Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Censorship Industrial Complex

WEF Davos 2025: Attendees at annual meeting wrestling for control of information

Published

4 weeks ago

4 minute read

logo

By Didi Rankovic

World Economic Forum’s Prioritizes “Disinformation” Over Economic and Global Stability Threats

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is gearing up for its Davos meeting, set to take place January 20-24, and the group has now released the Global Risks Report 2025.

The report is based on “insights” from the Global Risks Perception Survey that take into account the opinions of 900 “global leaders” across business, government, academia and civil society, the WEF said.

The report reflects the unrelenting drive still present in many corners of the world and among political elites to push what they consider “disinformation” to the top of this agenda.

And so the WEF paper talks about “armed conflict, environment, and disinformation” as “top threats” this year. And that, as the authors note, from their point of view leaves economic risks as having “less immediate prominence.”

Meanwhile, “mis/disinformation” is ranked higher as a threat and that has happened two years in a row. This reads like another instance of taking an alarmist approach to “disinformation” (which then comes in handy when pushing all sorts of controversial policies, affecting online speech, security, and technology development).

The WEF report elevates “disinformation” to a “persistent threat to societal cohesion and governance by eroding trust” – and even “exacerbating divisions within and between nations” and “complicating” ways to cooperate on ending international crises.

And, when AI is thrown into the mix in its “adverse” form – “disinformation” underpins rising geopolitical tensions.

The way the report frames the issue of disinformation, that seems to be the only thing standing in the way of world peace.

While creating high drama around “disinformation” is one piece of the puzzle, the WEF also looks at long-term threats, such as to the environment. This, according to the document, will be dominant over the next decade, and this is the language the group uses: “(…) led by extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse.”

With the threats presented like this, the “solutions” are also very much in line with the WEF mission: promote more and more globalization, even as many countries might be looking to what the group disapprovingly calls, “turning inward.”

Instead, the WEF wants them to essentially double down on globalization, allegedly as the only way to “prevent a downward spiral of instability.”

One of the goals the WEF promotes – and is also one of the five overall topics of this year’s Davos meeting – is “rebuilding trust.”

Now, if only this group would focus more on explaining how that trust was lost.
You subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.


Thank you.
Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 10 seconds ago

Trump Admin ends Biden’s war on gas stoves

International / 9 mins ago

Senate Judiciary Committee approves Kash Patel’s FBI nomination in party-line vote

Business / 22 mins ago

An era of Indigenous economic leadership in Canada has begun

armed forces

Trump admin reveals the federal government awarded over $100 million in contracts to Reuters

Published on February 13, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

The Pentagon gave $9 million to Reuters for program called ‘large scale social deception’

President Donald Trump highlighted this morning the finding that the Department of Defense (DOD) paid the leftist media outlet Reuters $9 million for a program labeled “large scale social deception,” and he has demanded that they return the money.

“DOGE: Looks like Radical Left Reuters was paid $9,000,000 by the Department of Defense to study ‘large scale social deception.’ GIVE BACK THE MONEY, NOW!” wrote Trump on Truth Social.

Late Wednesday evening, Elon Musk shared a screenshot from USAspending.gov showing that the Department of Defense had indeed dispersed an award to Thomson Reuters Special Services LLC, the parent company of the media group Reuters, for a project labeled “active social engineering defense”(ASED) and “large scale social deception.”

A perusal of USAspending.gov shows that the U.S. government has awarded over $100 million in contracts to Reuters and confirms that the DOD awarded Reuters $9,147,532 under the “description” label ASED and “large scale social deception,” for a time period from 2018 to 2022, part of the period of Trump’s first term.

For comparison, other government contracts to Reuters include the DOD’s awarding of over $12 million under the description “mass effect,” the DHS awarding $5.1 million for “data analysis,” and the Department of Justice (DOJ) giving a few million for “risk mitigation services.”

A more detailed overview of the contract on highergov.com shows the description “SIMULATION TESTING AND MEASUREMENT LARGE SCALE DECEPTION” but does not further expand upon the activities the award intends to fund.

Most of those who commented on Musk’s X post blasted the finding as a straightforward exposure of government deception. One commentator questioned whether the description was purportedly meant to signify defense against “social deception,” as the contract description signified defense against social engineering.

Others pointed out that deception is a standard part of psychological operations, as admitted in an Army field manual, No. 3-13.4, “Army Support to Military Deception”:

Military deception is actions executed to deliberately mislead adversary military, paramilitary, or violent extremist organization decision makers, thereby causing the adversary to take specific actions (or inactions) that will contribute to the accomplishment of the friendly mission. Deception applies to all levels of warfare, across the range of military operations, and is conducted during all phases of military operations. When properly integrated with operations security and other information-related capabilities, deception can be a decisive tool in altering how the enemy views, analyzes, decides, and acts in response to friendly military operations.

