If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. TikTok’s future in the United States hangs in the balance as the company takes its fight against a looming federal ban to the nation’s highest court. On Monday, TikTok and its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, petitioned the Supreme Court for an emergency injunction to halt a law that demands the app’s divestiture by January 19 or risks an outright ban. We obtained a copy of the petition for you here. The law, passed by Congress in April, stems from intensifying concerns over national security. US officials, including the Justice Department, argue that TikTok’s access to vast amounts of sensitive user data—ranging from geolocation information to private communications—poses an unparalleled risk. They also allege the app can manipulate the content seen by American users, branding it a tool of significant influence from a foreign adversary. However, TikTok staunchly denies these allegations, asserting that it has never shared, nor would it share, US user data with the Chinese government. TikTok’s legal battle reached an impasse earlier this month when the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rejected its arguments, as well as those of some users, that the law infringes on First Amendment rights. With the deadline looming, TikTok has warned that enforcement of the ban could irreparably harm its business. Legal filings describe the platform as one of the most significant free speech arenas in the United States, with countless businesses, content creators, and advertisers relying on its operations. The company argues that there is no immediate threat to national security and urges the Supreme Court to evaluate the law’s legality before irreversible damage is done. It also notes that a delay could allow the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump to reconsider the law. Trump, who once sought to ban TikTok in 2020, shifted his stance during his recent campaign, vowing to protect the app. Trump is meeting with TikTok CEO Shou Chew today at his Mar-a-Lago Club. Critics, however, argue that targeting TikTok sets a troubling precedent. TikTok has described the ban as a “radical departure” from America’s historic commitment to an open internet and accused lawmakers of basing their actions on speculative fears. The potential shutdown could devastate TikTok’s ability to retain users, attract advertisers, and support its network of content creators and employees. Furthermore, it could embolden broader crackdowns on foreign-owned apps. As the January 19 deadline looms, the Supreme Court’s decision will not only determine TikTok’s fate but also set a precedent for how far the US government can go in restricting access to global platforms. The case underscores the delicate balance between safeguarding national security and upholding the principles of free speech and an open internet. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post TikTok, Facing Looming Ban, Petitions Supreme Court appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Biden-Harris administration on has revealed it was setting up an action group to “monitor and address the effects” of any censorship or intimidation of Americans by China. Signed by President Joe Biden, the memorandum addressed heads of executive departments and agencies, while the task force is to be led by the assistant to the president for National Security Affairs and the director of the National Economic Council. This move comes after the administration spent the past four years doubling and tripling down on policies encouraging unprecedented censorship at home and being sued and investigated for colluding (through pressure via third parties) with social platforms and other tech companies to do its (unconstitutional) bidding. Hypocrisy this may be, but that might be the least of the problems with this sudden spur of activity by an administration that is weeks away from exiting, stage left. If we choose to forget that many of the censorship and surveillance mechanisms that permeated the soon-to-be former administration’s activities were regularly mentioned by critics as “inspired” by those used by China’s authorities, the question remains: why establish an entirely new “task force” and why now? The departments and agencies that will be represented at assistant secretary or above level include the departments of state, defense, treasury, commerce, agriculture, education, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, the director of National Intelligence, etc. – plus, “other agencies and offices as the President may, from time to time, designate.” Opponents of the Chinese authorities and their notorious brand of censorship welcome the move and believe it should be endorsed by the incoming Trump administration, but also – somehow – expanded to China itself. Declarative statements about the purpose of such “monitoring” outfits are one thing, but recent history shows how far those can veer off course. One cautionary tale is the Department of Homeland Security’s Global Engagement Sector (GEC) which was set up to direct, lead, and coordinate US government efforts countering foreign state propaganda and disinformation. What that turned out to be, however, is a weapon of censorship pointed at Americans, that used third parties to circumvent legal constraints and push biased, partisan narratives at home. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Biden Administration Launches Task Force on Chinese Censorship, Drawing Criticism for Hypocrisy in Domestic Free Speech Policies appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The foundation behind the “deGoogled” Android operating system, /e/OS, used in Murena products, has announced the availability of the Murena Pixel Tablet. It is the first officially supported /e/OS-powered tablet in the market, and the first tablet version of this Android distribution, which removes proprietary Google apps and services. The tablet, which costs around 500 euro (depending on location shipping costs and customs duties), can be pre-ordered on the Murena site and will ship to customers in January. It has a 10.95-inch LCD display with 2560×1600 resolution, Tensor G2 chip, front and rear cameras (both 8 megapixels), 8GB RAM, and 128 GB internal storage. The tablet also offers out-of-the-box synchronization with the Murena Workspace service. The e Foundation’s announcement also noted that in line with the project’s overall focus on privacy, /e/OS 2.5 expanded its set of features to include UnifiedPush, as an alternative to traditional push notifications, and one that is privacy-respecting and decentralized. However, an app must be built in UnifiedPush standards in order for users to have this option. In addition to the just-launched tablet, Murena offers “deGoogled” phones, and also a privacy-friendly online service, Murena Workspace. These use /e/OS and NextCloud, the open-source Google Drive alternative. /e/OS is developed with the goal of using Android’s core, which is open source while leaving out Google apps and services and replacing them with a range of alternatives that keep the operating system privacy-friendly and protect user data while remaining compatible with Android apps. To achieve that, Google Search is replaced by the /e/OS meta-search engine, microG is there instead of Google Services, the giant’s servers are not used for connectivity checks, and neither are Google Network Time Protocol and Google Domain Name System servers. GPS and Mozilla Location Services are used for geolocation in hardware that has /e/OS installed. These devices use App Installer which offers apps both from F-Droid – a free and open-source Android app repository – as well as the official one. One interesting feature is the ability to easily see “deciphered” app code that concerns built-in trackers and required permissions, which are then “privacy rated.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Breaking Away from Big Tech with Murena’s /e/OS Pixel Tablet appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A new chapter in the fight against censorship unfolded as the US House of Representatives approved the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2025. While 124 Democrats opposed the bill, its passage marked a significant step in addressing concerns over biased media practices and government spending. Among its provisions, the legislation includes a prohibition on contracts with firms like NewsGuard Technologies, an organization criticized and accused of targeting certain media outlets. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson praised the bill’s contents, highlighting its focus on accountability in government spending and ensuring a level playing field for media voices. Founded in 2018, NewsGuard claims to serve as a nonpartisan fact-checking organization, rating the reliability of news websites. However, critics argue that its actions reveal a far different agenda. The group has been accused of systematically targeting certain outlets while shielding some publishers from scrutiny. Its self-proclaimed mission to “promote truth” often directs readers to government-endorsed sources like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a practice that raises questions about impartiality – especially since it has received funding from government sources. Breitbart, The Drudge Report, and The Daily Mail are among the prominent outlets that have been ranked poorly by NewsGuard. Reports indicate that the organization allegedly advises advertisers to avoid these sites, effectively stripping them of revenue. Critics see this as financial censorship—a strategy to silence dissenting voices while funneling resources toward establishment-backed media. In recent years, these concerns have deepened, particularly following revelations that the US Department of Defense (DOD) awarded NewsGuard $749,387 in taxpayer funds in September 2021. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post House Strikes a Blow To Censorship in Landmark Defense Bill Vote appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests. Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.” The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted. On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.” Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations. The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.” The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Trudeau Minister Marco Mendicino Faces Censure Over Lies About Emergencies Act Invocation appeared first on Reclaim The Net.