If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Rumble and Truth Social have taken their fight against Brazil’s censorship to a Florida courtroom again, objecting to what they call an illegitimate and overreaching demand from Brazil’s Supreme Court. The companies accuse Justice Alexandre de Moraes of yet again attempting to enforce Brazilian judicial authority beyond its borders, targeting US-based platforms and violating international norms. Filed on Monday, July 14, the petition is a response to a new order issued two days earlier by Moraes. We obtained a copy of the petition for you here. That order commands Rumble to block an account connected to political commentator Rodrigo Constantino throughout Brazil and to surrender user data or face a fine of R$100,000 (around US$20,000) per day, starting that same evening. The companies argue that the demand is both procedurally flawed and legally unenforceable. Rather than being transmitted through established treaty mechanisms, the order was sent by email. Rumble and Truth Social contend this method is improper and strips the order of legal validity. Constantino, now a US citizen, is entitled to privacy protections under American law, and the platforms maintain that sharing his data would breach those protections. They also note that the account in question has been inactive since December 2023, and that their services have already been blocked in Brazil since February. “Rumble [platform] does not intend to comply with the defendant’s demands because they are invalid and unenforceable,” the companies declared in the filing. The timing of Moraes’ move has drawn attention, coming shortly after President Donald Trump announced a steep 50 percent tariff on Brazilian goods. The petition references this, raising questions about the political motives behind the judicial pressure. “The July 11 order was issued just two days after President Donald J. Trump sent a formal letter to President Lula da Silva expressing concern about Brazil’s treatment of U.S. technology companies,” the document states. Legal representatives for the platforms also highlighted a previous letter from the US Department of Justice, which indicated that any foreign order must be processed through the proper international legal channels. They pointed out that the Brazilian order “has not been delivered through any legal treaty mechanism and appears to have been issued without notification to the US government.” This filing is not the first time Rumble and Truth Social have sought protection from the US court system. In February, they launched legal proceedings in Florida after Moraes targeted content from Brazilian commentator Allan dos Santos. Rumble refused to comply, arguing the ruling attempted to enforce Brazilian censorship on a global scale. In retaliation, the platform was suspended in Brazil and hit with a daily fine of R$50,000. By May, the companies escalated their complaint, calling for Moraes to be held civilly liable and seeking damages. In their filing, they described his rulings as “gag orders” and framed them as part of a wider campaign to silence dissent. The most recent order has reignited concerns that Moraes is attempting to provoke a diplomatic confrontation. According to individuals close to the case, the directive contradicts previous statements from Brazil’s Ministry of Justice, which claimed it aimed to preserve legal cooperation with the United States. The platforms argue that not only does the directive fail to follow international legal protocols, but it also fundamentally violates US sovereignty and user privacy. As noted in the filing: “The order was not served through any lawful treaty mechanism and appears to have been issued without notice to the US government.” The account in question has shown no recent activity and has been inaccessible to Brazilian users since Rumble was blocked earlier this year by Moraes’ own decree. “The account in question is dormant and has had no activity since December 2023.” Despite that, the order demands compliance with a sweeping disclosure of private data. The companies allege that this reveals the true intent behind the ruling: “The only remaining operative demand in the order is the compelled disclosure of US user data and the preservation of that data […] under threat of financial penalty, to a foreign court with no lawful jurisdiction pursuant to censorship orders sent by email.” Rumble warns that complying would not only be a violation of its own standards but a breach of federal law: “Any order forcing Rumble to ‘divulge user records or other information’ regarding users places Rumble in jeopardy of violating the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2713, and exposes Rumble to potential civil liability.” The petition also highlights what is at stake; core political speech protected by the US Constitution: “The account contains ideological, nonviolent speech about Brazilian public officials—with topics ranging from declining democracy in Brazil, the targeting of ordinary citizens, and how Brazil’s Supreme Court, political leadership, and major media institutions are working together to enable impunity—that lies at the heart of the First Amendment’s protections.” The broader context includes the Brazilian Supreme Court’s continued scrutiny of the Marco Civil da Internet, a law that expands the liability of digital platforms. These developments, coupled with President Trump’s recent tariff move and his letter accusing Brazil of censorship, have turned the situation into a high-profile international standoff. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Rumble and Truth Social Fight Back After Another Censorship Demand From Brazil appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. As we previously reported would be coming, the US Department of Justice has stepped into a major antitrust case that challenges a powerful alliance between corporate media outlets and Big Tech companies, which plaintiffs claim coordinated to suppress competing voices in the digital public square. In a filing submitted July 11 to the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the DOJ issued a Statement of Interest asserting that antitrust law must apply when dominant actors work together to restrict the diversity of perspectives available to the public. We obtained a copy of the filing for you here. Central to the issue is the Trusted News Initiative (TNI), a collaborative project involving Reuters, BBC, The Associated Press, and The Washington Post, which plaintiffs allege worked with platforms like Meta, Google, and Microsoft to stifle independent media organizations. The DOJ rejected arguments that such viewpoint suppression is beyond the reach of antitrust enforcement. “The United States therefore files this statement to urge the Court to reject Defendants’ suggestion that the antitrust laws play no part in protecting viewpoint competition in news markets,” the department wrote. “Controlling precedent shows that the Sherman Act protects all forms of competition, including competition in information quality.” The lawsuit, filed by Children’s Health Defense and ten other independent publishers and commentators, claims that members of the TNI conspired with