Some commentators highlighted the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has used American news media for propaganda purposes, most notably in a project known as “Operation Mockingbird.” At the time, the CIA admittedly hired at least 400 journalists to serve its aims, in part by writing “fake stories,” according to the journalist who exposed the scandal in 1977.

Independence is the essence of our reputation as a “stateless” global news organisation and fundamental to the trust that allows us to report impartially from all sides of a conflict or dispute. It is crucial to our ability to report on companies, institutions and individuals in the financial markets, many of whom are also our customers, without regard for anything other than accuracy, balance and the truth. Our independence stems not only from the structure of Reuters but also from our duty as journalists to avoid conflicts of interest or situations that could give rise to a perception of a conflict.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK Could Weaken Online Censorship Law To Avoid US Trade Battle

Published on February 12, 2025

By

logo

By Dan Frieth

London weighs free speech against trade as Washington pressures Labour to amend online censorship laws.

As European leaders scramble to shield their economies from impending US tariffs, the UK’s Labour government appears ready to make significant concessions. Facing the risk of economic fallout, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration has reportedly signaled to Washington that it is open to revising the controversial and dangerous Online Safety Act — legislation critics have described as an aggressive censorship regime.
The Act, which gives UK regulators the power to fine tech companies for failing to remove vaguely defined “harmful content,” has been a major point of contention between the two allies and has become a major threat to free speech online. The Trump administration has been especially vocal in its opposition, viewing the law as an affront to free speech and a potential financial burden on US tech giants.
According to The Telegraph:
“Downing Street is willing to renegotiate elements of the Act in order to strike a trade deal, should it be raised by the US, The Telegraph understands. The law has been heavily criticized by free speech advocates and economists, who argue its broad provisions to tackle harmful online content could lead to excessive censorship and deter investment from American tech giants.”
The Online Safety Act arms UK media regulator Ofcom with sweeping new authority over social media platforms, enabling the imposition of multimillion-pound fines for failing to police content according to government directives. While supporters claim the law is necessary to protect users, critics argue that its vague wording and punitive approach encourage preemptive censorship — where platforms remove lawful content simply to avoid regulatory punishment.
President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has intensified scrutiny of the law. The president, who has been highly critical of social media censorship, has surrounded himself with influential voices in the tech world, including Elon Musk, whose platform, X, is already preparing to challenge Ofcom’s authority.
“Another source close to the Trump’s (sic) administration suggested the act was viewed as ‘Orwellian’ in the US and could become a flashpoint in negotiations. ‘To many people that are currently in power, they feel the United Kingdom has become a dystopian, Orwellian place where people have to keep silent about things that aren’t fashionable,’ they said. ‘The administration hate it [Online Safety Act]. Congress has been saying that [it is a concern] ever since it was enacted. Those in the administration are saying the exact same thing.’”
Musk has publicly condemned the Act, and with Ofcom set to gain new enforcement powers in March, tensions between US tech firms and the UK government are likely to escalate. The entrepreneur recently welcomed Trump’s presidency as a potential counterweight to the UK’s regulatory crackdown.
Free speech advocates on both sides of the Atlantic have long warned that Britain’s approach to online regulation represents a stark departure from the First Amendment protections enjoyed in the US. The Free Speech Union and groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argue that the law’s restrictions on “harmful but legal” speech will lead to widespread content suppression, limiting open debate and investigative journalism.
Lord Young of Acton, the founder of the Free Speech Union, underscored the looming confrontation between UK regulators and US tech leaders:
“If that happens, Trump will side with his tech bros and tell Sir Keir that if he wants a trade deal, he’ll call off his dogs.”
Labour has previously doubled down on online regulation, with its election manifesto promising additional measures to “keep everyone safe online.” However, in the face of potential US trade repercussions, the government’s stance appears to be softening.
From Washington’s perspective, the Online Safety Act has become an obstacle to trade negotiations, raising concerns that UK regulatory overreach could deter American investment. Andrew Hale, a trade policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, confirmed that this issue has been a recurring theme in discussions with US officials.
“Every meeting I have to discuss trade policy with people either in the administration or Congress, they always raise that. They say, ‘This is a huge roadblock’.”
With Ofcom’s enforcement powers set to take effect soon, Britain faces a fundamental choice: cling to its stringent online censorship policies or prioritize economic cooperation with the US. The decision could shape the future of free speech in the UK for years to come.
You subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.
Thank you.
Continue Reading

Trending

X