Speaking to Tucker Carlson, he called attention to the way that the West has been criminalizing the platforming of Russian media outlets. It’s a big departure from the Cold War, when mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times would regularly publish speeches that were given by Soviet leaders like Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev.

He told Carlson: “Now it’s practically criminalized.”

He pointed out how obvious this was when the conflict between Russia and Ukraine first escalated in February of 2022. He said: “One of the very first steps [the EU] took legislatively was to ban the platforming, to criminalize the platforming of Russian media, like RT and Sputnik. They made it a crime, and YouTube immediately pulled it off because they didn’t want their citizens hearing any information from the Russian perspective.”

This is putting us at a disadvantage by preventing us from getting a better idea of their viewpoints, he says.

“I mean, you can hate Russia, you can think Russia’s evil, you can think whatever you want about Russia, but why wouldn’t you want to hear from the other side?” he asked.

Carlson agreed, saying that a speech he heard from Russian President Vladimir Putin in which he announced his military operation was very insightful. He said that most Americans aren’t aware of what Putin is thinking, and he doesn’t understand why people want to remain ignorant.

Greenwald and Carlson concluded that this is due, at least in part, to the fact that “propaganda works.”

Russian state media target of censorship campaigns

The media outlet RT has been described by the U.S. State Department as a major part of the Kremlin’s propaganda and disinformation campaign and was blocked in the European Union and Canada in 2022. However, replicas of its articles appear on numerous other websites, and there has been a concerted effort to try to stop its message from spreading.

German Marshall Fund senior fellow Bret Schafer said: “It was quite evident when we were running the search results in the E.U. that if Russian propaganda is not showing up on Russian domains, it’s getting through, which is sort of a double whammy because it’s not just evading restrictions and bans, it’s doing so on sites that are less transparent than RT itself.”

YouTube blocked global access to all channels that are affiliated with RT and has taken steps to remove what it claims is “harmful misinformation.”

RT acknowledged in a statement that its content doesn’t follow the “U.S. State Department/NATO party line” but is glad to hear its content is reaching different platforms and users.

In September, Facebook owner Meta said that it would be banning RT along with Rossiya Segodnya and other Russian state media outlets from all of its platforms, which include WhatsApp and Instagram, on the grounds that they allegedly used deceptive tactics to conduct influence operations online.

“After careful consideration, we expanded our ongoing enforcement against Russian state media outlets. Rossiya Segodnya, RT and other related entities are now banned from our apps globally for foreign interference activity,” the social media company said in a written statement.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said that the world should treat RT’s activities like they would covert intelligence operations.

Sources for this article include:

• RT.com
• NYTimes.com
• Reuters.com

Schmidt, who played a pivotal role in shaping the digital world, including the carelessness when it comes to online privacy, asserted that the original developers of social media did not foresee its potential negative impacts on democratic values. “None of us thought when we invented social media that we would become a threat to democracy,” Schmidt said.

In his critique, Schmidt called out social media companies for their allegedly lax approach to “misinformation,” suggesting that their failure to police content stemmed from a lack of regulatory compulsion and was driven by profit motives. “The misinformation one is easy,” Schmidt explained, claiming that “the social media companies have chosen not to police it because they haven’t been required to and they make more money because of it.”

However, Schmidt’s stance will raise concerns among free speech advocates who argue that his call for more stringent regulation could lead to excessive censorship and infringe on free expression. Critics argue that the solution to “misinformation” should not rely solely on increased regulation and censorship, but by encouraging open discourse that allows ideas to be debated and scrutinized in the public space.

Schmidt has been a controversial figure in privacy and surveillance discussions. His leadership saw Google vastly expand its data collection, using personal information to tailor advertisements, which raised significant privacy concerns. Schmidt’s views on privacy, epitomized by his statement, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” showed a dismissive attitude toward privacy concerns and alarmed both privacy advocates and the public.

Schmidt’s tenure also involved privacy breaches, such as the unauthorized collection of data from unsecured WiFi networks by Google Street View cars, leading to international fines and investigations. Further controversy stemmed from Google’s alleged cooperation with the US National Security Agency (NSA), sharing user data without clear user consent.

Schmidt has, more recently said there should be no online anonymity when using AI.

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

The report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Small Business stated:

“The Federal government has funded, developed, and promoted entities that aim to demonetize news and information outlets because of their lawful speech.”

The government’s actions fueled “a censorship ecosystem” that suppressed “individuals’ First Amendment rights” and “the ability of certain small businesses to compete online.”

The report focused on the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), which promoted and funded “tech start-ups and other small businesses in the disinformation detection space … with domestic censorship capabilities.”

The “fact-checking” firms named in the report include the International Fact-Checking Network — owned by the Poynter Institute — and NewsGuard.

The International Fact-Checking Network, established in 2015, has received funding from another State Department-affiliated group, the National Endowment for Democracy — and from Google, the Open Society Foundations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

According to the House report, the federal government “assisted the private sector in detecting alleged MDM [misinformation-disinformation-malinformation] for moderation” and “worked with foreign governments with strict internet speech laws,” including European Union member states and the United Kingdom, to censor speech.

