Tucker Carlson har lavet århundredets interview. Ikke med Putin, men med Mike Benz, der giver en formidabel forelæsning i, hvorledes de amerikanske efterretningstjenester har formet internettet og hvorledes de i forskrækkelse over Trump og Brexit desperat har strammet grebet, som stadigt flere systemer glider ud mellem dets fingre
Elon Musk delte også interviewet med ordene “Without free speech, all is lost.” og tilføjede lidt senere
The public still doesn’t understand even a tiny fraction of the power of the censorship government-industrial complex.
As predicted, my companies and I came under relentless attack the moment the censorship of this platform was lifted.
How far will they go to stop me?
Musk har som sagt set ned i maskinrummet, som han erhvervede sig Twitter, nu X. Jacob Spiegel skrev, som sædvanligt, fremragende i Tablet
In his last days in office, President Barack Obama made the decision to set the country on a new course. On Dec. 23, 2016, he signed into law the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, which used the language of defending the homeland to launch an open-ended, offensive information war.
Something in the looming specter of Donald Trump and the populist movements of 2016 reawakened sleeping monsters in the West. Disinformation, a half-forgotten relic of the Cold War, was newly spoken of as an urgent, existential threat. Russia was said to have exploited the vulnerabilities of the open internet to bypass U.S. strategic defenses by infiltrating private citizens’ phones and laptops. The Kremlin’s endgame was to colonize the minds of its targets, a tactic cyber warfare specialists call “cognitive hacking.”
Defeating this specter was treated as a matter of national survival. “The U.S. Is Losing at Influence Warfare,” warned a December 2016 article in the defense industry journal, Defense One. The article quoted two government insiders arguing that laws written to protect U.S. citizens from state spying were jeopardizing national security. According to Rand Waltzman, a former program manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, America’s adversaries enjoyed a “significant advantage” as the result of “legal and organizational constraints that we are subject to and they are not.”
The point was echoed by Michael Lumpkin, who headed the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), the agency Obama designated to run the U.S. counter-disinformation campaign. Lumpkin singled out the Privacy Act of 1974, a post-Watergate law protecting U.S. citizens from having their data collected by the government, as antiquated. “The 1974 act was created to make sure that we aren’t collecting data on U.S. citizens. Well, … by definition the World Wide Web is worldwide. There is no passport that goes with it. If it’s a Tunisian citizen in the United States or a U.S. citizen in Tunisia, I don’t have the ability to discern that … If I had more ability to work with that [personally identifiable information] and had access … I could do more targeting, more definitively, to make sure I could hit the right message to the right audience at the right time.”
The message from the U.S. defense establishment was clear: To win the information war—an existential conflict taking place in the borderless dimensions of cyberspace—the government needed to dispense with outdated legal distinctions between foreign terrorists and American citizens.
Jeg har tidligere undret mig over, hvorfor alting Trump endte i Rusland/Ukraine
Når man sløjfer spansk som sprog i gymnasiet, så kommer den spanske sprog-lærerforening på banen og retfærdiggør deres metier og taler om et generelt dannelsestab. Hvis typograferne bliver overflødige, vanker deres øretæver. Alle kæmper for deres eksistens, selv om verden rykker videre.
Det er gået op for mig, at det måske er en af grundene til at alting Trump vs Depp State ender i Rusland-Ukraine. Kupmagerne, der væltede Trump i 2020, var aldrig færdige med den Kolde Krig. De blev overflødige med sejren og Sovjets opløsning. Men de sad tungt i hele systemet og alle under dem havde gjort karriere ved at klatre op ad den ‘russiske’ ekspertise-stige.
Mannafort blev bøffet på noget lobbyarbejde, han havde lavet for russiske interesser i Ukraine, Flynn blev bøffet for at tale med den russiske ambassadør, Trump blev beskyldt for at have en gænge med russerne (Hillary emails handlede også om russerne), Eric Chiamella slog til, da Trump talte med Zelenski, Hunter computer lignede russiske disinformation.
Det er ikke departementet for Kinesiske Løjer i CIA, der lyver om, hvad han siger til Xi, det er ikke Mellemøst afdelingen i CIA der mener at han svigter Israel ved at aftale alt muligt med Kong Saud eller risikerer en atomkrig med Iran. Det er hele tiden noget med russerne.
De der kæmper mest desperat for deres eksistens, er villige til at overskride flest barrierer.
Den psykosociale dynamik er til stede, men hvor var jeg dog uskyldig. Forrige år skrev Mike Benz,
As a former State Department diplomat in charge of the “Big Tech” portfolio, I have had a privileged glimpse into the myriad forces driving modern Internet censorship. Having seen what Musk is up against first-hand, I feel little elation at the arrival of the Deus Ex Muskina.
From 2006 to 2016, censorship was an act. In the five years that followed, censorship became an industry. Its powerful stakeholders now span every major media conglomerate, every major online payment provider, every major US and UK college and university, hundreds of think tanks, NGOs and pressure groups, international regulatory and watchdog commissions, and is now firmly interwoven with the policies and operations of the US State Department, the Pentagon, and the intelligence services.
Musk seems only now to be glimpsing what he’s up against. Last week, tech investor and Facebook board member Marc Andreesen tweeted that online censorship will become increasingly standardized, moving “up the stack” into cloud platforms, email clients, browsers, and operating systems.
It’s already happening. Just this week, Google embedded AI censorship into its Google Docs word processor to add friction for users engaged in wrongspeak. Microsoft already changed its Windows terms of service in 2019 to ban PC users engaged in undefined “hate speech.” Last week, Andreesen himself was listed in a “hate speech tracker” maintained by the ex-Twitter employee who used digital forensics to doxx the real-life identity of the anonymous “Libs of Tik Tok” Twitter account.
Elon Musk replied to Andreesen’s dark prediction not with godlike omniscience, but rather with the shock of a young Candide breaking from Panglossian innocence: “Extremely concerning. Who is pushing this censorship/deplatforming? Very shadowy.”
Benz kunne også fortælle at Francis Fukuyama arbejde for CIA (det samme verdensbillede, gør alle folkeslag liberale), fortælle, hvorledes man forhåndscensurerede opslag på nettet, der kunne delegitimere sandsynligheden for at den røde bølge, en Republikansk jordskredssejr ved midtvejsvalget, kunne skifte til en blå, Demokratisk sejr og perspektivere hvorledes kunstig intelligens har ændret muligheden for censur
Hvis man vil se, hvorledes en ‘farve revolution’ bliver til, så er dokumentaren Bringing Down A Dictator befriende ærlig. Den er blevet til i Fukuyamas optimisme, hvor man troede at alting var på ved mod historiens endeligt, og så kunne man lige så godt dokumentere det så eftertiden blev lidt mindre kedelig
Jep, det er præsident Martin Sheen, der er speak og Mike Benz giver den et kommentarspor her, her og her.
Men der er håb, som Benz kører USAs kommende vicepræsident
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv et svar til Mere Benz-in da house – MONOKULTUR Annuller svar