tech companies to remove, shadowban, or otherwise suppress COVID-era reporting and political content that deviated from establishment narratives. The complaint names as defendants four major news organizations, with tech firms named as co-conspirators, though not as parties in this case. “News consumers desire and demand diverse perspectives,” the DOJ emphasized in its statement. “Americans therefore vitally depend on viewpoint competition in the marketplace of ideas to limit the abuse of market power and ensure the free flow of information in our democracy.” Plaintiffs contend they were effectively blacklisted by TNI’s partners, causing a dramatic loss in reach, advertising income, and online engagement. The DOJ addressed that directly, stating: “Plaintiffs claim that the reduction in content competition has reduced their revenue by depriving them of the ability to reach consumers who value their distinct viewpoints.” The statement from the DOJ reflects growing concern inside federal enforcement agencies about the concentration of communicative power in a handful of private hands. Citing a prior Supreme Court concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas, the filing noted, “Justice Thomas recently observed that today’s digital platforms exert ‘unprecedented…concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties.’” Though the DOJ did not take a position on the specific merits of the plaintiffs’ factual claims, it made clear that antitrust law is not limited to price-fixing or traditional market control. The department criticized the defendants’ attempt to escape scrutiny by hiding behind the language of content moderation. “This court should reject Defendants’ novel attempt to immunize speech-related anticompetitive conduct,” the DOJ warned. The DOJ also took the opportunity to reinforce its broader interpretation of consumer harm in modern digital markets. The case challenges a foundational assumption of modern media infrastructure: that coordinated efforts to flag or remove so-called “misinformation” are legally benign. By highlighting the potential anticompetitive impact of such activities on viewpoint diversity, the DOJ’s intervention repositions the case as not only a media freedom dispute but as a core antitrust matter. A trial could expose internal communications and decisions made under the TNI partnership, shedding light on how editorial consensus may have translated into coordinated takedowns of dissenting journalism. Whether the court ultimately rules in favor of the plaintiffs remains to be seen. But the DOJ’s involvement sends an unmistakable message: the federal government is prepared to examine the suppression of disfavored perspectives not just as a cultural or political concern, but as a potential violation of the nation’s antitrust laws. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post DOJ Backs Antitrust Case Over Media–Big Tech Alliance appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Bluesky is preparing to introduce age checks for users in the UK, following obligations under the country’s controversial censorship law, the Online Safety Act. The platform revealed that individuals will have several options to verify their age, such as facial scanning, ID upload, or payment card entry. The system will operate through Kid Web Services (KWS), a tool developed by Epic Games to help online platforms manage age verification and implement parental controls. Users who opt out of verification, or who are under 18, won’t be excluded entirely but will encounter stricter limitations. Access to adult-oriented material will be restricted, and features like direct messaging will be disabled. Passed in 2023, the Online Safety Act has triggered alarm among digital rights advocates, who argue that the legislation could severely curtail free speech and privacy by linking everyone’s online comments to their real-world ID. More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda A crucial segment of the law is set to be enforced on July 25, compelling platforms that host potentially “harmful” material to deploy robust age-checking mechanisms. Non-compliance could lead to financial penalties reaching £18 million ($24,298,200) or 10 percent of a company’s global revenue, whichever is higher. UK-based users will begin receiving prompts from Bluesky instructing them to confirm their age. Screenshots shared by the company suggest that the process starts by registering an email address with KWS. Once submitted, users will receive further steps to complete the verification. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Digital ID: Bluesky to Launch Age Checks in UK appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. French prosecutors have opened a criminal case into X on allegations it altered its algorithms in ways that may have supported “foreign interference.” Magistrate Laure Beccuau confirmed on Friday that the investigation began Wednesday, with authorities looking into whether X violated French law by manipulating its recommendation systems and deceptively collecting user data. This latest development builds on a separate inquiry launched in January, which was prompted by complaints from a French parliamentarian and a senior civil servant. The original accusation targeted X for promoting “an enormous amount of hateful, racist, anti-LGBT+ and homophobic political content, which aims to skew the democratic debate in France.” X is facing mounting pressure not only from French officials but also from European regulators. On Thursday, two members of France’s National Assembly filed a complaint with Arcom, the national digital watchdog. At the European level, the Commission has been examining X’s practices for close to two years under the recent censorship law, the Digital Services Act. The focus has included “misinformation” but in January the scope of the investigation widened to include X’s algorithms. Momentum is building within EU institutions to wrap up that investigation. While regulators cite threats to democratic discourse and online safety, the French government’s move to criminally probe X brings into sharper focus the tension between public oversight and free expression. These state-led actions, framed as efforts to regulate tech platforms, may well cross the line into political censorship under the cover of legality. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post French Prosecutors Open Criminal Case Against X Over Alleged Algorithm Manipulation appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. It’s always an interesting moment when a government announces it’s going to protect your privacy by finding new ways to destroy it. That’s the high-wire act currently underway in Brussels, where EU officials have unveiled a roadmap that reads like a blueprint for turning digital locks into decorative suggestions. Become a Member and Keep Reading… Reclaim your digital freedom. Get the latest on censorship, cancel culture, and surveillance, and learn how to fight back. Email Subscribe Already a supporter? Sign In. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The EU’s Plan To Ban Private Messaging Could Have a Global Impact (Plus: What To Do About It) appeared first on Reclaim The Net.