If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Brazil’s Supreme Court has taken a major step toward changing the legal landscape for online platforms, with a ruling that could hold tech companies directly accountable for content published by users. The partial decision, issued Wednesday, indicates that a majority of justices support scrapping the current “notice-and-takedown” model in favor of broader corporate liability, even before courts intervene. Six of the eleven justices have already voted in favor of shifting responsibility onto platforms for user posts deemed “unlawful,” potentially exposing companies like Meta, Google, TikTok, and X to legal penalties simply for hosting such content. This dramatic pivot threatens to upend how social media operates in Brazil, where more than 200 million people rely on digital platforms for everything from news to political discussion. Justice Gilmar Mendes, speaking for the prevailing side, denounced the existing legal standard, calling it “a veil of irresponsibility for digital platforms.” He argued that the law allows companies to ignore harmful or criminal content unless specifically ordered by a judge. “Even if they are informed of the occurrence of crimes on their platforms, they (currently) cannot be held responsible for damages caused by keeping this content online, except in the case of a court order,” Mendes said. Only one judge, so far, has defended the current framework, which limits corporate liability to situations where companies ignore official takedown requests. The remaining four justices have yet to cast their votes, and while past votes can technically be revised, such reversals are rare. Final deliberations are scheduled to continue Thursday. The court has not reached an agreement on what kind of user content would be subject to sanctions under this new liability regime, leaving key legal questions unresolved. Court president Luis Roberto Barroso acknowledged that the ruling remains incomplete and pledged to work with his colleagues to settle the specifics. Major platforms have warned of the dangers of such legal ambiguity. Meta, citing a statement from earlier this year, said making platforms responsible without notice would leave them “liable for virtually all types of content even without having been notified.” Google, anticipating the vote, called for careful legal reform that ensures procedural safeguards to avoid “indiscriminate content removal.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Brazil’s Supreme Court Backs Platform Liability in Shift Toward Tighter Online Speech Controls appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Senate has taken a significant step toward federal regulation of stablecoins by advancing the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS Act), a proposal designed to lay the groundwork for the mainstream adoption of digital currencies in the United States. The bill cleared its first major hurdle with a 68-30 vote in favor of cloture, moving it forward for debate and a potential floor vote. We obtained a copy of the bill for you here. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has emerged as a key advocate of the measure, argued that the legislation aligns with a broader vision of US leadership in digital finance. Echoing language frequently used by President Donald Trump, Thune said the bill could position the country as the “crypto capital of the world.” He also highlighted the long-term ambition to normalize cryptocurrency use across the financial system, calling the GENIUS Act a tool to achieve that. “We want to bring cryptocurrency into the mainstream, and the GENIUS Act will help us do that,” Thune stated. Though support crossed party lines, the push to pass the bill was not without resistance. Senator Elizabeth Warren was one of several lawmakers who voiced opposition. Framed as a step toward legitimizing stablecoins, the GENIUS Act creates a tightly controlled environment for digital dollar issuers. Only those who qualify as “permitted payment stablecoin issuers” may operate legally under the bill, provided they submit to extensive regulatory oversight, including audits, public disclosures, and strict reserve requirements. The bill integrates stablecoin issuers into the framework of the Bank Secrecy Act, compelling them to comply with anti-money laundering (AML) and sanctions enforcement laws. That alignment means all permitted issuers will be subject to know-your-customer (KYC) obligations and expected to collect and share sensitive user data with federal authorities when deemed necessary. One provision directly implicates privacy concerns by mandating the US Treasury to evaluate emerging financial surveillance technologies, ranging from AI-based monitoring systems to blockchain analysis tools, and assess their “privacy risks” relative to existing standards. However, the same section notes that privacy will be considered alongside institutional cost and operational efficiency, suggesting it may not be the top priority. The legislation does offer important protections for open-source developers and users of self-custody wallets. It explicitly exempts individuals and companies that merely provide software or hardware for personal digital asset custody from being classified as digital asset service providers. This distinction shields those who want to hold and transfer stablecoins without relying on intermediaries. Additionally, peer-to-peer transactions remain outside the scope of issuer licensing requirements. This maintains a pathway for individuals to transact privately, provided they do not rely on regulated platforms. Although the GENIUS Act touts financial innovation, critics worry it entrenches institutional gatekeeping. The bill paves the way for widespread implementation of “digital identity verification” and the surveillance of blockchain activity as part of AML compliance efforts. This could create a data-rich financial ecosystem accessible to government agencies, potentially eroding the anonymity that digital currencies can offer. Federal regulators will soon be required to produce rulemaking on stablecoin oversight and submit annual reports detailing industry trends and potential threats to financial stability. As part of this mandate, they may reshape how much privacy Americans can expect in the digital asset space. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Senate Moves Forward with GENIUS Act Requiring Stablecoin Issuers to Enforce KYC, Monitor Transactions, and Report Suspicious Activity appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

