If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Alaska is advancing plans for a far-reaching redesign of its myAlaska digital identity system, one that would weave “Agentic Artificial Intelligence” and digital payment functions into a unified platform capable of acting on behalf of residents. A Request for Information issued by the Department of Administration’s Office of Information Technology describes a system where AI software could automatically handle government transactions, submit applications, and manage personal data, provided the user has granted consent. We obtained a copy of the Request For Information here. What once functioned as a simple login for applying to the Permanent Fund Dividend or signing state forms could soon evolve into a centralized mechanism managing identity, services, and money flows under one digital roof. The plan imagines AI modules that can read documents, fill out forms, verify eligibility, and even initiate tokenized payments. That would mean large portions of personal interaction with government agencies could occur through a machine acting as a proxy for the citizen. While the proposal emphasizes efficiency, it also suggests a major change in how the state and its contractors might handle sensitive data. The RFI describes an ambitious technical vision but provides a limited public explanation of how deeply such agentic AI systems could access, process, or store personal information once integrated with legacy databases. Even with explicit consent requirements, the architecture could concentrate extraordinary amounts of behavioral and biometric data within a single government-managed platform. Security standards are invoked throughout the RFI, including compliance with NIST controls, detailed audit trails, adversarial testing, explainability tools, and human override features. Yet those guardrails depend heavily on policy enforcement and oversight mechanisms that remain undefined. The inclusion of biometric authentication, such as facial and fingerprint verification, introduces another layer of sensitive data collection, one that historically has proven difficult to keep insulated from breaches and misuse. A later phase of the program extends the system into digital payments and verifiable credentials, including mobile driver’s licenses, professional certificates, hunting and fishing permits, and tokenized prepaid balances. Those functions would be based on W3C Verifiable Credentials and ISO 18013-5, the same standards shaping national mobile ID programs. This alignment suggests Alaska’s move is not isolated but part of a broader US trend toward interoperable digital identity frameworks. Observers concerned with privacy warn that such systems could evolve into a permanent, cross-agency tracking infrastructure. The state’s document also calls for voice navigation, multi-language interfaces, and a new user experience designed to cover as many as 300 separate government services in one app. Framed as modernization, the initiative nonetheless highlights an unresolved question: who truly controls a citizen’s digital identity once government and AI systems mediate nearly every transaction? Once deployed, an AI that can act “on behalf” of a person also becomes capable of learning their patterns, predicting their needs, and operating continuously within government databases. Once Alaska’s system moves forward, it will join a growing roster of governments weaving digital ID into the core of civic and online life. Across Europe, Canada, and Australia, digital identity frameworks are increasingly framed as gateways to public and private services, while emerging proposals in the United States hint at a future where identity verification might become routine for accessing even basic online platforms. These projects often promise efficiency, but their cumulative effect is to normalize constant identification, replacing the open, pseudonymous nature of the early internet with a model where every interaction begins with proving who you are. The argument for security is persuasive to policymakers, yet it leaves unresolved how citizens can meaningfully opt out. Once digital identity becomes the default mechanism for accessing financial systems, healthcare, or even social media, “consent” risks turning into a formality rather than a choice. The result could be a tiered digital environment, one for the verified and another for those excluded, whether by principle or circumstance. That change raises not only data protection concerns but also fundamental questions about freedom of expression and association online and elsewhere. Linking AI-driven automation to identity infrastructure magnifies these risks. A system that can act “on behalf” of a person is also capable of observing and predicting their decisions. When that capacity exists inside government networks, the boundary between service provision and behavioral monitoring becomes precariously thin. Even with audit logs and human override functions, once such systems are embedded, reversing or limiting their reach is exceedingly difficult. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Alaska Plots AI-Driven Digital Identity, Payments, and Biometric Data System appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The European Union pulled the trigger on Elon Musk’s social media platform X. On Friday, Brussels fined X a massive $140 million for what it described as “transparency failures” under its censorship law, the Digital Services Act. In plain terms, the EU is angry that X is not policing speech the way it wants. Of course, officials insist the penalty is not about censorship. It is about “accountability.” Yet every part of the fine print points to the same thing: a government demanding more control over what people say and see online. The European Commission called X’s blue check system “deceptive” because Musk turned what used to be a verification badge into a paid feature anyone can buy. In the eyes of Brussels, that is chaos, a marketplace where speech is treated like a right, not a licensed activity. Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive vice president for tech sovereignty, summed up the mood. “Deceiving users with blue check marks, obscuring information on ads, and shutting out researchers have no place online in the E.U.,” she said. “We are holding X responsible for undermining users’ rights and evading accountability.” European regulators also accuse X of not sharing advertising data and refusing to give researchers access to its user information. The law says platforms must open up to “independent research.” In reality, that means academics and NGOs, often with pro-censorship political affiliations, getting privileged access to social data, exactly the kind of surveillance the DSA claims to prevent. Officials call this “transparency.” It is a transparency that flows one way, upward, toward the state. Musk’s decision not to hand over user data now counts as a punishable offense. When asked to explain how they calculated the €120 million penalty, the Commission offered a masterpiece of vagueness about “proportionality” and “the nature of the infringements.” The only clear metric seems to be how defiant a company is about following orders. From Washington, the outrage came fast. “The EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies over garbage,” said Vice President JD Vance. Musk responded with his usual brevity: “Much appreciated.” In the same breath that Brussels punished X, it closed an investigation into TikTok without a fine. TikTok, after all, promised to “cooperate” and adjust its design. “If you comply with our rules, you don’t get a fine,” Virkkunen told reporters. That sentence could serve as the EU’s motto. Compliance equals peace. Free speech costs money. The European Union has moved beyond suggesting rules for online speech and is now issuing orders. American social media platforms are facing a steady increase in censorship demands from Brussels, framed as “transparency” and “safety” obligations. Each new regulation adds another layer of political oversight, turning what used to be private platforms into instruments of European policy. The DSA sits at the center of this system. The law forces companies like Meta, Google, and X to remove “harmful” content, grant access to internal data, and submit regular reports on how they handle information deemed risky by regulators. None of these terms have clear definitions, which gives officials the freedom to decide what speech is acceptable after the fact. In effect, the EU has built a structure that allows censorship by procedure rather than decree. US companies are learning that “transparency” now means constant surveillance from European regulators and activist groups. The enforcement process rewards compliance, not innovation. Platforms that fail to align with the EU’s preferred moderation standards face public scolding and multi-million-dollar fines. Those who comply end up filtering speech to avoid further punishment. This has turned into a quiet export of European political culture. The EU’s rhetoric about “accountability” and “responsibility” conceals a growing ambition to shape global online discourse. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post EU Fines Elon Musk’s X $140 Million Amid Free Speech Clash appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. US consular officers have been directed to screen foreign tech workers for any record of silencing lawful expression before granting them H-1B visas, according to a newly circulated State Department cable obtained this week. The order, part of a broader tightening of immigration oversight, tells officials to reject applicants linked to online content control or the policing of political speech. The guidance, distributed to all US embassies on December 2, according to Reuters, marks the first time Washington has explicitly tied visa eligibility to involvement in censorship or the restriction of constitutionally protected expression. It instructs consular staff to examine résumés and professional profiles, particularly LinkedIn accounts, for signs that an applicant or accompanying family member has worked in fields like misinformation response, fact-checking, compliance, or online safety. “If you uncover evidence an applicant was responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship of protected expression in the United States, you should pursue a finding that the applicant is ineligible,” the cable said, citing the Immigration and Nationality Act. The H-1B program, used by US companies to hire what are meant to be skilled professionals from abroad, is a big part of the technology industry. Many firms dependent on it have extensive workforces from India in particular, making the new instructions particularly relevant to Silicon Valley. The document singles out applicants in social media and financial services, sectors it says have played roles “in the suppression of protected expression.” “You must thoroughly explore their employment histories to ensure no participation in such activities,” consular officers were told. The rules apply equally to first-time and returning visa seekers. A State Department spokesperson confirmed that the US opposes admitting foreign nationals who engage in restricting American speech. “We do not support aliens coming to the United States to work as censors muzzling Americans,” the spokesperson said. They added that the President’s own experience of being locked out of social media accounts shaped his insistence that “allowing foreigners to lead this type of censorship would both insult and injure the American people.” In May, Secretary Marco Rubio warned that individuals involved in “censoring speech by Americans” could face visa bans, a threat he suggested might even apply to foreign regulators overseeing US tech platforms. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post US Orders Visa Screening of Foreign Tech Workers Involved in Online Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. US Vice President JD Vance criticized the European Union this week after rumors reportedly surfaced that Brussels may seek to punish X for refusing to remove certain online speech. In a post on X, Vance wrote, “Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage.” His remarks reflect growing tension between the United States and the EU over the future of online speech and the expanding role of governments in dictating what can be said on global digital platforms. Vance was likely referring to rumors that Brussels intends to impose massive penalties under the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a censorship framework that requires major platforms to delete what regulators define as “illegal” or “harmful” speech, with violations punishable by fines up to six percent of global annual revenue. For Vance, this development fits a pattern he’s been warning about since the spring. In a May 2025 interview, he cautioned that “The kind of social media censorship that we’ve seen in Western Europe, it will and in some ways, it already has, made its way to the United States. That was the story of the Biden administration silencing people on social media.” He added, “We’re