Government and Corporate Actors Are Coordinating to Regulate AI to Keep us “Safe”

The government is claiming that they need to regulate AI to keep us "safe."  Once again, they claim that they need to protect us from, at bottom, words and ideas. Where have we heard this before?

We can be certain that they want to censor us because they always want to censor us, regardless of who is in power, because censorship gives them control over us. They won't admit that they are trying to "censor" us. No censor admits that he or she is engaging in censorship, but that is exactly what they are aiming to do. Sayer Ji connects the dots for us:

Si's post is actually a long thread of posts (and this article). Here are his first four posts:

The world is being flooded with warnings that AI could destroy humanity.

But the panic itself is creating something just as consequential:

A justification for controlling the systems that will increasingly shape what billions of people can know, say, and even think.

The first censorship regime was easy to recognize.

Your post disappeared. Your account was shadowbanned. Your video was labeled. Your reach was throttled.

The next one may be almost invisible. Because it won’t necessarily suppress what you say. It may help compose what you say before you say it. Think about what has changed. Search once gave you competing links. Now AI gives you one synthesized answer. Autocomplete once finished a word.

Now AI drafts your email, summarizes your meeting, answers your child’s questions, edits your argument and increasingly speaks for you.

That is a fundamentally different kind of power. Call this emerging layer speech infrastructure.

AI is becoming the mediation layer between:

you and information

you and your audience

you and your doctor

you and your government

you and eventually even other human beings. Control that layer and you don’t need to censor millions of individual posts.

What is Si reacting to? An undeniable and coordinated psyop on the same scale as the COVID psyop. We are currently being bombarded from what appears to be many directions, but it is actually a focused attempt to rip control from ordinary people and hand it to a select group of elites (including the government and some of the biggest sellers of AI), who want all of the vast power that AI already has, and more. Working with the government, none of them will ever be satisfied, because the People cannot ever be trusted with self-governance.

Continue ReadingGovernment and Corporate Actors Are Coordinating to Regulate AI to Keep us “Safe”

U.S. States Working Hard to Protect Israel from Criticism

When you decide to become a legislator or governor of a state, you are required to take a pledge to represent the people of your state, not the interests of a foreign country. You'd never know this, however, based upon recent actions (and existing statutes) of various states. Here's Glenn Greenwald reporting reporting on the censorship-based iron dome Arkansas is offering to Israel:

This action by the Arkansas governor is not surprising given that Arkansas has a wide-ranging anti-BDS statute that prohibits state entities from contracting with private companies unless the company certifies that it “is not currently engaged in, and agrees for the duration of the contract not to engage in, a boycott of Israel. In 2022, nine judges of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc upheld that statute. I almost fell out of my chair reading it. The majority concluded no free speech problem here! If you are having a hard time wrapping your head around this decision, read the dissent by Judge Jane Kelly, which IMO should have been the unanimous majority opinion.

What else are states up to? Greenwald also reports on Florida: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingU.S. States Working Hard to Protect Israel from Criticism

Freedom of Speech is Designed to Protect Political Minorities.

The first amendment is not a weapon wielded by the rich and powerful. Many of these people of influence are apprehensive of the protections offered by the First Amendment, because the First Amendment is a limitation on their ability to shut the rest of us up. Greg Lukianoff, CEO of FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) explains why the First Amendment is especially important for political minorities and those who are victims of political opression:

You only need a special protection for freedom of speech, like the First Amendment, for people who are either unpopular with power or unpopular with the majority. This is why revolutionary figures like Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela all championed freedom of speech. It's why John Lewis, someone I was, I got to meet actually because he was in my neighborhood a lot. The great John Lewis, civil rights icon, he would argue. He would often say that without freedom of speech, the civil rights movement would have been a bird without wings. They understood that free speech was not the weapon of the powerful. It is the best check on power ever invented.

Consider visiting the website of FIRE, a completely non-partisan nonprofit organization, dedicated to free speech for all. You can spend days at the FIRE site reading about the most important free speech cases in the United States, as well as warning about the many people from across the political spectrum that FIRE has represented.

Continue ReadingFreedom of Speech is Designed to Protect Political Minorities.