For Four Nights Straight Northern Ireland Has Been Fiery But Peaceful Over Immigrants

Precious jadarite has the same chemical formula as the fictional kryptonite.

Sit back, relax, and let’s Break It Down in episode 65...

Escape the city lights and see something incredible this June.

Go on, take a guess...

The riots that kicked off in Los Angeles last weekend aren’t just about illegal immigration — they’re part of a revolutionary movement. “Anti-colonialism” is a term often heard in America’s college classrooms, but off campus virtually no one takes it seriously. It’s just another harebrained radical academic theory, right? Yes, the theory is mostly silly — but the practice is deadly serious. Most Americans and Europeans today feel ashamed of imperialism and racism, and they’re glad to be rid of colonies and slavery. All that injustice is a thing of the past, however much its legacy haunts our present. But the ideology of anti-colonialism says otherwise: imperialism and thoroughgoing racial exploitation never ended and never can end, not until “settler” and “colonizer” power is overthrown everywhere. Israel’s the focus of the most vitriolic and violent anti-colonial rage, but the United States is just as guilty of being a “settler-colonial state.” Mexico, and indeed all of Latin America, is America’s Palestine, and when illegal immigrants cross the border, when they resist deportation, when they and their allies riot, this is justified resistance to colonialism. In Palestinian terms, it’s an intifada, or at least the beginnings of one. Palestinians launched two intifadas against Israel, from 1989 to 1993 and from 2000 to 2005. These “uprisings” involved rioting, throwing stones at police and soldiers, hurling Molotov cocktails, and violence up to and including suicide bombings, as well as boycotts, strikes and other forms of economic coercion and nonviolent protest. An American might recognize many of these tactics — though not suicide bombing, thank God — not only as scenes from Los Angeles in recent days but as familiar features from other left-wing protest movements, including those inspired by Black Lives Matter and the killing of George Floyd five years ago. There isn’t some grand anti-colonialist conspiracy directing all of this, although there are links between one outburst and another: usually the thugs who call themselves “antifa,” for example, are in the vanguard of the provocations. But a conspiracy isn’t necessary — the ideology is a franchise, teaching anyone who believes in it to immediately identify enemy groups and what slogans to chant when harassing or hurting them. No radical has to wait for orders to know what to say and do to police or Jews. On social media, conservatives have joked about the Mexican flags some LA rioters have been waving: after all, if you’re proud of Mexico and its flag, why would you object to being sent back there? But those flags aren’t being waved to make a point about Mexican territory — they’re making a point about American territory, Los Angeles itself, which in anti-colonialist eyes belongs to illegal aliens at least as much as to any American. Never mind that Mexico was a product of settler colonization (by Spain) and practiced settler colonization itself in places occupied by indigenous peoples. Anti-colonialism is not about history or consistent philosophical principles; it’s about power and acquiring it for those who are willing to take to the streets. That’s one reason the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol four years ago was so shocking, when right-wing supporters of Donald Trump were willing to use a little of the force that left-wing protest movements routinely employ. The Jan. 6 rioters saw themselves as decolonizing the Capitol, viewing their enemies as a privileged elite who had somehow stolen the election and therefore the country. That riot didn’t involve arson to the degree seen in Los Angeles these past few days, but it was frightening to the left, the political middle and most conservatives because it showed radicalism could expand into the right. Too many Americans who would never dream of rioting themselves have for too long simply accepted that left-wing protests are allowed, even expected, to be violent. They were unprepared for the activist right — not Nazi extremists, but a small subset of otherwise unremarkable Republican voters — to learn from what the anti-colonialist left was allowed to get away with. The lesson all Americans have to learn now, before it’s too late, is this kind of violence will keep expanding as long as it’s tolerated in the name of anti-colonialism and other progressive causes. There will be more riots, and then there will be more than riots: the premises of anti-colonialism call for intifada, not just in Palestine but right here in America. Law, and law enforcement, has to prevail in Los Angeles, but this is a battle that has to be won in the classroom, and the conscience, as well as in the streets. There will always be some violent extremists, but what sets fire to our cities again and again is the complacency of ordinary Americans who fail to recognize a radical premise when its consequences are broadcast on the nightly news — and world news, too. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review. To read more by Daniel McCarthy, visit www.creators.com.

