There has been a great deal of increased discussion surrounding the issues of automated Artificial Intelligence, colloquially called “AI.”

At the central core of the AI issues in communication; you inevitably enter a discussion on the issue of definitions and terms.  Who is determining the definitions of what constitutes valid information? Who is determining what types of information are not valid, not approved for communication networks and how are their definitions being applied?

A solid and short-read thread on the assembly of people, groups and institutions surrounding the issue of AI in communication and media is presented HERE.

[Article/Thread LINK]

The topic of AI in general is a very large conversation.  The topic of AI specific to communication is equally large and perhaps even more significant.

AI applied to communication must first establish a need for it to exist.  Within that discussion, government interests and corporate interests take large seats at the table.  Social media platforms, communication outlets, almost the entire technology sector and various special interest groups are also stakeholders in the discussion of how AI can be applied to the filtering of information – or what I would more appropriately call the CONTROL of information.

The predicate of the conversation jumps around a little, but the issue of defining reality is throughout the discussion.  This is where my prior warnings about defining information must be emphasized.  I am losing the current argument, but I retain optimism that eventually the control mechanisms will need to be destroyed by a generation that falls under its influence.

“There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation” or “malinformation”.  There is only information.  There is information you accept and information you do not accept.  You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”

(more…)

In a previous ruling in the case of The State of Missouri v Joe Biden, Judge Terry Doughty agreed with the state position that evidence had clearly shown agencies of the U.S. government had infringed upon First Amendment free speech in targeting social media companies with demands for content removal. [Ruling and Injunction pdf]

The social media companies outlined in the state lawsuit include Facebook, Instagram, Meta Platforms Inc, Twitter, Google and YouTube.  Evidence provided by the states showed clear and convincing evidence the government was unlawfully monitoring social media and telling the platforms to remove content adverse to their interests.

The judge outlined an emergency injunction barring government agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI from talking to 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” under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The ruling provided narrow exceptions.

Obviously, given the scale of government involved censorship of speech within social media, the injunction was a major loss to the Biden regime, who operate -in part- with the benefit of controlling public opinion and information.  The judicial ruling disrupts the ability of the Biden administration to censor the online speech of Americans.

As a result of the injunction, the DOJ is now asking Judge Doughty to stay or pause his injunction while the government files a full appeal to the 5th circuit court of appeals.

(Reuters) –  The Biden administration on Thursday asked a federal judge to put on hold his earlier order barring some government agencies and officials from meeting and communicating with social media companies about moderating their content.

(more…)

An awful lot of the people who live in a world of affluence and influence afforded by professional republican politics do not like Laura Loomer.  However, what she had accomplished with sunlight on their backroom operations deserves a lot of respect.

Earlier today Laura Loomer appeared on the Steve Bannon podcast to review the California scheme to shape the primary delegate distribution. {Direct Rumble Link} Loomer and Bannon also apply the lessons from the 2016 Cruz operation to the 2024 goals and objectives of the DeSantis operation.  Both are correct in that much of what we are seeing is a replay of that same crew.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

Like watching a video with the sound turned off, if you are to stand back away from the distractions of the media presentation, and just look at raw data in the form of actions being taken by those who circle the world of politics, the activity points to something disconnected from the official narrative.

All of the individual components of visible activity can be accepted as they are, or they can be interpreted into a picture of what they might be.

Examples include travel and visits by political entities, changes in the dates for the 2024 presidential primaries, assemblies of groups and supporters in specific constructs and various other indications of a duality within purpose.

Throughout our analysis of the preferred ’24 outcome by those in the background who ultimately seek to control elections through the activity of front men, those artfully skilled at presenting the illusion of choice, it has always looked like the RNC/DNC preferred presentation was a Ron DeSantis -v- Gavin Newsom (win/win) contest.

The landscape of the ’24 election would then be reduced to “social issues” as distinctions between the two faces of the contest, while the economics of things – the substantive part – carries a far lesser contrast. An almost identical replay to the attempted 2016 construct of Hillary -v- Jeb.

