The United Nations Global Principles for Information Integrity, recommendations for

multi-stakeholder action. And the reason that we are doing this is because
information integrity is the new branding word for censorship. Information
integrity, as you guys may have heard me talk about many times, means creating a
cartel for control over information. By saying that information can be chopped into
two different categories depending on the integrity of the information, whether
it's true or false, whether it's good information like what the New York Times
prints or misinformation. And those two categories are high integrity news, high
integrity social media accounts, or low integrity news and low information in
social media, low integrity social media accounts. And information integrity is the
brand phrase for creating that censorship blacklist, that whitelist, blacklist,
graylist system, where high integrity information gets whitelisted and you're
allowed to post it, or share it, or monetize it. Anything that's against Trump is
high integrity. Low integrity, like what the PLEBs say, like with populists, like
what nationalists, like what pro-Trump people say. That's low integrity. So
information integrity just means censorship. And integrity is a big branding word
for them. The election integrity partnership, for example, the censorship vehicle
for the 2020 election, the transition integrity project, for example, which is the
vehicle for planning rental riots in case Trump won the 2020 election. The
integrity initiative, the plan to censor the literally global cabal with cluster
cells in every NATO country to censor the internet after the Crimea annexation and
referendum vote of 2014 that involved everything from Nina Jankovits to Ann
Applebaum to Ben Nimo. The works. So recently the UN put out a global principles
for information integrity. And last stream we mentioned this in brief because
global principles, if you remember, the SEPPS program showed that this is exactly
how they codify, now they use rule of law programs to codify laws from these USAID-
funded rule of law program judge networks. They start by getting 50, 100, 200 NGOs
to sign a letter announcing their global principles that announce the norms and
standards and they get the judges and their legislatures to pass laws and judicial
precedents that codify those norms and standards and the global principles into
law. Because remember that from last stream we went over that whole thing with the
CEPPS program and they gave examples about how to get a rule of law predicate for
censorship laws. Well, here's the UN one. Let me tell you why this is interesting.
I posted this clip on X a couple months ago. This is Imran Ahmed. This is the head
of CCDH, the Center for Countering Digital Hate. They're the ones who did the
disinformation dozen for nuking the 12 biggest influencers challenging the COVID
orthodoxies, challenging vaccines, how they got them kicked off of Twitter,
YouTube, Facebook, all simultaneously. CCDH is a British intelligence operation.
Its chairman was, I believe, Simon Clark, who was at the Atlanta Council with seven
CIA directors on board, annual funding from the Pentagon State Department, USAID.
They are the ones who ended up in the... If you guys remember this, Paul Thacker
broke this in a great report. Their annual priorities, CCDH, was kill Musk's
Twitter as their number one priority to their donors. This is the same British-
based intelligence network around Christopher Steele and Richard Deere Love. When
Musk got rid of the censorship, their plan was to kill Musk Twitter, bankrupt the
company, focus on advertising, advertising focus, trigger EU and UK regulatory
action against disinformation and progress towards change in USA and support for
STAR. STAR is their framework. Let me show what I mean here. CCDH STAR framework
for stopping misinformation. Okay. stopping misinformation. CCDH is global standard
for regulating social media companies. Just stop. Free speech. Star framework, a
global standard for regulating social media. This is the CEO, Imran Ahmed.
Platforms monetize content. So again, it's about killing the money. Date on the
psychology of the users. So the whole thing is about stopping misinformation on
critical issues like COVID-19, climate change, and elections. So this is a British
influence operation to censor your ability to challenge things like COVID-19,
climate change, orthodoxy, or election fraud. So here's the Star framework. Safety
by design, a preventative system approach to harm. So that's going to mean things
like building in AI filters, the kind of stuff that News Guard supplies, the kind
of stuff that the State Department advises on what the trending narratives are and
then the AI should go into pre-sensory. Transparency meaning that X has to give up
their algorithms, their rules enforcement meaning whether they're taking down the
accounts that the blob wants them to take down. And transparency specifically
related to advertising, so they have to give up their whole business model so that
the blob knows how best to target them and press into their pain points.
Accountability to, A, for accountability to democratic and independent bodies.
Accountability means punishment by the government. So the government can punish
them if they continue to monetize long think accounts or don't censor who they're
told to censor. And then responsibility for companies and their senior executives.
