I had to make a decision at the time what to share, and more importantly what not to share. The US and RU influence systens were in their formative years. Gaddafi had to approve me, which he did because of my father. In 2010, I represented Gaddafi’s LJBC on propaganda issues during the regime change. BUT, freedom only works if people protect the system, not their self-interests.
#WAR THUNDER LEAKS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FREE#
Tech companies censoring Americans and destroying the system upon which America is built? Party time!įreedom means being free to disagree and yes, extreme disagreement can cause security issues. The retired DoD official on a Board helping to direct 2nd / 3rd tier tech to victory? An adverdary’s dream come true.Ī tech company taking money from hostile nations to make revenue? Mouth watering. Self-interest is what allows Americans to profit despite the harm it does to the very same national security that protects their freedom. What allows an adversary to attack from within, whether it was 9/11 or election interference, is self-interest. They did not use airplanes or take off from Iraq or Afghanistan.
GADDAFI: "The terrorists who hit New York were not Afghani. #departmentofdefense #statedepartment #cisa #fbi #dhs #cdc #disinformation #propaganda #cognitive NATO Innovation HubĪ reminder where threats come from: Right here in the US. It only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do-contacting social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms. Although this Preliminary Injunction involves numerous agencies, it is not as broad as it appears. "Plaintiffs are likely to prove that all of the enjoined Defendants coerced, significantly encouraged, and/or jointly participated social-media companies to suppress social-media posts by American citizens that expressed opinions that were anti-COVID-19 vaccines, anti-COVID-19 lockdowns, posts that delegitimized or questioned the results of the 2020 election, and other content not subject to any exception to the First Amendment. These items are protected free speech and were seemingly censored because of the viewpoints they expressed. Viewpoint discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny. Should of, would of, could of used Veriphix Belief3, but maybe its better at this point if we don't work for the government. NOTHING in the injunction prevents the US from protecting the elections with tech that works. The problem is the government officials relied on the technology and now face the repercussions of it not working. Good intentions and working with what they had, but the problem was the tech failed. They resorted to reporting hashtags and in so doing violated American's right to free speech. contracts did NOT have tech that was able to find and identify adversary networks.
The vendors who serviced the State GEC, CISA, FBI, etc. Make no mistake, this problem was caused by the failure of technology. The Biden Administration loses its bid to stay the Missouri social media injunction pending appeal.
0 kommentar(er)