(more…)

For two days Bannon Warroom frequent guest, Attorney Mike Davis, has been trying desperately to defend his friend, RNC Committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon, for her participation in a California GOP scheme to support Ron DeSantis with proportional delegates.

In a series of Tweets and statements, Mike Davis continually said he had firsthand knowledge the Trump campaign was aware of the rule change and did not contest it. However, Davis refused to say who on the Trump campaign had this knowledge and seemingly approved the delegate plan without challenge.

Mr. Davis became increasingly unhinged when questioned about the issue, because it just did not make sense; yet, Davis continued to claim the Trump campaign was aware.

It became increasingly obvious to those watching the repeated desperate denials that something was afoot, and it just did not reconcile. In short, the most likely scenario was that Mike Davis was being dishonest and less than fulsome with his statements.  However, despite his credibility hanging in the balance, Mike Davis publicly continued to stick to his guns.

By the end of the second day, he really had no option; he had painted himself into a corner. When asked again last night by myself and others, he responded, “Why would I ever reveal the names of loyal Trump workers—names told to me in confidence?”  Apparently painting the mysterious campaign workers as loyal to Trump, even though the rule they seemingly approved would be unfavorable to President Trump.

After Harmeet Dhillon began her own retreat, it became obvious the fabrications were soon to collapse. Mike Davis modified slightly clarifying that President Trump personally was unaware. “I never said President Trump saw or approved anything. I said the Trump campaign was briefed about the proposed rules change and didn’t object.”

UPDATE: Richard Baris (People’s Pundit) was able to contact the Trump campaign to ask them directly.  According to Baris relaying information from the campaign, the Trump Campaign was not aware of any California GOP rule changes and were not notified of the plan as designed by Jessica Patterson, Shawn Steel and Harmeet Dhillon, to change the delegate apportionments.

Mr. Mike Davis, the former Chief Counsel for judicial nominations to Senator Chuck Grassley, former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch and frequent guest on the Steve Bannon Warroom podcast, lied in all his public statements.

Mike Davis wants to be the next Trump appointed Attorney General for the United States. Take from that, what you will.

(more…)

Something about this doesn’t pass the proverbial sniff test, and when asked for a direct answer – well, things get salty.

For two days a self-proclaimed Trump advisor and frequent guest on the Steve Bannon Warroom podcast, Mike Davis, has claimed that President Trump and the Trump campaign authorized a California GOP rule change that would permit proportional delegate distribution against the interests of President Trump.

The claim itself made no sense because, if Mike Davis and Harmeet Dhillon were correct, essentially Trump would be approving a GOP change that would give delegates to his GOP nomination competition – namely Ron DeSantis.  Mr. Davis was asked to explain who specifically from the Trump campaign authorized and approved of the plan.

Mr. Davis refused to answer the question publicly, which, as normal, created additional suspicions about the validity of the claim.  More and more people started to pay attention and put the question out, because, well, quite frankly, it just doesn’t make sense.

Instead of responding simply and publicly to the question, and saying who in the Trump campaign knew about, authorized and approved the California plan, Mike Davis responded with the following Direct Message: “Go fuck yourself.”

(more…)

I added a NOTE about Musk’s nonsense justification.

If the lessons of COVID-19 have taught us anything, it should be that each step the totalitarian dictatorships take -under the guise of protecting new democratic norms- must be viewed through the prism of future targeting.

We should pay attention, lest we find ourselves on the alternate side of populist uprisings under state targeting.

I sent the prior warning message around the collaboration between private industry and western government surrounding financial restrictions placed on Russia. When VISA, Mastercard and other payment mechanisms willingly and willfully supported the intentions of the Western Government coalition, few people thought about the Rubicon this new merge and partnership was establishing. {SEE HERE} In essence, private industry determining the lifestyle of Russian citizens in an effort to target their political leadership. Few people were paying attention, fewer still think long term.

With France now pledging to shut down internet communication in an effort to control organizing through social media, there is a bigger picture that must be considered.

[SOURCE – Translated from French]

Let me take you back to 2010 and 2011 when the U.S. State Department, Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, CIA Director Leon Panetta and French President Nicholas Sarkozy wanted to support the Islamist Spring uprisings in Tunis, Libya, Egypt and Yemen.