Again, this whole thing is targeted to Elon Musk as a senior executive of X and
Mark Zuckerberg as a senior executive of Facebook, for example. Final element is
responsibility for social media and search engine companies, for implementing
duties under a legislative framework. So again, this is censorship laws that the UK
is trying to impose on the US. Responsibility means consequences for actions and
failure to act. So punishing the companies and the senior executives that they
don't censor what this British intelligence outfit wants them to censor. And you'll
see here, as we showed, progress towards change in USA and support for stars. So
this British Intelop, just like with the Christopher Steele dossier, is trying to
get this censorship law framework put in place in the United States. And you'll see
here, U.S. policy engagement, set up meetings with Amy Klobuchar's team, the
influential Democratic Senator who ran for president against Joe Biden, if you
remember. So they're working with U.S. senators to get support in Congress for
censorship laws that blatantly violate the First Amendment of the United States.
Well, now they've got Trump as president and a Republican majority in both the
House and the Senate. So that avenue of attack for them has dried up. So they're
moving up the chain to the United Nations. So imagine my shock when I find this
video from just a couple months ago with Imran Ahmed, CEO of CCDH, telling the
United Nations, it doesn't matter which policy issue is central to your concerns.
Internet censorship is the key to winning all of them. Here's what he says. You
know, it doesn't matter which policy issue is central to your concerns. Internet
censorship is the key to winning all of them. Here's what he says. You know, it
doesn't matter which policy issue is central to your concerns about the future.
Fixing the disorder in our information ecosystem has become integral to the
solution. If you care about climate, then you worry about a tidal wave of climate
disinformation designed to undermine the scientific consensus, a stride which our
felly mae'n ddweud o'r cyfnodau cyfnodau cyfnodau sy'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r
cyfnodau cyfnodau o bwysig. So how is this happening? Well look, good information
is as vital to the body politic as good nutrition is to our physical bodies. That's
why Newsguard advertises off as news nutrition labels. Okay, so understand what
he's saying. He is surrounded by policy makers who don't really care about
censorship. They care about their own issues. They care about a carbon tax, that's
what they're lobbying for. They care about abortion, they care about more funding
for the Ukraine war. He's saying, listen, you guys should all support my censorship
initiative, because no matter what your issue is, think about how helpful it would
be if you could just censor the other side. And your narrative dominates because no
one can oppose you. So this is like a big tent thing, guys. You don't have to care
about any particular thing. You don't have to care about, you know, you don't have
to care free speech and censorship doesn't even have to be a part of your issue. No
matter what issue you're trying to get done, this is a very powerful gun I'm giving
you. If only you support my initiative to hand it to me. He's making a pitch to
everyone from the war industry to the vaccine industry to the climate change
industry to the LGBT and identity group industry saying we all need to come
together because every issue you can win by censoring the other side. And you'll
see actually in this longer video if you run it, he then has a panel discussion
with people like Ann Marie Slaughter from the State Department. I'm just going to
read a couple things here or play a little bit here. Before Ann Marie comes in,
just really briefly on that, just to add, I mean, one of the calls to action in our
UN Global Principles is also to PR companies and advertising companies. And that
is, you know, it's really hard to understand why they would advertise in these
spaces because they have very, through this programmatic advertising system, very
little control of where their ads land. I know Imran's organization has tracked a
lot of these ads and pointed out to big brands that they're appearing next to
misogynist, hateful, anti-Semitic content. And yet it can, but there is a growing
movement to expose. And anyone who challenges Ukraine funding,
anyone who challenges climate change funding. Now this is, let me show you a
little bit here. This panel is people like Ann Marie Slaughter, Director of Policy
Planning for the State Department, that's that interstitial node between State and
CIA, that's who synchronizes State Department and CIA policy at the State
Department. Jared Cohen was there, for example. George Kennan was there. They're
going after the advertisers. Now she references this UN Global Principles thing.
And I want to just go over this document, okay, because they're going upstream
because now the ability to get this star framework introduced as a bill here in
Congress is running dry. They're going upstream to an international body like the
UN to get it done that way. And just so you see, they really were trying for this.
Let me show you what I mean by this. Middleware News Guard. Let me show you this.
Opinion, what I learned on my quest to fix America's social media problem, this is
by Gordon Krovitz, the co-founder of News Guarduard, co-founder, co-CEO of
NewsGuard. And what he was saying is that NewsGuard, the social media and
advertiser blacklist, to kill the money in the private sector for any social media
company or news site that supports or publishes or allows the publication of
misinformation. To drive them into bankruptcy, what he says is middleware. So
that's basically putting companies like NewsGuard in the middle between the
advertisers and the social media companies. It could be the solution to our tech
woes, but Congress is going to have to force the internet companies to do it. We
need a censorship law that compels, there's not a market for my product, my
censorship product on its own, but if Congress can compel the social media
companies to adopt a middleware model and then there's seven or eight different
companies you can choose from to get your, to license your censorship blacklist
from. Then it can work. And this is what CCDH is trying to achieve at the
legislative level. And you see them meeting with Amy Klobuchar, another high level
Democrats to make this happen. So let's look at these global principles. So, again,
they're doing the whole thing under this concept of information integrity.
