If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Amid intensifying scrutiny over government involvement in influencing public discourse, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has launched an internal inquiry that could reshape how it funds research with implications for free expression. According to STAT News, agency officials, in preparation for the swearing-in of incoming director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, recently directed staff to identify any existing contracts potentially linked to “any form of censorship at all or directing people to believe one idea over another related to health outcomes.” The request, which carried a deadline of noon Wednesday, signaled a sweeping reassessment of federally funded messaging campaigns. Included in the NIH’s internal email were instructions to flag agreements tied to vaccine promotion or public health narratives emphasizing the “dangers of Covid or not wearing masks.” The directive also advised employees to search for terms such as “media literacy,” “social media,” “social distancing,” and “lockdowns” — all terms frequently associated with the suppression of dissenting viewpoints during the pandemic. This review comes on the heels of similar actions that preceded abrupt funding withdrawals. Earlier in the month, NIH notified researchers that at least 33 grants aimed at combating “vaccine hesitancy” would be canceled, with another nine slated for reduction or revision. President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to lead the National Institutes of Health signals a renewed commitment to transparency, scientific freedom, and reform. A Stanford professor with dual training in medicine and economics, Bhattacharya has long emphasized data-driven decision-making and compassionate public health policy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he became a national figure for challenging the dominant narrative on lockdowns and mandates, arguing they caused unintended harm. Bhattacharya’s advocacy came at a cost. He was censored on major social media platforms and became a plaintiff in a landmark lawsuit alleging that the federal government colluded with Big Tech to suppress dissenting views on public health. Internal documents revealed that his views were intentionally downranked or hidden, despite being grounded in credible research and expertise. Rather than backing down, he fought back — defending not just his own speech, but the principle that science must remain open to challenge. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Censorship Reckoning Inside the NIH appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The British government has begun aggressively extending its censorship regime beyond its borders, invoking the sweeping powers granted by the Online Safety Act 2023 to demand compliance from foreign-based platforms. Pro-free speech websites like Gab and Kiwi Farms are among the first targets in this international campaign to enforce the UK’s standards of “online safety” — a term critics argue is being used as a smokescreen for state-sanctioned thought control. Gab, a US-based platform known for its staunch defense of First Amendment protections, has refused to capitulate. The UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) is threatening the company with crushing penalties—up to £18M ($23.3M) or 10% of global revenue — for failing to submit to British censorship demands. Gab, in turn, is reporting the UK government to the United States Trade Representative and the Department of Justice, calling for retaliation and the imposition of trade tariffs. Gab CEO Andrew Torba and his team did not mince words in their response. “We will not pay one cent,” their statement declared, emphasizing that Gab will not yield to what it describes as “tyrannical demands” from a foreign government. The platform asserts that the UK’s attempt to dictate speech policies to an American company constitutes a dangerous precedent — one where governments believe they can impose their domestic laws globally, chilling free expression in the process. The notice Gab received from Ofcom, dated March 26, 2025, demanded a response by March 16 — a nonsensical timeline and blunder that Gab used to highlight what it sees as the reckless, bureaucratic overreach driving this censorship push. The company has called on its users to rally in defense of digital free speech and to contribute financially to ongoing legal and technical efforts to resist. Meanwhile, Kiwi Farms — a forum often targeted by legacy media for its unfiltered content — has responded in its own way. Visitors from the UK are met with a blunt message: “You are accessing this website from the United Kingdom. This is not a good idea.” The page links directly to the Ofcom letters sent to the site, which claim jurisdiction over any platform with a “significant number” of UK users — a nebulous standard that could apply to nearly any global site. What users in the UK see when they now visit Kiwi Farms from the UK. Kiwi Farms warns UK users that their online activity is no longer private, noting that without Cloudflare’s IP masking (which they no longer use), British authorities can directly monitor where citizens connect. The site advises UK users to employ VPNs or Tor for protection and makes clear its refusal to subject itself