What happened then is very much related to what we are seeing right now in Europe, specifically France; only this time we are seeing the inverse of the government interests regarding social media on display.

(more…)

Representative Byron Donalds (MAGA – SWFL) brings an important point to the audience at a local townhall.  The issue of institutional corruption, and the total lack of faith and confidence in the institutions of our government, are at the forefront of the electorate.  Representative Donalds is challenged about the intent of the MAGA republican legislators and what must be done about the transparency of corruption we all witness and know to exist.

During his response, Donalds notes a key distinction.  The MAGA coalition saw what the 2010 Tea Party conservatives went through. The MAGA coalition saw and sees what President Trump has gone through.  The MAGA coalition is delivering a message to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and others, that those who stand on the principles of anti-corrupt influence are not concerned with the perks, benefits, affluence and legislative influence that DC uses to diminish their opposition.

As noted by Donalds sharing his discussions with Kevin McCarthy, the MAGA coalition is in place -in their face- to effect change and remove the corruption, not participate in the process to give the illusion of change.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

The Twitter platform decisions are making headlines and opening conversation, because Elon Musk is trying to retain his platform against all odds and not really working to solve his problem.  Several platform changes are taking place that are being less than honestly explained.  As interested CTH readers look on quizzically, perhaps it’s time for me to revisit the truth of Musk’s challenge as it has always existed so people can understand. [NBC ARTICLE HERE, that doesn’t understand]

Keep in mind, long before people realized the Dept of Homeland Security (FBI, DHS, CISA etc.) had a portal into Twitter, I was explaining how transparently obvious it was. {Go Deep – Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop} In part, the transparency of the problem is driven by CTH understanding of the costs associated with Twitter as a very unique platform in the sphere of social media. {Go Deep – Understand the Costs}

With the latest revelations we shared about the financial position of Twitter {Go Deep on FINANCIALS}, all of the moves now underway make sense.  Musk was on track to hit a date in/around October of this year where Twitter would be insolvent. If you had read those previous “Go Deep” links, you will easily see the problem. However, if you have not read those backgrounds, this could be difficult to understand.

[Source Link]

Musk is being disingenuous in his explanation here.  I’m being generous in not calling him a fibber.  His problem is multifaceted, and he is looking at it with two approaches.

First, by Musk’s prior admissions, he’s losing approximately $300 million/month and needs to grow revenue fast.  That’s why he hired Linda Yaccarino.  Second, he’s trying desperately to reduce operational costs for data processing.  Twitter has a systemic platform cost issue that will not change easily – due to his very unique issue of “simultaneous users,” in combination with no proprietary content.  That’s where he is being less than honest about these changes.

Twitter is a global discussion platform, essentially a global commenting system.  Elon Musk is trying to address the cost and utility of his platform at the same time that a similarly constructed META alternative is about to launch.  Yes, Mark Zuckerberg is JUST ABOUT to launch a Twitter version of META that will link Facebook, Instagram, and Google YouTube content into one big instant conversation and commenting system.

(more…)

After a legal debate about standing in the case of Biden v Nebraska, the Supreme Court took up the issue of whether the President could unilaterally forgive student debt without an act of Congress.  In a 6-3 ruling {pdf here}, the court determined the executive authority of the Dept of Education did not permit such action.

Joe Biden campaigned in 2020 on a promise to eliminate student debt unilaterally, without congressional approval.  The court opinion released today affirms that Congress must be involved in their role as decision-makers of federal spending.  Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

[SCOTUS BLOG] – […] When the Biden administration announced the program in August 2022, student-loan repayments had already been on hold for over two years. Betsy DeVos, who served as the secretary of education during the Trump administration, suspended both repayments and the accrual of interest on federal student loans at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. She relied on the HEROES Act, a law passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that gives the secretary of education the power to respond to a national emergency by “waiv[ing] or modify[ing] any statutory or regulatory provision” governing the student-loan programs so that borrowers are not worse off financially because of the emergency.

(more…)