newsarticles.media: Media Manipulation News

This woman challenged Sweden's lax paedophile laws. Now she's the one being prosecuted

Last year, a middle-aged man was filmed approaching a woman in a shopping centre. It was a sting. The man had expected to meet a woman he had been chatting to online who was offering up her three young children to be abused. But she was, in fact, a paedophile hunter – a decoy. He ran, and was captured on film. The decoy was part of a media organisation known as Dumpen (literally, "the dump"), set up in 2021 to highlight the terrible shortcomings of Sweden's laws on child abuse and defamation by exposing predators. As with every sting executed by Dumpen, both the film of the man being confronted and the numerous messages between him and the decoy were uploaded to its website. This particular individual was given the moniker "Mr Grey". Weeks after posting on Facebook, Angeliqa received a letter from the police, telling her to present herself at a station across the city for questioning. "I took a lawyer with me, and was interrogated about my victimisation of this man," [she said]. She is now one of a few people in Sweden to have been prosecuted for defamation, and is campaigning for a change to the law. Crucially, truth alone is not a defence: a statement can be defamatory under Swedish law even if it is accurate. Further, an archaic clause grants precedence to a person's dignity and honour – even if that person has been convicted of child abuse – over someone else's right to name them as a sexual predator of children.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on judicial system corruption and sexual abuse scandals.

The Case That Killed #MeToo in Sweden

In October 2017, [Cissi] Wallin posted a mirror selfie to her tens of thousands of followers on Instagram. "The powerful media man who drugged and raped me in 2006 is named Fredrik Virtanen," the caption began. Today – more than four years later – Mr. Virtanen has never been charged with any crime in connection to his encounter with Ms. Wallin. (He has denied her allegations.) She, meanwhile, is a convicted criminal, at risk of prison time. In 2019 she was charged with and convicted of defamation, after Mr. Virtanen reported her to the police. Other Swedish men have pursued similar tactics: At least 12 criminal convictions have followed of women who had told their own stories since the #MeToo movement began. And now, in what might be a low point in Ms. Wallin's quest for the right to speak about what she says happened to her, she's about to be prosecuted again – after self-publishing a memoir. Although the book doesn't name the man, if she's convicted, the government will seek to have all unsold hard copies of her book destroyed. Despite Mr. Virtanen's being one of the highest-profile writers at the country's largest newspaper, the court concluded that he was not enough of a public figure to justify public interest in his personal conduct. Ms. Wallin's posts, in other words, were not justifiable, and as a result, it didn't matter whether her account of their encounter was accurate. "The court will not review whether the statements were true," the verdict read.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on judicial system corruption and sexual abuse scandals.

Jonathan Haidt Brings New Evidence to the Battle Against Social Media

Jonathan Haidt did not expect to become the face of a global movement against social media. As Haidt's influence has grown, so, too, have objections from critics. At issue is his central claim that smartphones and social media are causing a mental health epidemic in young people. In research released this week, Haidt and his co-author, Zachary Rausch, claim to demonstrate causal links between social media platforms and the harms they say they are doing to children. Not just harms like anxiety and depression, but also frequent sexual harassment and cyberbullying. "The biggest, clearest one, I think, is sextortion," [said Haidt]. "That's the one that just stands out like a sore thumb. Kids, if they're on social media, they can get sextorted. If they're not, they can't, really. And the kids who get sextorted are deeply shamed. They shared a picture of themselves – teenage boys usually – and then their lives are ruined, and some of them commit suicide. So I'm just saying that there are so many different mechanisms by which kids are getting harmed. Depression and anxiety are just two of the pathways. What parents want to know and what legislators want to know is: Is this consumer product, which all kids are consuming massive quantities of, is this consumer product hurting kids? And guess what? We have seven different lines of evidence saying, "Yes, it's hurting kids." And Meta – I mean, my God, the data they have on harm is astonishing."

Note: Read more about the dark side of social media and the sextortion rings where kids target kids. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and mental health.

Matt Taibbi: To Protect Free Speech, I'm Suing the Man Who Defamed Me

Tech writer Eoin Higgins [recently] published Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left. The main subjects of the book–fellow reporter Glenn Greenwald and myself–are [portrayed as] puppets controlled by Big Tech overlords such as Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and David Sacks. Higgins's case against me concerns my involvement with the Twitter Files–a trove of the social media website's internal communications that Musk sent to reporters, including me, after he acquired the company in 2022. I took significant heat for my coverage, which included Twitter employees' deliberations about whether to suppress the report about Hunter Biden's laptop during the 2020 election. IRS agents made an unannounced visit to my home the day I testified in Congress about my findings, and delegate Stacey Plaskett falsely accused me of perjury and threatened to jail me. Despite this, Higgins says I sold out–literally–by working on the Twitter Files. He claims that I "fully dispensed with any pretense of challenging power" after having "cash[ed] in" with my "benefactor," Musk. I've never taken money from Musk or any other "tech billionaire on the right," as Higgins implies. The trend of casual defamation that prevails on social media–where pseudonymous accounts blithely accuse people of rape or pedophilia all day, every day–has seeped into the regular press, where "reckless disregard" has become the norm.

