I first posted some of their work in 2022-02.   They do a very good job of reporting on issues around our access to information.

WHO Director General Complains About Online “Conspiracy Theories” About WHO Pandemic Treaty

Then again, given his own, and WHO’s role in the disastrously mishandled pandemic – when those who were to blame at national and international level discovered “misinformation” as a way to discredit any criticism – this is not so surprising.

Now Tedros writes, “We find ourselves in a time where fake news, lies, conspiracy theories, misinformation and disinformation are rampant.” The reason this time is the UN’s push to get countries around the world to agree to “the pandemic accord.”

Opponents have been warning that the accord also aims to introduce surveillance tools, effectively facilitate censorship, and undermine a country’s sovereignty in the decision-making processes during a health crisis by transferring a number of powers to the UN.

This last serious concern seems to rub Tedros particularly the wrong way.
There are many more aspects to losing national sovereignty than overt ones such as direct imposition of vaccination or lockdowns, but in his post Tedros chose to focus on that, to then blast critics as making claims that are “completely unfounded, untrue, nonsense and have no basis in reality.”

The WHO director-general doth protest too much, some might conclude.

Such language doesn’t just come out of nowhere; it is usually a signal that not everything is going smoothly behind the scenes, and here Tedros seems to be trying to not only persuade countries about “fake news, lies, conspiracy theories…” around this issue, but also to get them to launch propaganda campaigns in favor of the accord, ASAP.

Tedros calls this, “actively countering false narratives.”

“It is important for them to communicate with their own citizens, assuring them that this agreement explicitly protects their country’s sovereignty. There should be no room for doubt or confusion in this matter,” he wrote on X.
A post – or a whole study – explaining how exactly the proposed treaty “explicitly protects” national sovereignty would be even better as a way to leave “no room for doubt or confusion.”

That’s lacking, but efforts to promote WHO’s narratives are only increasing. Thus, Spark Street Advisors is lobbying by proposing “soft (reputational) incentives such as technical and material resources to help countries (with compliance).

Most international agreements leave it to nations to “self-report” on implementation, but here the recommendation is for the accord to set up “an independent monitoring committee, tasked with producing regular assessments of state parties’ compliance with the pandemic agreement and the timeliness, completeness and accuracy of self-reporting.”

Not sovereignty-undermining, this. Not at all. /s

Obama Says He’s Close to a “First Amendment Absolutist,” Then Adds a “But,” Criticizes “Certain Kinds of Speech”

And he got his two cents in on a range of issues, including free speech in the context of the First Amendment, “misinformation,” social networks vs. democracy – as his politically like-minded comrades like to position the situation – and, of course, the role of “AI.”

Obama was a guest on a Verge podcast when he – a former US president, twice sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the country’s Constitution – seemed to water down the meaning of that oath.

At one point, he told the host that he is “close” to being a First Amendment “absolutist” – only to add, “but we have laws against certain kinds of speech that we deem to be really harmful to the public health and welfare.”

Obama’s understanding of the First Amendment, according to this statement, is not that this legislation is there to protect the right to free speech – but rather that it should secure a “marketplace” of various ideas.

In his own words: “(…) these ideas battle themselves out, and ultimately, we can all judge better ideas versus worse ideas. I deeply believe in that core principle (of the First Amendment).”

“Misinformation” is another issue troubling Obama, where he seems somewhat skeptical about the government’s ability to regulate the field (obviously – to his political slant).

But the former president has ideas about how it might be done: “We need to think about different platforms and different business models.”

Furthermore – “It may be that I’m perfectly happy to have AI mediate how I buy jeans online. That could be very efficient. I’m perfectly happy with it. So if it’s a shopping app or thread, fine.”

But – what if it’s about speech, or as he put it, “marketplace of ideas”?
There, Obama would like to see regulation that would “broaden” people’s perspectives. Let his audience be the judge of the direction this (political) “broadening” would be taking, and at the expense of what.

The interview came after sitting US president, Joe Biden, signed what is described as “a sweeping executive order about AI.”

Obama has not previously been known as an expert on these matters (apparently, his “expertise” stems from being a prominent victim of deepfakes), but now he has a lot to say about “AI”. Mostly, how those tech companies at the forefront should “regulate” matters pertaining to this technology.

On this front, one of the key messages Obama was trying to push during the podcast is to “recruit” actual tech and “AI” experts into a segment of the US Digital Service that was launched during his time in office. In this context, he urged professionals to “sign up” at ai.gov and work “for the common good.”

Republican State Lawmakers Call For Halt of Oregon’s Election “Misinformation” Big Tech Flagging Program

These lawmakers, led by State Representative Ed Diehl, jointly addressed their protests through a letter to Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade. Rep. Diehl then took to social media on Wednesday to publicize the letter.

Laura Kerns from Griffin-Valade’s office confirms that a request for proposal (RFP) was indeed put forth and a company from the UK is among those in consideration. She adamantly points out, however, “We have not signed a contract at this time.”

Additionally, Kerns mentions the Secretary of State’s office seeks “A system to review websites, social media, and blogs to notify us of threats and misinformation in a manner similar to a Google news alert.”

In other words, Kerns claims they’re not censoring Americans, *only* surveilling the speech of Americans.

The perspective-goal system will only track publicly available content and use it as a means to accomplish two goals, “One: To identify credible threats to public safety that we will share with law enforcement. And two: To better understand how we can most effectively share accurate information with voters by seeing what information is circulating.”

Ontario Doctor Who Rejected Covid Mandates Is Found Guilty of Spreading “Misinformation,” Raising Free Speech Concerns

The tribunal’s grounds for this judgement? According to them, it was Dr. Trozzi’s dissent from authorities’ views on Covid-19 mandates, which they categorized as “misinformation.”

The ruling highlights the debate surrounding free speech in the realm of healthcare.

Dr. Trozzi isn’t just subtly questioning government-imposed Covid health policies. Rather, he’s actively criticizing them, which the tribunal has taken as spreading mistruths intentionally. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) firmly believes in their right to limit free speech under the guise of safeguarding public interest – an idea that becomes sincerely troubling when viewed through the lens of free speech.

Dr. Trozzi’s advocates insist that this is an obstruction to free speech, one of the essential freedoms Canadians hold dear, as reported by The Epoch Times. Nevertheless, the tribunal showed stark obstinacy towards protecting such fundamental rights. Dr. Trozzi’s plea that prohibitions on his expression could stifle other medical professionals from catalyzing necessary scientific discussions fell on deaf ears.

Reclaim The Net