Information integrity. High integrity versus low integrity, news information.
That's what they're going, that's the way that they are justifying the murder. And
to show you how this dovetails and other things, let me show you this. That was the
name of the Interagency Working Group in the Biden administration. My organization
published this at FFO. It was called the White House Information Integrity Research
and Development Working Group. So again, it's just operations. But they're calling
it research. Okay. Now this interagency working group on information integrity, the
same thing that the UN is calling its report, information integrity, had 26
agencies a part of it. Who are these agencies? 26 agencies all working on internet
censorship. The CIA. You guys see this? The CIA was advising on information
integrity. DHS, the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, DARPA, IRPA,
the NIH, the National Science Foundation, the National Security Council, the NSA,
USAID, and then you'll notice the same National Science Foundation funded
censorship labs like Kate Starbridge University of Washington and Renee DiResta and
Alex Stamos and Michael McFauls Stanford. On the outside advised by ADL, Anchor
Change, which is Katie Harbath's vehicle, the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, which is the Bill Burns CIA vehicle, the Integrity Institute, and News
guard. Okay? So this is very real. It's a very real threat that's coming now above
the U.S. government. It's coming at the international level. The U.S. is a part of
the U.N. I want the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. to nuke this from orbit. It's
supposed to be at least a phonic serving as U.S. Ambassador, but it looks like it's
been withdrawn. Interesting. But the US ambassador, the UN has to get this thing
killed, because this is absolutely insane. Look at this. Let's go to it. Okay.
Information integrity and the UN sustainable development goals. So these are these
SDGs that everyone talks about. We have to stop public figures, activists,
scientists and broadcasters from becoming targets of hate speech for their efforts
to provide information. Basically if you write a hit piece on any one of their
assets, you get nuked under this. So it's all these jargon words that you guys have
heard a million times. Resilience, psychological resilience, digital resilience.
And this includes principles that apply to governments, media, civil society
organizations, the NGOs and universities, and for-profit corporations including
advertising and PR, to align with these principles. UN, UNESCO, UN Plan of Action,
they got all these people on board. So here's their five principles, which again
they want to then use these principles that they're articulating and codify them
into law with things like the EU Digital Services Act, the Digital Censorship Act,
the UK Online Harmony Bill, the UK Censorship Law, bringing the star framework to
the US. Societal trust and resilience. So trust means trust the media. Never
question them. Resilience means being resilient against misinformation
psychologically. Healthy and sense means controlling the money flows, rewarding
good sensors and rewarding platforms that censor speech, and punishing depriving of
financing anyone who doesn't do that. And then of course government funding of
media and funding the whole censorship army that uses the cloak of course
government funding of media and funding the whole censorship army that uses the
cloak of just doing research even though we're taking stuff down. Advertisers,
advertisers, advertisers. Here's what they want to protect. Activists, journalists.
Think about that. Activists. You know, for every activist on one side of an issue,
there's an activist on the other side of the issue. You think they're gonna treat
all activists the same? You think they're gonna treat activists trying to promote
paper ballots as activists by this definition? You think they're going to include
anti-vaccine activists in the same way that they would treat pro-vaccine activists?