Note: Read the complete article to learn how Matt Taibbi fell out of favor with mainstream media when he started questioning the lies underpinning the Russiagate narrative. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on censorship and media manipulation.

I Wrote a Book About Censorship. Then People Tried to Censor It.

Last week, I published a book called The Information State: Politics in the Age of Total Control. It describes how, as technology has advanced, American politics and government have been transformed by the shift in societal power from visible laws and institutions to opaque forms of digital and informational control. One of the consequences of this shift has been the ability of the government-tech alliance–what I call "the information state"–to carry out mass censorship online. This point was noted in a generally positive review of the book that ran on March 24 in a left-wing magazine called The Baffler. So I could only savor the irony when, less than a day later, the magazine purged the review from its website. In place of the purged piece is an editor's note informing visitors that the magazine removed the review "after determining that it does not meet The Baffler's fact-checking standards." If a magazine publishes something that generates significant controversy ... the liberal thing to do is to publish a counterargument. To cite a "factchecking" error without elaborating what it is leaves the public even less informed than before. The book [describes how] smart and often decent people wound up being puppeteered by a vast technocratic apparatus for managing public opinion that had disastrous consequences. To them, the real censors are not the paragovernmental information regulators, but the authors whose books they disagree with.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on censorship.

"Following the science" is a dangerous illusion

When politicians insist that they're "following the science"–as if it reveals impersonal, unquestionable truths–they promote a dangerous illusion. Evolutionary psychologist Pascal Boyer warns that, like traditional diviners reading horoscopes or entrails, leaders invoke "the science" to offload responsibility, avoid conflict, and cloak decisions in inevitability. But science is no oracle: it is a human process of debate, judgement and dissent. This came to a head during the years of the virus, a period during which governments in many nations tried to enforce all manner of rules and regulations, presenting them as directly derived from "the science." It is now clear that some of these measures were pointless, damaging or counter-productive–see, for example, scientific reviews on masks or lockdowns. That, of course, did little to bolster the public's trust in experts and "the science." The science used by politicians and administrations in this case only provided information about one aspect of the required decision-making. It did not quantify the social and economic costs of closing down places where people huddle together, like schools, small stores, theaters and restaurants, or of suspending all manner of "non-essential" economic activity.

Note: "Trust the science" sounds noble–until you realize that even top editors of world-renowned journals have warned that much of published medical research is unreliable, distorted by fraud, corporate influence, and conflicts of interest. In our latest Substack, COVID Revisited: A Complete Guide to Pandemic Propaganda and the Search for Truth in a Divided World, we explore how many COVID-era policies and mandates didn't actually have a scientific basis, and failed to hold up in the face of real world evidence. We also emphasize the devastating public health costs of fear, division, and social isolation.

I Co-Founded Wikipedia. Now I'm Banned for Life.

Twenty-five years ago, I co-founded Wikipedia, arguably the most important encyclopedia in human history. On Monday, I was indefinitely banned from the site. In early 2000, the internet was ... much freer. But it was also harder to use, and finding information took much longer. We needed a free, fair storehouse of knowledge: an encyclopedia built by, and open to, the public. It was exhilarating to build Wikipedia at that time. I watched in dismay as the site I'd created began to drift from its founding mission. Wikipedia has, over time, become decidedly globalist, academic, secular, and progressive. Important contributors have been blocked; facts censored in the name of "undue weight" and avoiding "fringe views"; and left-leaning outlets overwhelmingly favored. The Republican Party, for instance, is classified as being on the "right-wing to far-right" of the political spectrum. And the Democratic Party? "Center to center-left.". All this transpires with no mechanisms for real accountability. I was blocked from the site by one Wikipedia admin who declared that the consensus of the mob (the "community") favored my banning. Information is the most valuable currency in any society, and the ability of citizens to access, evaluate, and learn from a diversity of viewpoints is essential to a free civilization. Yet Wikipedia's yearslong shift away from that principle–toward ideological gatekeeping and narrative control–undermines the very purpose for which it was created. So, now that I am powerless to try to fix the platform from the inside, what should I do?

Note: Read how Wikipedia, one of the primary sources for AI chatbots and search summaries, is vulnerable to systematic manipulation by powerful PR firms, intelligence agencies, and billionaires seeking to suppress damaging information and shape public narratives. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on censorship and media manipulation.