Left-wing cable networks CNN and MSNBC have spent the past week serving as public relations officials for the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles, California. Both networks have almost exclusively described the turmoil as “peaceful,” while taking great pains to downplay or outright dismiss the chaos and violence. MRC analysts looked at all coverage on CNN and MSNBC from June 7 through June 11 that aired between 5:00 and 11:59 am ET, finding 211 instances in which anchors, guests, or reporters described the riots in LA as “peaceful,” or some permutation thereof (details below). CNN was responsible for 123 such utterances, while MSNBC aired the remaining 88.  Over the weekend of June 7, both networks invited on a cavalcade of Democratic officials from California, offering them a free platform to allege that the unfolding riots were “mostly peaceful.” By Sunday, June 8, many of the journalists themselves had begun repeating those same claims — even as images of looted stores and torched cars appeared on screen.  Reporters attempted to justify their claims by arbitrarily separating the peaceful and violent members of the same crowd. The rioters were framed exclusively as “rogue actors,” or “lone wolves,” and there was never any suggestion that they might share common cause with the nonviolent individuals accompanying them:  “There are agitators, of course, in every crowd but most of the crowds that I saw, that I spoke to... these are peaceful people." — MSNBC’s Steve Patterson, Sunday, June 8. "The intention, it seems, is to lump in violent rioters and peaceful protestors." — CNN’s Brian Stelter, Monday, June 9. “There were some incidents of violence. There were specific individuals involved in that. By and large, peaceful protest.” — CNN’s Erin Burnett, Wednesday, June 11. Conversely, there was also no instance in which a reporter on either network acknowledged that the National Guard and Marines had been mobilized exclusively to address the violent elements of the crowd. There were numerous complaints about the use of military force against “peaceful protestors,” but nobody bothered to suggest that perhaps that mobilization would not have been necessary if the situation truly had remained peaceful:  "Donald Trump referred to those peaceful protestors exercising their First Amendment rights as insurrectionists." — MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace, Wednesday, June 11. “Donald Trump can try to turn the military into a partisan tool, mobilizing the National Guard and even the Marines against peaceful protestors." — MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, Wednesday, June 11.  By Monday, June 9, these networks had fully adopted a strategy of downplaying any of the violence that occurred by reminding viewers that the “majority” of the protesters had been peaceful. Any discussion of violence was wrapped in repeated reminders that the majority of the attendees were not currently destroying anything.  For this study, we included any assertion by a host, nonpartisan guest, or reporter that the riots or protests in Los Angeles were “peaceful,” “mostly peaceful,” “largely peaceful,” or any other similar descriptor, as long as the assertion occurred during a segment in which violence either had been acknowledged or was shown on-screen.

Are you looking forward to Marathon, Bungie's first new game in nearly ten years? After the alpha's mixed reception, you might be having second thoughts, but Sony is pressing ahead. During a recent event, the Horizon Zero Dawn and Stellar Blade publisher explained its plans for Marathon's release and doubled down on the shooter's potential, explaining that it is determined Marathon will not suffer the fate of short-lived multiplayer FPS Concord. Continue reading Sony doesn't want Marathon to be another Concord, release plans still unchanged MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best FPS games , Marathon release date speculation, All Destiny 2 news