to foreign censorship edicts. Free speech supporters see the Online Safety Act as a deeply flawed regulation, part of a broader, deliberate strategy to quash dissent and sanitize online spaces. Gab explicitly warns that failure to resist this extraterritorial push could spell doom for other US tech firms, stating, “If they let the UK censor us, every other American tech company is next.” This episode echoes earlier confrontations — Gab, for instance, was deplatformed in 2018 by hosting providers and payment processors due to its refusal to comply with subjective “hate speech” enforcement standards. Yet the platform has not wavered. Its leadership maintains that free expression must remain a non-negotiable principle, even when it means standing alone against powerful state actors. The UK’s aggressive approach to global internet governance has now drawn the ire of platforms that were never subject to its jurisdiction. Whether this escalating standoff will trigger broader geopolitical consequences — particularly if the US government steps in — remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the battle over who controls the flow of information online is entering a new, more dangerous phase. And for platforms like Gab and Kiwi Farms, surrender is not an option. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Tries To Wield Censorship Laws Globally, Clashing with Gab and Kiwi Farms over Free Speech and Jurisdiction appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Tensions flared on Capitol Hill Wednesday as lawmakers grappled with a growing slate of child safety proposals that, while marketed as protective measures, are increasingly raising alarm among digital rights advocates over threats to privacy and free speech. Among them are the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the TAKE IT DOWN Act, both of which risk entrenching censorship and surveillance mechanisms under the guise of safeguarding children. During a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee, Republican members doubled down on their push for KOSA — a bill that many expect to usher in widespread online age verification and content filtering mandates — despite it being shelved by their own party last year. Meanwhile, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, aimed at targeting non-consensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated content, has found support from major tech companies like Meta and X, even as digital freedom organizations criticize the legislation’s vague terminology that can cause legitimate speech and satire to be removed. The hearing, normally a venue for bipartisan consensus around online child safety, unfolded in a sharply polarized environment. Democrats, while largely supportive of legislative action, used the occasion to raise deeper concerns about the rule of law and the crumbling enforcement apparatus under the Trump administration. Last week’s dismissal attempt of the two Democratic commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission — Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya — cast a long shadow over the proceedings. Both commissioners were critical in overseeing the FTC’s consumer protection efforts, including responsibilities for enforcing online safety legislation like KOSA and the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0). Slaughter, invited to testify by the Democratic minority, reinforced the same concerns. “You can’t meaningfully address kids online safety in bills that would empower the FTC to enforce kids online safety if you don’t talk about whether the FTC is a functional body consistent with the design of Congress,” she told reporters afterward. Republican lawmakers tried to steer the discussion away from institutional integrity, instead demanding a focus solely on children’s welfare. “This hearing is about children. It’s not about what’s going on here in Washington, DC,” said Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), while others attempted to deflect media scrutiny of the FTC situation. Rep. Erin Houchin (R-IN) even criticized journalists for highlighting the firings, stating, “Shame on the media if the only thing they cover from today is the FTC, because children are dying.” Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), a co-sponsor of KOSA, echoed the unease. “We can talk about the importance of passing new legislation here in this hearing,” she said. “But how do you rebuild trust in Republicans if you take the cops off the beat, you give the Big Tech CEOs a front-row seat to the inauguration, [and] you block the KOSA and COPPA that was hammered out over years of work in this committee?” While the stated intent of bills like KOSA and the TAKE IT DOWN Act is to protect vulnerable users, such legislation often paves the way for broad content moderation powers that can be easily weaponized, the destruction of online anonymity, and the introduction of digital ID. The inclusion of vague language, coupled with enforcement by a politically compromised FTC, could lead to the suppression of lawful speech under pressure from political or corporate interests. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Lawmakers Clash Over KOSA and TAKE IT DOWN Act as Digital Rights Advocates Warn of Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Government records newly obtained through access-to-information requests reveal a deep unease within Transport Canada when Global News journalist David Akin began inquiring into the World Economic Forum-backed Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) initiative. Internal communications show officials labeling Akin’s biometrics-related questions “problematic,” indicating a scramble behind the scenes to control the narrative around the controversial digital ID pilot. The program, touted as a touchless solution for future air travel, was designed to create a comprehensive digital profile of travelers, Rebel reports. Promoted under the guise of convenience and security, the project raises serious privacy concerns, particularly given the opaque collaboration between Canadian officials and the World Economic Forum (WEF), a private entity with far-reaching influence over global policy. Documents show that former Transport Minister Omar Alghabra’s office was actively coordinating participation in WEF events, with Transport Canada’s director of international relations, Jennifer Sully, viewing these global forums as prime opportunities to amplify KTDI’s visibility. In one instance, she encouraged the Minister to engage in the WEF’s “Stewards of Mobility” event at the OECD-linked International Transport Forum Summit—an elite policy gathering with close WEF ties. Sully also floated the idea of transferring former minister Marc Garneau’s seat on the WEF’s “Board of Stewards” to Alghabra, underscoring the government’s commitment to maintaining alignment with WEF agendas. Three years after Rebel News filed its initial access-to-information request in January 2022, the documents finally surfaced — heavily redacted, yet still revealing. Communications from Executive Director John Velho suggested the COVID-19 crisis was seen as a timely justification to accelerate digital credential adoption under the pretext of modernizing air travel. However, the extent of redactions, especially around media responses, leaves a troubling lack of transparency about what officials are so eager to hide. While KTDI was folded into government messaging about economic recovery and public health, it bears all the hallmarks of a long-game digital identity framework. With private global organizations like the WEF steering much of the dialogue, the implications for privacy and civil liberties are stark. What’s being quietly ushered in — at taxpayer expense— is not a benign travel convenience, but the architecture of a pervasive surveillance regime. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Transport Canada Scrambled to Manage Fallout Over WEF-Backed Digital ID Program as Journalist Probed Privacy Concerns appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A federal judge has thrown out a $13.6 million defamation lawsuit brought by Consortium News against the media ratings firm NewsGuard, delivering a blow to the independent outlet’s fight against what it views as reputational sabotage masked as media accountability. The suit, filed in 2023, centered on NewsGuard’s characterization of Consortium’s journalism, particularly its coverage of Russia’s war on Ukraine, as misleading and unreliable. We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here. NewsGuard, a for-profit company that partners with government agencies and private firms, and “misinformation,” had assigned Consortium News a failing trust score of 47.5 out of 100. It accused the outlet of falling short in three categories: avoiding falsehoods, reporting responsibly, and issuing timely corrections. A “proceed with caution” warning label — first red, later changed to blue — was attached to the site, branding it as a publication that “generally fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability.” Consortium News responded with a forceful legal challenge, arguing that the flag was defamatory and that the firm’s sweeping judgments were based on a cursory review of just five opinion pieces out of more than 20,000 articles and videos published on its platform. The complaint accused NewsGuard of misrepresenting its entire body of work. On Wednesday, US District Judge Katherine Failla granted NewsGuard’s motion to dismiss the suit, ruling that Consortium News had failed to show the kind of “actual malice” required to sustain a defamation claim. In her opinion, Failla wrote that the plaintiffs didn’t offer concrete allegations that NewsGuard knowingly made false statements. “Indeed, far from alleging that NewsGuard knew its statements to be false, Consortium News effectively concedes the truth of the ‘anti-U.S. perspective’ label, and acknowledges that ‘reasonable people’ could differ as to the truth or falsity of its reporting, undercutting any suggestion that NewsGuard knew its criticisms to be false and published those criticisms despite knowing them to be false,” Failla wrote. NewsGuard, which has secured contracts with the US government and other institutional clients, argued in court that its evaluations are protected expressions of opinion and that its partnership with federal agencies does not convert it into a government actor. In its defense, it called its scoring framework “inherently subjective.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Judge Dismisses Defamation Lawsuit Against NewsGuard appeared first on Reclaim The Net.