Scathing class-action lawsuit accuses Washington Post of surveillance pricing: â€Covert data-harvesting'

Jeff Bezos' Washington Post is facing a scathing new class-action lawsuit accusing it of using surveillance pricing to gouge loyal readers – in a case that attorneys believe could rack up millions in damages. Since the mid-2010s, WaPo has "covertly harvested" subscriber data, using "deeply personal information" to determine how much they could squeeze out of each loyal reader, according to the suit, which was filed Thursday in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Readers largely expected their personal data would be used for "mutually beneficial purposes" like "relevant advertisements" – and did not consent to their personal information being used to hike prices on their subscriptions, the suit alleged. After billionaire Bezos bought WaPo in 2013 for $250 million, the paper started heavily investing in technology and digital subscriptions, the suit noted. "The more loyal a reader became, the more data The Post could gather to estimate how much more that person might tolerate paying at renewal," the complaint said. "Rather than rewarding loyalty, The Post's system converted subscribers' engagement into leverage against them." The suit also alleged WaPo might be collecting extra information from subscribers' use of "affiliates" – including Amazon, Bezos' e-commerce giant. Last year, the publication was forced to reveal it was engaging in surveillance pricing techniques because of a 2025 New York disclosure law.

Note: Read more about the rise of AI surveillance pricing. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and mass media.

'Everything I Learned About Suicide, I Learned On Instagram.'

[Taylor] Little is among more than 1,800 plaintiffs suing major social-media companies, including Instagram and its parent company Meta, in a massive multidistrict litigation in Northern California. The plaintiffs allege these companies have been "recklessly ignoring the impact of their products on children's mental and physical health," and that they are "direct victims of intentional product design choices made by each defendant." Little's own complaint seeks to hold Instagram accountable for "knowingly unleashing onto the public a defectively designed product that is addictive, harmful, and at times fatal to children." They allege the platform fed them a persistent stream of self-harm content that altered their brain and perpetuated constant thoughts of death. "The fact that I was obsessively suicidal at the age I was, that was not just my brain chemistry. That was my brain chemistry being altered by the platform I was on," Little tells TIME. "Social media shaped my brain." On Instagram, depression was "romanticized," Little says. The self-harm content "was kind of comforting"–it felt like a twisted validation of their depression in a way. By the time Little turned 12, [Little's] Instagram feed was filled with images of girls falling off buildings, videos of blades cutting into unscarred flesh, and soft music framing stylized photos of hanging bodies. Teen suicides increased more than 57% between 2007 and 2018. Another 2019 study ... found that 38% of teens who used social media for an average of more than five hours per day showed signs of clinically relevant depression. Researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College in Manhattan found that kids who were more addicted to social media were at two to three times higher risk of suicidal behavior.

Note: Former Facebook executive Tim Kendall told Congress that the company intentionally made its product as addictive as cigarettes. Meta whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams told US senators that the company targeted teenage girls with beauty and weight-loss advertisements during moments of heightened vulnerability such as after deleting a selfie. According to her testimony, Meta could detect when users were feeling "worthless," "helpless," or like a "failure," and then make that information available to advertisers. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and mental health.

Neuroscience explains why teens are so vulnerable to Big Tech social media platforms

In a landmark decision, a Los Angeles jury has found that social media company Meta and video streaming service YouTube harmed a young user with addictive design features that led to mental health distress, including body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts. Commentators have referred to this as social media's "Big Tobacco" moment and further lawsuits are pending. Neuroscience shows that heavy social media use can overstimulate the teen brain's still-developing reward pathways in ways similar to addictive behaviours like gambling. This immature system also makes teenagers more sensitive to social feedback and less able to cope with rejection. Many Canadian teens describe [being] constantly connected online, yet increasingly disconnected in real life. They report pressure to present idealized versions of themselves and to keep up with peers. Trial data in a case between the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Meta show that only a small fraction of time on Meta platforms involves engaging with friends – about seven per cent on Instagram and 17 per cent on Facebook. The rest is mostly scrolling and watching rather than interacting. This results in an illusion of connection while deepening a sense of isolation. Research involving more than 9,000 adolescents across eight countries found a strong association between problematic social media use and higher rates of depression and anxiety. Large studies across high-income countries consistently link heavy social media use to poorer physical health outcomes too, including shorter sleep and higher rates of obesity.

