britain faces a choice between strict online speech controls and economic cooperation. 
The AI Action Summit in Paris just wrapped, with 60 signatories backing a statement on "inclusive and sustainable AI."
The declaration aligns with UN-led initiatives like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which have a track record of enabling censorship and surveillance under the guise of “safeguarding information integrity.”
What does this actually mean? More global AI governance, more digital ID, and more coordinated efforts to police “misinformation” and “hate speech.” Sound familiar?
Justin Trudeau, speaking at the AI Action Summit in France, warned about the dangers of AI—specifically, its role in spreading "cunning disinformation" and fueling "cynicism, populism, hopelessness, and hatred." His solution? More government and corporate censorship over AI.
The contrast with US Vice President JD Vance couldn’t be clearer. Where Vance advocates for free speech and decentralization, Trudeau sees AI as something that must be tightly managed—by “like-minded partners” in government, big tech, and civil society.
His messaging is classic: invoke wealth inequality (“haves, have-nots, and have-yachts”), promise AI will benefit the middle class “instead of only the rich,” and insist that without the “right” kind of intervention, AI will deepen social divides.
But what does “the right way” mean? If Trudeau’s record is any guide, it means controlling AI to suppress dissent. It means using concerns about “safety” and “disinformation” to justify restrictions on speech that challenge establishment narratives. 
Ayanna Pressley: "We are all willing to work with anyone who's serious about doing the work of censoring the American people and advancing progress." (???) https://m.primal.net/Ocoq.mp4
UK Channel 4’s CEO Alex Mahon has some concerns — but not the ones she claims. In a recent speech, she warned about Gen Z getting news from social media, questioning norms beyond their teenage years (how dare they?), and, worst of all, ignoring legacy media.
But her real worry? Power and profit. Channel 4 is losing both. So, Mahon’s solution: force social platforms to boost state-approved content, train AI on "public service values" (read: government-aligned media), and— of course — make AI companies pay for it.
She also floated the idea of "trustmarks," a shiny new label to separate “real news” (legacy outlets like hers) from all those pesky independent creators who refuse to play ball. The goal? Pressure platforms, advertisers, and audiences into compliance. 
Australia’s eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, just lost a major court case — exposing the office’s flawed tactics for pressuring platforms like X to remove speech.
The tribunal ruled that eSafety can't use an informal loophole to censor posts without meeting its own criteria. Yet, instead of backing down, eSafety is doubling down — urging Australians to report even more "hateful" content.
The irony? eSafety’s own research shows most people simply ignore online "abuse." But Grant insists she has powers to get such speech removed. 
UK Government Fast-Tracking Bill to Monitor Bank Accounts, Revoke Licenses, and Search Homes
https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-public-authorities-bill-mass-surveillance-bank-monitoring
Kash Patel, the pick for FBI Director, just made it clear: he opposes requiring a warrant for Section 702 surveillance searches. That means the FBI could continue combing through Americans' data—emails, social media, personal communications—without judicial approval.
This puts him at odds with Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s DNI nominee, who has called for stricter oversight. But Patel argues a warrant requirement would cripple national security operations, calling it “almost impossible” to enforce while protecting Americans.
Meanwhile, a federal court just ruled in United States v. Hasbajrami that these warrantless searches violate Americans’ rights, delivering a major rebuke to unchecked surveillance. 