No, they're going to include anti-vaccine activists in the same way that they would
treat pro-vaccine activists? No. They're picking winners and losers in every one of
these. By journalists, do you think they mean Matt Taiibi and Michael
Schellenberger and Miranda Devine and James O'Keefe? No. It means they're asset
ones. Scientists medical professionals. Let's get to the advertising. I want to get
more to the advertising. Healthy incentives. Healthy. It's unhealthy to allow you
to make money. Creating healthy incentives involves addressing the critical
implications for information ecosystem integrity. All that gobbly work, gobbly
gook, again that just means bankrupting anyone who doesn't censor First Amendment
protected speech, which depend on targeted advertising and other forms of content
monetization as the dominant means of revenue generation. So they're coming for the
revenue, the UN. These models have provided unprecedented growth opportunities for
businesses of all sizes. Great, let's keep it going. What's wrong? Oh, you guys are
losing politically, so that's why you need to stop this thing that allowed
unprecedented growth for social media companies. Oh, because you're losing
elections and because people don't believe you're bullshitting anymore. Oh, I guess
we need to stop global growth then. Have given rise to a creator economy powered by
embedded and countless people. That's the problem. It's too many people, including
bad people. These models have enabled financial incentives and opportunities for
purveyors of disinformation, who exploit the attention economy. You mean they just
publish what's on their mind? Feeding algorithm, prioritizing engagement, and to
maximize potential revenue for advertisers and creators. Messaging designed to
polarize. You mean have a different opinion? Different opinion than you, though,
right? That's the problem. And produce strong emotions. Oh my God. There's never
clickbait in the Washington Post or the New York Times. MSNBC never tries to
generate strong emotions. Actors exploiting these business models. You're no longer
a human posting your opinion. You are a cyber threat actor. Include information
manipulators and mainstream public relations firms contracted by states, political
figures, and private sector entities. The technology sector has designed digital
advertising processes to be complex and opaque so minimal human oversight. Yeah,
that's what makes it egalitarian. This is advantageous to many actors in the ad
tech supply chain, with large companies profiting most of all. Such opaque design
can lead to advertising budgets inadvertently funding individuals, entities, or
ideas that advertisers might not have intended to support. Or maybe they would
support it if they didn't fear blowback from the fucking UN coalition cracking down
on their company if they allow advertising that promotes a political candidate that
the UN doesn't want to rise to power. And that's what this is about. The handful of
companies who dominate ad tech are responsible for implementing ad standards on
their own platforms. But enforcement can be patching inconsistent. They don't
censor, they don't demonetize every single person we want them to. That's our
problem. Such erosion of information integrity highlights the need for a
fundamental shift in incentive structures. This is the same shit they were doing in
2017. If you remember, we went over the D4 video defending democracy from digital
disinformation when the fucking CIA, Chris Walker at the National Down for
Democracy, and Michael Chertoff cornered Google and Facebook in the room and told
them they
need to fundamentally re-engineer the economics of the news industry to stop pro-
Trump voices from rising because unfiltered alternative news gives rise to
populism, don't you know? So it's about coercing the advertisers. That's how you
kill Musk's Twitter as we saw CCDH demand. Now let's get into the more specifics
and... Okay. For tech companies, change your policies on advertising. Re-evaluate
business models. Get away from the advertisers. Establish independent oversight.
Commission regular external human rights independent audits which cover terms of
service and community standards trust and safety and advertising policies. The
impact of advertising across operational contexts. So as content moderation.
Enforce advertising policies. Establish publicize and enforce clear and robust
policies on advertising and the monetization of content. Review publisher and
advertising tech partnerships on an ongoing basis to see whether such policies are
upheld by partners in the ad tech supply chain. They want the whole supply chain,
the supply side of the advertiser exchanges, the demand side of the advertiser
exchanges, the social media company output and distribution and the social media
accounts as to whether they're monetized. Every link in the chain they want
controlled. And then tell us where it's all going so we know how to put pressure on
the appropriate links in the chain. Establish recommendations. Establish human
rights responsible advertising. Establish safeguards to ensure that advertising
does not drive risks to information spaces. Advertise with media and outlets that
bolster information integrity, including public interest journalism through
messages such as inclusion and exclusion lists. Add verification tools and manual
vetting. Require ad tech companies to publish criteria that a channel or website
must adhere to before they are able to monetize, and only give the advertising
dollars to media outlets and platforms that bolster information integrity, that are
high information integrity news sources. Basically, the exact same thing that we
saw with GEC, what they want is a final state that looks exactly like what the
Global Engagement Center was working hard to do. Inclusion andlusion lists. You
guys see that? Inclusion and Exclusion lists for advertising and only advertise
with media outlets and platforms that are good for information integrity. And here
is your Global Engagement Center. Inclusion list NPR, New York Times, Washington
Post, and Exclusion List. Daily Wire, the Blaze, OAN, Newsmax. This has got to be
addressed at the UN level. The US Ambassador to the EU, the US Ambassador to the
UN, the US ambassador to NATO, all of it because they know control of the money
supply is what drives incentives at the corporate level. That's why they all hate
me because I'm unplugging their government money supply. But they're going to step
beyond that. They're trying to unplug, because none of us are funded by the
government. None of us are getting government grants and contracts. They were. They
were subsidized. They were super boosted. But they don't even want us to be able to
finance each other based on what we like. They want to step into the private
sector. That way X goes bankrupt. It kills Musk's Twitter if he allows accounts
like mine or yours or anyone who is pro-populist to be monetized. So this is a UN
plot in motion to do this. Form coalitions, advertising and content monitoring.
Require data through audits of advertising. Obligate transparency so that we know
exactly how to micro-target your weaknesses. Look at this, 60 times in a 40-page
document, 60 times in a 40-page document. how to micro-target your weaknesses.