AI absolutism is breaking our brains. The apocalyptic future we're being sold isn't inevitable

AI is projected to generate nearly unfathomable amounts of revenue. Any mention of AI tends to be accompanied by warnings that deeper jobs cuts across many more industries are coming for us all. Jensen Huang, CEO of chip giant Nvidia, said in 2025: "Every job will be affected, and immediately. It is unquestionable. You're not going to lose your job to an AI, but you're going to lose your job to someone who uses AI." Increasingly, people young and old flock to a new gold rush in Silicon Valley to toil away on AI-fueled startups. If AI's worst-case scenario for tech jobs plays out ... that's still nowhere near the apocalyptic future of labor that many fear. "Is it, in fact, going to destroy all of the jobs?" Naidu asked. "I'm not convinced. Even take software. Software is only about 4 to 6% of GDP. So it's a lot, but it's not like the whole economy can be replaced by Claude Code." Convincing people that AI will replace human workers in droves is a clever marketing tactic. Not only does it stoke rabid investor speculation, but it distracts from a more realistic application of AI: to surveil and micromanage employees to squeeze yet more productivity out of them, all the while pressuring them to feel grateful that they have any kind of work. Gig workers, the people who pick you up in Ubers and deliver your food on platforms like DoorDash, have already been the guinea pigs for this kind of algorithmic management, and labor experts predict it will spread.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on AI and media manipulation.

Leaked: Britain Exports Secret Government Agency's Dark Arts Overseas

Prolific Western government contractor Torchlight, staffed by British military and intelligence veterans, has covertly trained "commercial and government clients" the world over in Government Communications Headquarters' (GCHQ) digital espionage and cyberwar strategies. Cloak-and-dagger techniques to "discredit, disrupt, delay, deny, degrade, and deter" target adversaries and populations, honed for kinetic and psychological warfare and regime change overseas, have become a commodity, open for unregulated use by undisclosed private sector and state actors. Central to these efforts was GCHQ journeyman Andrew Tremlett, [who served] as Torchlight's head of digital intelligence. Tremlett "spent a significant portion of his career" within GCHQ's notorious Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG). Exposed by NSA leaker Edward Snowden in 2014, this shadowy unit plays a "major part" in GCHQ's activities. This includes cyberattacks and propaganda efforts, such as pushing "mass messaging" against target countries, organizations, groups and individuals via social media platforms. "False-flag" connivances, in which JTRIG conducts malign actions designed to appear as if an adversary was responsible, is also a core component of the unit's remit. [A] leaked JTRIG presentation makes repeated references to planting information on "compromised" target devices, including "potential â€damming' [sic] information."

Note: Watch our Mindful News Brief, "How to Transform Media Polarization, One Echo Chamber At A Time," to learn more about the shadowy political, government, and corporate forces shaping public perception and reality itself. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on government corruption and media manipulation.

The CIA Used Time and Life Magazine and New York Times For Intelligence Gathering During Cold War

The CIA is known to have enjoyed a close relationship with the mainstream media during the Cold War and to have recruited dozens of journalists to help advance CIA propaganda. An article in the November 2024 issue of Diplomatic History (DH) shows that the symbiotic relationship between the CIA and media went even further than was previously thought. The editors of Time and Life magazines and The New York Times provided the CIA with access to dispatches by their foreign correspondents who functioned in effect as intelligence agents. Life Magazine opened its photographic archive to the CIA, providing between 300-500 photographs per month that the CIA could use for intelligence gathering purposes. The photographs included those of antiwar demonstrations in the 1960s that helped the CIA to spy on protesters and identify the ringleaders of the anti-war movement during the U.S. war on Vietnam. Time was originally founded and was financed by Henry P. Davison, a top executive with the J.P. Morgan Company whose brother Frederick served as the CIA's Director of Personnel. Time Inc.'s Vice President in the 1950s, Allen Grover worked with CIA operative Frank Wisner to establish a CIA front organization, The American Committee for the Liberation of the People of Russia, which organized Russian Ă©migrĂ©s and provided the CIA with a conduit for the sponsorship of anti-Bolshevik propaganda.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on intelligence agency corruption and media manipulation.

We Need to Kick Prediction Market Betting Out of Journalism While We Still Can

On Thursday, a U.S. Army Special Forces soldier who was involved in the raid to capture NicolĂˇs Maduro in Venezuela was arrested on charges that he used classified information to make more than $400,000 by betting on the operation before it happened. In the hours before the U.S. attacked Iran, hundreds of anonymous bets over $1,000 were placed on the U.S. striking Iran by the next day, which the New York Times said suggested that some users might've "seen the strike coming." Prediction markets, such as industry leaders Polymarket and Kalshi, have exploded in popularity. They create or exacerbate an array of problems, but at the Media and Democracy Project, or MAD, we believe they have the potential to severely harm the way news is reported, perceived, and engaged with. Suppose that prediction markets achieve their claims of providing better forecasts than other methods. Casino journalism [would still be] bad for journalism and the public. Most of the "propositions" offered on these markets are based on news reports; reporters provide the raw material on which these bets are made. In effect, traders on prediction markets are betting on the content of news stories. An Israeli journalist recently received death threats over his refusal to rewrite his report on an Iranian missile strike, on which $23 million of prediction market "investments" were riding. As the markets become larger, and their use in news increases, the incentive for market manipulation will also grow.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on military corruption and Big Tech.

