Temperatures are expected to reach between 10 and 15 degrees hotter than normal

Holy hell, I'm amped to play this game!

'sit down and shut up about the border'

'I am not really quite sure that Democrats can do any worse'

A video shared on X claims to show the U.K. Labor Party leader Keir Starmer disparaging Liverpool. ?Secret recording of Keir Starmer at a conference saying he f**king hates Liverpool. HE HATES THIS COUNTRY. pic.twitter.com/KVx9Zqvs1U — The Yorkshire Lass (@real_shirelass) July 1, 2024 Verdict: False The video is created by artificial intelligence. It is not genuine. […]

'But shouting out, come on'

CNN host John Berman on Monday refuted Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s assertion that it’s just “elites” who are worrying about President Joe Biden’s debate performance. Biden, during his Thursday debate with former President Donald Trump, spoke with a raspy voice and trailed off, prompting concerns about his age and fitness for office. Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared to attempt on “CNN News Central” to dismiss these worries as only stemming from “elites,” rather than ordinary Americans, but Berman told her he does not believe the assessment is accurate. “Look, this is a conversation, honestly, John, that is taking place among elites,” Wasserman Schultz said. “I just don’t think that’s true, congresswoman … I just think that anyone who was anywhere this weekend, talking to anybody, the subject of discussion was the debate and was President Biden’s performance. I don’t think that that discussion is only members of Congress,” Berman responded. Wasserman Schultz then clarified she was not just talking about members of Congress when she said “elites.” (On Tuesday, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, became the first Democrat in Congress to call for Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race.) “There are certainly a greater breadth of how I would define ‘elites.’ I mean my constituents at home, voters across this country, are not going to be focused on what The New York Times or what the Atlanta Journal-Constitution talks about,” she said. “They’re not focused on what the political elites are hand-wringing about. They’re focused on making sure that we can have a president like Joe Biden, who continues to fight to bring inflation down, who continues to fight to make sure that we can reshore American jobs, like we did with the Chips and Science Act. “When I’m home among my constituents, they care about the bottom line in their lives, and they care that we don’t have a president like Donald Trump was, who tried to overturn the results of a legitimate election, who populated his administration with unethical people and who were focused more on enriching Donald Trump and themselves. And that’s the choice.” “They want to make sure we have a president who is going to have their back, not give the American people the back of his hand, which is what Donald Trump did over and over again,” the former Democratic National Committee chairwoman added. “And at the end of the day, we’ve got to stop. We don’t have time for this hand-wringing. We have less than five months to an election. We have less than two months to the convention. We need to double down on organization right now, not on worrying about what happened during a 90-minute debate.” Any attempt to replace Biden with another Democratic candidate would likely face practical, political, and even legal obstacles. Democrats have raised the possibility of replacing the president as the party’s nominee, but Biden has not indicated any intention to step down. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post ‘Don’t Think That’s True’: CNN Host Disputes Ex-DNC Chair’s Claim It’s Only ‘Elites’ Fretting About Biden’s Debate appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Corporate legacy media are trying to keep key social platforms “in check” by running stories about them complying – or being complicit, or compatible with – some of the currently most notorious anti-free speech legislation. Meta’s Oversight Board is thus said to be working to adhere to the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) – but perhaps not as efficiently as it should. Yet before any entity can execute censorship, it must be funded, since it all eventually, one way or another, comes down to money. In this case, Meta has apparently been increasingly less enthusiastic about providing that money. But now, the Board appears to be looking at the DSA as an avenue to get the money, so that “the mission” may continue. This sum-up of the seemingly muddled train-of-thought reporting comes from the Washington Post – but the key point behind it seems to be closer to home in the US, than anything that may or may not be happening in Europe. Meta’s Board was first conceived in 2018 – as the corporation was still trying to fight off (what turned out to be debunked) accusations that it allowed foreign propaganda to fully steer US elections, two years prior. Facebook (Meta) was happy to establish the Board – and in the process essentially agreed with the 2016 election integrity deniers who claimed it was something other than the majority vote cast by US citizens who decided the outcome. Meta may have done it just to get rabid politicians and media off their back – but in the meantime, it looks like the company lost the will to keep spending money on the Board. Now, with another election coming up, the same media are criticizing the Board as having failed their expectations in the US – but they still want it there, and the EU might provide the financial lifeline. The Washington Post calls it nothing short of the Oversight Board possibly getting “a second chance.” To do what? Apparently, let a “court of journalists, analysts and experts (…) investigate Meta’s handling of controversial posts” – and reinstate Facebook to its supposedly existing pre-2016 glory (restore “Meta’s blemished reputation,” as WaPo puts it). Now, the EU comes into the picture, and the DSA is a possible new “funding factor.” “The Oversight Board administrators touted (to the EU) the group’s experience in making impartial decisions about contentious content moderation challenges facing Meta, according to a slide-deck pitch, which was viewed by the Washington Post,” said the report. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Meta’s Oversight Board Is Helping Big Tech Companies Comply With the EU’s Censorship Law appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Sign Up To Keep Reading This post is for Reclaim The Net supporters. Gain access to the entire archive of features and supporters-only content. Help protect free speech, freedom from surveillance, and digital civil liberties. Join Already a supporter? Login here If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Dark Side of Wi-Fi Positioning: How Our Gadgets Became Silent Stalkers appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Given how X has gone out of its way to reveal the depth and breadth of online censorship via the Twitter Files, this makes for an awkward reunion: the company has decided to rejoin the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). It’s a pro-censorship, World Economic Forum-affiliated advertisers’ group, that achieves its objectives through the “brand safety” route (i.e., the censorship “brand” here would be demonetization). And last summer, it was scrutinized by the US Congress. GARM is one of those outfits whose roots are very entangled (comes in handy when somebody tries to probe your activities, though) – and the chronology is not insignificant either: formed in 2019 as a World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) initiative, partnered with the Association of National Advertisers (ANA). Then came another “partnership” – that with WEF (World Economic Forum), specifically, its Shaping the Future of Media, Entertainment, and Sport project – a “flagship” one. In May 2023, the US House Judiciary Committee wanted to know what exactly was happening here, and whether “brand safety” as a concept, as exercised by these entities, could be linked to censorship of online speech. So the Committee subpoenaed the World Federation of Advertisers (and GARM), asking for records that might show whether these groups “coordinated efforts to demonetize and censor disfavored speech online.” Committee Chairman Jim Jordan was at the time concerned that this conduct might have run afoul of US antitrust laws. For X, despite the strides the platform has made toward protecting users’ speech since the Twitter takeover, the GARM relationship is most likely simply about (ad) money – and one of the several efforts to make the platform profitable at last. Those who were hoping for a “free speech absolutism” on a platform like this might be disappointed, the Congress might investigate some more; but ultimately, the move represents a “realpolitik-style” compromise. And so X is “excited” and “proud” to be back as a GARM member. The company’s “Safety” account posted something about “the safety of our global town square” apparently being relevant to this decision, but did not elaborate. Now listed by GARM along with X are YouTube and Chanel – and, in between, some of the biggest pharma and telecoms out there. Big Money, one might say. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post X Re-Joins Pro-Censorship Advertisers’ Alliance appeared first on Reclaim The Net.