going to be very protective of American interests when it comes to things like social media regulation. We want to promote free speech. We don’t want our European friends telling social media companies that they have to silence Christians or silence conservatives.” Yet while the Vice President points to Europe as the source of the problem, a similar agenda is also advancing in Washington under the banner of “protecting children online.” This week’s congressional hearing on that subject opened in the usual way: familiar talking points, bipartisan outrage, and the recurring claim that online censorship is necessary for safety. The House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade convened to promote a bundle of bills collectively branded as the “Kids Online Safety Package.” The session, titled “Legislative Solutions to Protect Children and Teens Online,” quickly turned into a competition over who could endorse broader surveillance and moderation powers with the most moral conviction. Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) opened the hearing by pledging that the bills were “mindful of the Constitution’s protections for free speech,” before conceding that “laws with good intentions have been struck down for violating the First Amendment.” Despite that admission, lawmakers from both parties pressed ahead with proposals requiring digital ID age verification systems, platform-level content filters, and expanded government authority to police online spaces; all similar to the EU’s DSA censorship law. Vance has cautioned that these measures, however well-intentioned, mark a deeper ideological divide. “It’s not that we are not friends,” he said earlier this year, “but there’re gonna have some disagreements you didn’t see 10 years ago.” That divide is now visible on both sides of the Atlantic: a shared willingness among policymakers to restrict speech for perceived social benefit, and a shrinking space for those who argue that freedom itself is the safeguard worth protecting. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post JD Vance Condemns EU Censorship Pressure, Defends X appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Emmanuel Macron thinks the Republic needs a quality seal for reality. The French president recently proposed creating an official “reliability label” for news outlets, modeled on Reporters Without Borders’ Journalism Trust Initiative. He insists it is not censorship. It is a “democratic duty.” “It is about making our young people understand, encouraging them, motivating them to turn toward press outlets, whether in physical, printed form or digital,” Macron said, as though the French youth were a flock that had wandered into the dangerous fields of the internet and needed shepherding back to Le Monde. The proposal, presented during a discussion with readers of the Ebra press group, called for a label for outlets that follow ethical standards, validated by “peers and third-party experts.” The government, he said, would not decide who qualifies. It would only “encourage” such standards. But in France, the words “encourage” and “government” often mean something closer to “mandatory, eventually.” The model is RSF’s Journalism Trust Initiative, which already certifies media that meet certain requirements. Certified outlets supposedly even get algorithmic advantages on platforms like Bing. Macron wants a French version, claiming it would bring “international recognition of the professionalism of our journalists and the rigour of our editorial teams.” Translated from technocrat to plain French: good media will rise to the top, bad media will sink to the digital basement. This, Macron says, will help fight “disinformation.” The country has heard that promise before. Each new attempt to fight misinformation seems to end up tightening control over information itself. The idea landed with the subtlety of a brick through a newsroom window. On BFMTV, Parliamentary Party Leader of the National Rally, Marine Le Pen called it “unworthy,” said the proposal was “extremely dangerous,” accusing Macron of wanting “to master information.” Bruno Retailleau, leader of Les Républicains, said “no government has the right to filter the media or dictate the truth.” The Mayor of Cannes, David Lisnard, said the president had “crossed a fundamental line.” Even some journalists balked at being graded by a system endorsed by the state. Macron denied everything. “There is not going to be a state label, and even less a ‘ministry of truth,’” said government spokeswoman Maud Bregeon after the cabinet meeting. Macron repeated that “it is not the state that should verify” the truth, since “otherwise it becomes a dictatorship.” So far, the reassurance has not worked. The term “Ministry of Truth” is now glued to the project in every headline, thanks in part to a viral editorial by Pascal Praud on CNews, who accused the president of “wanting to impose a single narrative.” In a remarkable act of irony, the Élysée responded to critics on X by posting a video labeled “warning, false information.” The president’s communications team, while denying the existence of a Ministry of Truth, had just produced something that looked exactly like one. The post set off another round of outrage. Jordan Bardella, President of the National Rally, said Macron’s proposal was “the reflex of a man who has lost power and seeks to maintain it by controlling information.” The label plan is part of Macron’s wider campaign against disinformation. He has floated legal changes to allow “false information” to be blocked online more quickly and has repeatedly called for tighter regulation of social media, describing the current state of the internet as “the Wild West.” It is not hard to see why the issue obsesses him. Macron and his wife have been the targets of online rumors for years. For a president who sees himself as a technocratic reformer, the swamp of digital conspiracy has become both a personal irritant and a political threat. Macron insists that only a system of certified journalism can protect the public from manipulation. The trouble is, the public does not want the government or anyone tied to it certifying which journalists to trust. Reporters Without Borders may be an NGO, but any system announced by the president and promoted as a matter of “democratic duty” will carry the scent of state authority. Once the government endorses a “trust” label, those without it become, by definition, untrustworthy. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Macron’s Proposed Seal of Truth Meets a Wall of Criticism appeared first on Reclaim The Net.