London PR firm rewrites Wikipedia for governments and billionaires

Chatbots and AI-generated search summaries – which are rapidly transforming the way people get their information – both use Wikipedia as a key source. Now, we can reveal Wikipedia has been subject to shady, paid-for edits ordered by partners at an elite London PR firm with links to Downing Street. And the clients who benefitted from this "wikilaundering" are some of the world's richest and most powerful people. The firm in question is Portland Communications. And it has been busted once already for this practice. After the firm was exposed, former employees told us, it simply started hiring middlemen instead. As one of them put it: "No one said, â€We should stop doing this.' The question was how we could keep doing it without getting caught." Portland's subcontractors have ... obscured mentions of a major terrorist-financing case involving Qatari businessmen; scrubbed evidence that a billion-dollar Gates-funded project failed in its mission; and promoted one side of Libya's post-Gaddafi government over the other. Often, however, their changes were more subtle: burying bad press under descriptions of a client's philanthropic work or swapping out critical news references with something more positive. "Small Wikipedia edits punch above their weight," explained Alberto Fittarelli ... at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. "Small, incremental changes are likely to stick for longer. These kinds of edits make narratives seem credible precisely because they are hardly noticeable. Once that enters the information stream, it becomes really hard to claw it back."

Note: Read how Wikipedia is systematically manipulated by the military-intelligence complex. The CIA, FBI, and the Pentagon has secretly edited entries in Wikipedia, including removing references to CIA illegal rendition and torture, downplaying US involvement in Iraqi civilian deaths, and rewriting the definition of "terrorism" to expand its political use. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on media manipulation.

PR firm linked to Gates-backed AGRA edited Wikipedia to remove criticism

Powerful institutions are using covert tactics to shape how they are portrayed online. One method involves deploying fake "sockpuppet" accounts to edit Wikipedia pages, enabling interested parties to quietly remove criticism or rewrite how organizations are described on one of the world's most widely used sources of information. A British investigation found that such tactics were used to remove critical information about AGRA (formerly the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa), a controversial initiative backed by the Gates Foundation that seeks to industrialize African food and farming systems. The analysis identified a "network of 26 â€sockpuppets' – multiple accounts orchestrated by a single person – that was eventually banned from Wikipedia under suspicion of paid editing," [investigator Claire] Wilmot wrote. The findings highlight growing concerns about attempts by governments, corporations and philanthropies to influence widely used online information sources that increasingly feed search engines and artificial intelligence systems that summarize information for the public. "Because it's widely used by search engines and AI systems, efforts to manipulate it can have far-reaching effects," Wilmot said. Wilmot warned that the network uncovered in the probe likely represents only a small part of broader efforts by powerful institutions to sanitize their online reputations.

Note: Instead of reducing world hunger, the Green Revolution's legacy has led to soil degradation, inequality, mass farmer suicides, and restrictive seed laws that push farmers into debt and dependency on patented GMO seeds and fossil-fuel fertilizers. Read more about the grave human health and environmental outcomes of the Gates-funded Green Revolution. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on food system corruption and media manipulation.

Jeffrey Epstein's 4chan Plan

The three million Epstein files recently released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) recast Jeffrey Epstein as more than a criminal sex trafficker, an intelligence asset, or a professional blackmailer. The files also suggest he had a role to play in the creation of today's online far-right politics. "Brexit, just the beginning," he wrote to Palantir founder ... Peter Thiel in 2016, celebrating the onset of "tribalism" and the unraveling of globalisation. Epstein appeared to view right-wing populism as an opportunity – and to understand very early how the internet could be used to accelerate it. Rather than simply watching this new ecosystem emerge, however, he seems to have played a part in its formation. In October 2011, Jeffrey Epstein met with the creator of the anonymous message board 4chan. His conversation with Christopher "moot" Poole took place just days before the fateful relaunch of 4chan's influential far-right imageboard, /pol/ (shorthand for "Politically Incorrect"). That board in particular, and the site more broadly, would come to serve as a breeding ground for the far-right's online activism. In an email to Epstein, the late sex-trafficker's associate and former Bill Gates advisor Boris Nikolic (who introduced Poole and Epstein) cites a Washington Post article from 2010. It describes 4chan as a "hive mind" with a unique power to ... create "mass disruptions." Epstein did not lose sight of 4chan. He tried repeatedly to pin Poole down for further meetings in 2012.

Note: QAnon originally launched on 4chan's /pol/ board in October 2017. Don't miss part one and part two of our investigations into the Epstein files so far. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on media manipulation and Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise.