The report determined that the GEC and the National Endowment for Democracy violated international restrictions by “collaborating with fact-checking entities” to assess the content of domestic media outlets.

The “fact-checking” operations targeted independent media outlets, and as a result, “the scales are tipped in favor of outlets which express certain partisan narratives rather than holding the government accountable.”

Whether the State Department’s actions rise to “unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment is currently before the courts,” the report stated.

The State Department and several GEC officials are defendants in Murthy v. Missouri, a lawsuit alleging the Biden administration colluded with social media to censor free speech.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and its chairman on leave, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden, a similar lawsuit that last year was consolidated with Murthy v. Missouri.

The Poynter Institute is a defendant in another censorship lawsuit, CHD v. Meta, that CHD filed against Facebook’s parent company.

NewsGuard partnered with CDC, WHO to censor online content

According to the report, NewsGuard used money it received from the GEC and the U.S. Department of Defense to fund efforts to lower the advertising revenue “of businesses purported to spread MDM.”

“A system that rates the credibility of press is fatally flawed as it is subject to the partisan lens of the assessor, making the ratings unreliable,” the report states.

NewsGuard leveraged taxpayer dollars to develop Misinformation Fingerprints, a product that “catalogues what it determines to be the most prominent falsehoods and ‘misinformation narratives’” circulating online, “essentially outsourcing the U.S. government’s perception of fact to NewsGuard,” the report states.

NewsGuard later partnered with dozens of companies, organizations, universities and media outlets, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of the Surgeon General and the World Health Organization (WHO).

“During the pandemic, the WHO enlisted NewsGuard for its input, including regular reports, on which COVID-19 narratives it determined to be misinformation were prevalent online,” the report states. “The WHO then contacted social media companies and search engines asking them to remove this content.”

‘Nobody wanted’ fact-checkers until ‘actual truths started getting out’

Tim Hinchliffe, publisher of The Sociable, told The Defender, “These so-called ‘fact-checkers’ are not in the business of actually checking facts. They are in the business of controlling narratives … Nobody wanted or needed these organizations until actual truths started getting out.”

Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, told The Defender the government increasingly relies on censorship to promote its favored narratives.

“They need to institute more and more censorship,” Fitts said. “It’s hard to refute the gaslighting that flows from this imagination factory.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender he wasn’t surprised that the State Department is “working to censor those who disagree with U.S. government policies and their globalist agenda.”

The report recommends that no federal funds “should be used to grow companies whose operations are designed to demonetize and interfere with the domestic press” and that federal agencies “should not be outsourcing their perception of fact to speech-police organizations subject to partisan bias.”

GEC also faces the loss of its government funding. According to the Washington Examiner, “A provision through the annual State Department appropriations bill, which passed the House this summer and will be negotiated in the Senate, aims to ban future checks to the GEC.”

But for Boyle, this is not enough. He said the State Department has, “at a minimum,” committed “the federal crime of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.”

Censorship ‘a pendulum that swings both ways’

The Gateway Pundit last week reported on additional links between the International Fact-Checking Network, other “fact-checking” firms and Big Tech.

In 2015, Poynter partnered with Google News Lab, which earlier that year, helped establish First Draft News. Active until 2022, First Draft was a consortium of social media verification groups that shared methods for combating “fake news.”

Another First Draft founder, fact-checking firm Bellingcat, also received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy.

First Draft was previously led by Claire Wardle, Ph.D., a Brown University professor who, according to “Twitter Files” released last year, advised the Biden administration on COVID-19 “misinformation” — despite having no science or medical credentials.

In 2016, Poynter and the International Fact-Checking Network partnered with First Draft “to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the [news] verification process.” Other partners included Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, ABC News, NBC News and BBC News.

In 2017, Google News Lab partnered with the International Fact-Checking Network “to dramatically increase the searchable output of fact-checkers worldwide, expand fact-checking to new markets and support fact-checking beyond politics, such as in sports, health and science.” The following year, Poynter acquired PolitiFact.com.

Google was also one of the original funders of The Trust Project, a consortium of news organizations that developed eight “trust indicators” to help the public “easily assess the integrity of news.”

These “trust indicators” later became “one of the sources being used by NewsGuard Technologies for a new product to improve news literacy,” and formed “a foundation for NewsGuard review development.”

Hinchliffe warned that the beneficiaries of censorship based on today’s “fact-checking” may become its targets in the future.

“One of the problems of censorship that operates under the guise of misinformation and disinformation, apart from stifling free speech and suppressing actual truths, is that it’s a pendulum that swings both ways,” he said. “The people calling for censorship now may be in a greater position of power to do so, but it will one day swing back at them.”

The Defender on occasion posts content related to Children’s Health Defense’s nonprofit mission that features Mr. Kennedy’s views on the issues CHD and The Defender regularly cover. Mr. Kennedy, an independent candidate for president of the U.S., is on leave from CHD. In keeping with Federal Election Commission rules, this content does not represent an endorsement of Mr. Kennedy’s candidacy or his support for President Donald Trump’s campaign.