Hide the Photos of the Maimed and the Dead, so the War Looks Sterile, Glorious and Successful.

They hide the dead to help the "fight for freedom." Most corporate news organizations have been cheerleaders for the wars waged by the party in power.  They curate the experience for you to spare you the trouble of thinking.  Think of Afghanistan. And see here.  Raw photography would end almost every war, so that's why you are not permitted to see the photos, especially photos of up-close suffering, maiming of civilians and death, in the corporate media. Not in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iran or anywhere else that the US fights for "freedom." Robert Fisk, Robert Fisk (1946–2020) was a highly regarded British journalist and author:

I always remember when Madeleine Albright announced that Israel was under siege. For a brief moment, I asked myself, if there were Palestinian tanks in Haifa. How do we reach a stage where we so distort reality that we actually have a lethal effect on the conflict itself? The worst example of this, I'm sorry to say, is television, the way in which, unless an Iraqi is obliging enough in a war to die romantically beside the road in silhouette with all his arms still attached, you do not see the dead for viewers of television, not in the Arab world, I might add that in the West we do not see the dead, and thus our leaders, all of whom at the moment have ZERO experience of real war--the journalists do, but not our leaders in the West--they are able to present, to the public, war as a bloodless sand pit. War as something primarily to do with victory and defeat rather than death, which is exactly what is about on a large scale. War represents the total failure of the human spirit.

And I had a perfect example of this in 2003 I was in Baghdad. I was trying to get down to Basra. I got halfway, and then I was so frightened I could hardly write. And were so many bombs dropping from my own Air Force, among others, that I turned back to Baghdad. But Al Jazeera were in Basra, and they got back the same day to Baghdad with their video film, and I sat with them in their little tent. You probably realized that in a war, many of the big agencies pool their material, especially the television companies. So it was being sent through the satellite to Reuters in London, whose job was to edit the film. So of course, this was film of a civilian hospital. There were some soldiers brought in wounded and dead, but most of the pictures were of dead and wounded, women and children. They had been killed and wounded by British artillery fire in Basra. The British were besieging Basra while the Americans took the highway to claim Baghdad. And what was particularly revealing was, as they showed the film, I listened to the remarks coming back from London. You know, there were terrible scenes. It was one of a child holding its intestines and a woman with part of her hand missing. And there were screams and cries and lots of blood on the film. And the voice from London said, "You know, we can't really show this. You can't show this to people at tea time." And by this moment, I had my notebook out for The Independent, my newspaper. THIS was going to be tonight's story. So [Al Jazeera] said, "Please, please. Please, we risked our life for this. Just let us put out a little bit more of the film. Maybe you can use it." And of course, there were more pictures of blood and wounded children and dead children. And then the voice came back and said, "This is obscene. We can't put obscene pictures like this on Western television." They pleaded again by now, of course. My pen was skidding over the pages. These were great quotes, because this is what was wrong. And then the voice came back for the third and final time. "We can't show these pictures because we must respect the dead." Now you get the point. We didn't respect them when they were alive. We didn't respect them when we blew them to bits. But when they're dead, by God, we have to respect them.

Continue ReadingHide the Photos of the Maimed and the Dead, so the War Looks Sterile, Glorious and Successful.

About the Transgender Treatment Censorship Tsunami

The you remember the inorganic wave of brand new "obvious" things we were all supposed to believe and say about transgender topics? I agree with Greg Lukianoff that it was surreal. I spoke up with questions and concerns that were repeatedly blasted with religious fervor. But here we are now, and it's clear that the transgender religious movement distorted everything around it, including our First Amendment rights. One big moment to upright the ship was the Cass Report. Another was the mass closing of transgender clinics. And now a new Finnish study.

[You can see many many posts on this topic (I published more than 150 articles at this site) here:

Greg Lukianoff:

In my career defending academic freedom and free speech, I never saw anything become as immediately radioactive as views that ran counter to the narrative on trans issues. Papers were retracted, compelled speech was treated as normal, and people were canceled for saying things that would have sounded like common sense just a few years earlier. It seemed to become a kind of secular blasphemy overnight. And usually, that is a sign that the true believers know, at some level, that they are on shaky ground.

Continue ReadingAbout the Transgender Treatment Censorship Tsunami