Universities Can't Pursue Truth Without Viewpoint Diversity

The truth-seeking function of universities does not work properly without the presence of diverse viewpoints. This is especially true when it comes to contested social and political questions. Taboos, blind spots, groupthink and the politicization of scientific standards haven't just made academic research narrower and worse, these trends have alienated the general public and reduced public confidence in higher education ... across the ideological spectrum. Unsurprisingly, the increasing ideological conformity of the professoriate is reflected in the decreasing range of ideas that students encounter in the classroom. A recent national study shows a narrow range of perspectives included on undergraduate syllabi on such controversial topics as the conflict between Israel and Palestine, racial bias in the criminal justice system, and abortion. Professional training does not make professors immune to ordinary human biases. Today's cohort of scholarly experts remains vulnerable to the same "tyranny of public opinion" and "uncritical and intemperate partisanship" that the founders of the American Association of University Professors in 1915 warned academia to resist. This means that today's arguments about viewpoint diversity must be considered and judged in their historical and political contexts. [Academic disciplines] have lost a healthy amount of internal contestation, or have turned self-selection and self-governance into ideological capture.

Note: From gender medicine research, the psychology field, social justice movements, to Middle East politics, a recent study tracking 1 million people revealed that two-thirds of us are afraid to say what we believe in public, while other studies reveal a significant decline in people's motivation to share views that are unique or controversial. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on corruption in science.

Jeffrey Epstein's digital cleanup crew

Jeffrey Epstein appears to have been googling himself regularly. We see Epstein shoot off emails to associates, complaining that his digital footprint includes factual information about his crimes. Epstein regularly directed his gripes at Al Seckel, a fixer type who appears over and over in Epstein files and promises to bury news articles and other content that mentions his abuse. SEO consultants, contacts in the sciences, and even unrelated acquaintances helped to obscure Epstein's past. In October 2010, Seckel laid out an overview of the group's plan of attack to defend Epstein's reputation online. The situation, as Seckel described it, was that a search surfaced "over 75+ pages of derogatory material," and that someone would be "very hard pressed to find any â€positive' references." To "balance the only one-sided negative opinion that has been spread over a wide birth on the Internet," Seckel said, the team would need to flood the zone with content they can control, specifically pointing to spinning up websites with original content related to Epstein's connections to science and charities. A "Phillipine Crew" ... would spread flattering links around the web, and other tasks. Part of how Google decides which pages to rank highly in search results is by looking at whether other sites link to a page; Epstein's camp appears to have been trying to push down negative search results by securing valuable links from outside entities.

Note: Another email shows Al Seckel reporting to Jeffrey Epstein that they have successfully manipulated Google search results to bury negative news articles about Epstein, making it difficult to find information about him, even when searching terms like "pedophile." Read our latest in-depth Epstein files investigation, titled "Beyond Sex Trafficking–Zorro Ranch and a Darker Scientific Agenda." For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Jeffrey Epstein's crime ring and Big Tech.

Epstein met with 4chan's founder just as the site's infamous political thread began

In October 2011, years after Epstein pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct with a minor, an adviser to Bill Gates named Boris Nikolic emailed Epstein about wanting to introduce him to a "cool guy." The message included a link to the Wikipedia page for 4chan founder Christopher Poole (who also goes by "moot"). Poole oversaw the platform until 2015. Four days later, Epstein responded to Nikolic about his meeting with Poole to say, "i liked mmot slot. i drove him home, he is very bright." The timing of the introduction is interesting. The same month that Nikolic introduced Epstein to Poole, 4chan launched a politically oriented forum called /pol/, which became popular with right-wing extremists. The site eventually became a cesspool of far-right extremism, violent rhetoric and propaganda, and incubated the pro-Trump conspiracy theory known as QAnon. Four days after Epstein met with Poole, Nikolic emailed Epstein again with a comment on 4chan's potential. "This article describes why I find moot interesting. The potential for manipulation is huge," Nikolic wrote, linking to a Washington Post article that discussed how 4chan had been used to foment bigotry, launch cyberattacks and fuel a "hive mind" mentality. Poole's name appears in Epstein emails later as well, including the next month, when Poole coordinates with one of Epstein's subordinates about meeting up in New York. "Chris, Jeffrey has also said to feel free to bring anyone you think is clever!" the email reads.

Note: QAnon originally launched on 4chan's /pol/ board in October 2017. Read our latest in-depth Epstein files investigation, titled "Beyond Sex Trafficking–Zorro Ranch and a Darker Scientific Agenda," which investigates Epstein's deep ties to the scientific elite and their active exploration of eugenics, designer babies, human cloning, social engineering, and other human experimentation practices. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Jeffrey Epstein's crime ring and Big Tech.

Longevity guru Peter Attia keeps CBS News role despite showing up in Epstein files

CBS News has no plans to drop health guru Peter Attia from his contributor role after his emails to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein surfaced last week. Attia was among the 19 contributors named by CBS News Editor in Chief Bari Weiss when she addressed staff about her future plans for the network on Jan. 28. Two days later, Attia showed up in the latest batch of files on Epstein. A Stanford-trained physician who has gained prominence for his expertise in longevity medicine, Attia had a number of email exchanges with Epstein, including a crude discussion about female genitalia. Another message showed Attia expressing dismay that he could not discuss Epstein's activities. "You [know] the biggest problem with becoming friends with you? The life you lead is so outrageous, and yet I can't tell a soul...," Attia wrote. Conduct such as Attia's association with Epstein would typically be grounds for a network news organization to cut ties with an individual, especially one who is not a full-time employee. Contributors are usually paid by the appearance. But Weiss is said to be opposed to cutting Attia, according to two people familiar with her thinking. As founder of the digital news site the Free Press and as an opinion writer, Weiss spoke out against so-called cancel culture and does not want to be seen as reacting to the Epstein frenzy. Insiders say even if CBS News' ties to Attia are not publicly severed, it's unlikely he will be seen on the air.

Note: Don't miss Part 1 and Part 2 of our in-depth investigative series on this massive elite crime ring now coming to light in the documents being made public. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking ring.

The Seven Richest Billionaires Are All Media Barons

Trump loyalist and CIA contractor Larry Ellison's purchase of CNN appears imminent, and marks the latest venture into media for the world's second-richest individual. The world's seven richest individuals are all now powerful media barons, controlling what the world sees, reads, and hears, marking a new chapter in oligarchical control over society and striking another blow at a free, independent press and diversity of opinion. In September, President Trump signed an executive order approving a proposal to force through the sale of social media platform TikTok to an American consortium led by Ellison-owned tech company, Oracle. Under the planned arrangement, Oracle will oversee the platform's security and operations, giving the world's second-richest man effective control over the platform that more than 60% of Americans under thirty years of age use for news and entertainment. No other period in history has seen such a rapid and overwhelming buy up of our means of communications by the billionaire class – a fact that raises tough questions about freedom of speech and diversity of opinion. Today, the world's seven richest individuals are all major media barons, giving them extraordinary control over our media and public square, allowing them to set agendas, and suppress forms of speech they do not approve of. This includes criticisms of them and their holdings, the economic system we live under, and the actions of ... governments.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on financial inequality and media manipulation.

I Founded Wikipedia. Here's How to Fix It.

Wikipedia was founded on an idealistic mission to provide all the world's information for free–and to do so democratically. But, as we've reported before in these pages, the site has been hijacked by ideologues. One of the site's founders, Larry Sanger ... has been a vocal critic of what the site he built has become. At present, Wikipedians offer their own well-managed, curated perspective on global opinion. But any opinion outside of that perspective is an unwelcome "minority or fringe view"–as global opinion usually is. They will be silenced, should they have the audacity to speak for themselves. To better record the chorus of worldwide voices, Wikipedia should permit multiple, competing articles per topic, written within explicitly declared frameworks, each aiming at neutrality within its own framework. Wikipedia's editorial work is self-managed by a group of volunteers. But things are not as democratic as they seem. There are 62 accounts with the most authority, who have the ability to install and remove administrators or check the IP addresses of problem users. But only 14.5 percent of these accounts reveal a full, real name. The vast majority of Wikipedia's top editorial leadership is anonymous. These accounts are the people who are ultimately responsible for Wikipedia's content. There is no legitimate, well-established way to ratify significant reforms. There have been few, if any, significant changes since 2006. Wikipedia needs an editorial legislature chosen by fair elections.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on censorship and media manipulation.

Wikipedia co-creator Larry Sanger reveals how the CIA secretly hijacked entries to re-write history

Larry Sanger appeared on Tucker Carlson's podcast to claim Wikipedia had lost its way and began censoring accounts which held right-wing or conservative views. 'There is a whole army of administrators - hundreds of them - who are constantly blocking people that they have ideological disagreements with,' he said. Sometime between 2006 and 2007, he began asking questions about intelligence agencies interfering with the entries. 'Virgil Griffith did Master's research,' he revealed, speaking of the American programmer who served a five year prison sentence for North Korea with evading sanctions. 'He came up with a tool called Wiki Scanner that enabled people to look up the IP addresses of people who had done edits and like, who had edited which articles. And so they were able to find a whole bunch of edits coming from Langley.' Langley is often a term used to describe the CIA, the unincorporated community of Langley in Virginia, where the headquarters is based. 'A large part of the remit of intelligence today is to manipulate public opinion in various ways,' Sanger said. 'Wikipedia is like just a gold mine for the intelligence agencies of the world because it's like a one stop shop. You can just like type in the things that you want people to believe.' Carlson had claimed Wikipedia has become 'a weapon of ideological, theological war, used to destroy its enemies.' Sanger said he first recognized and began to describe Wikipedia as 'propoganda' in 2020.

Note: Read more about how the CIA, FBI, and the Pentagon secretly edited entries in Wikipedia, including removing references to CIA illegal rendition and torture, downplaying US involvement in Iraqi civilian deaths, and rewriting the definition of "terrorism" to expand its political use. For more, read our concise summaries of news articles on censorship and intelligence agency corruption.

It Was Worse Than We Thought

A long-suppressed oversight report by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) concluded that the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which claimed Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump, had been manipulated under the direction of then-CIA Director John Brennan. The HPSCI report revealed that Brennan created a special Fusion Cell, excluded independent reviewers, and used a tightly controlled team of hand-picked CIA analysts to reverse what the underlying intelligence actually said. According to a CIA whistleblower who co-authored the ICA, Brennan put the team "under duress" to reach a conclusion that Putin supported Trump. The evidence did not show that the Russians favored Trump. According to someone close to the report, the raw intelligence showed that Russian officials saw Hillary Clinton as "more stable and more manageable" – and thus preferable to Trump. But Brennan's hand-picked team reversed that. Meanwhile, those responsible have faced no consequences. There was a time when if you abused your power in office, whether or not it rose to the level of a crime, you were exiled from D.C. Instead, Comey gets a teaching job in ethics, and Clapper and Brennan get TV contracts. The picture is less incomplete and, finally, clear. The Intelligence Community did not merely misread Russian intentions. It reversed its own analysts. It misled Congress.

Note: The security firm CrowdStrike was hired to investigate the alleged Russian hack of DNC servers in 2016 and found no proof that any emails from the system had been exfiltrated. All they found was inconclusive circumstantial evidence, which was presented as proof in media to the public. This deflected from the DNC and Clinton campaign's sabotage of Bernie Sanders and the damaging content of leaked DNC emails. In 2022, the DNC and Clinton campaign were fined by the FEC for obscuring their role in funding the debunked Steele dossier. Clinton also personally approved sharing another unverified claim with the press that alleged a secret Trump-Russia server connection, which helped trigger an FBI investigation later found to be baseless. Why are we not connecting the dots?

The CIA Built Hundreds of Covert Websites. Here's What They Were Hiding

Beginning in 2004, the CIA established a vast network of at least 885 websites, ranging from Johnny Carson and Star Wars fan pages to online message boards about Rastafari. Spanning 29 languages and targeting at least 36 countries directly, these websites were aimed not only at adversaries such as China, Venezuela, and Russia, but also at allied nations ... showing that the United States treats its friends much like its foes. These websites served as cover for informants, offering some level of plausible deniability if casually examined. Few of these pages provided any unique content and simply rehosted news and blogs from elsewhere. Informants in enemy nations, such as Venezuela, used sites like Noticias-Caracas and El Correo De Noticias to communicate with Langley, while Russian moles used My Online Game Source and TodaysNewsAndWeather-Ru.com, and other similar platforms. In 2010, USAID–a CIA front organization–secretly created the Cuban social media app, Zunzuneo. While the 885 fake websites were not established to influence public opinion, today, the U.S. government sponsors thousands of journalists worldwide for precisely this purpose. The Trump administration's decision to pause funding to USAID inadvertently exposed a network of more than 6,200 reporters working at nearly 1,000 news outlets or journalism organizations who were all quietly paid to promote pro-U.S. messaging in their countries. Facebook has hired dozens of former CIA officials to run its most sensitive operations. As the platform's senior misinformation manager, [Aaron Berman] ultimately has the final say over what content is promoted and what is demoted or deleted from Facebook. Until 2019, Berman was a high-ranking CIA officer, responsible for writing the president's daily security brief.

Note: Dozens of former CIA agents hold top jobs at Google. Learn more about the CIA's longstanding propaganda network in our comprehensive Military-Intelligence Corruption Information Center. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on intelligence agency corruption and media manipulation.

How the Secret Algorithms Behind Social Media Actually Work

A series of corporate leaks over the past few years provides a remarkable window in the hidden engines powering social media. In January 2021, a few Facebook employees posted an article on the company's engineering blog purporting to explain the news feed algorithm that determines which of the countless posts available each user will see and the order in which they will see them. Eight months later ... a Facebook product manager turned whistleblower snuck over ten thousand pages of documents and internal messages out of Facebook headquarters. She leaked these to a handful of media outlets. Internal studies documented Instagram's harmful impact on the mental health of vulnerable teen girls. A secret whitelist program exempted VIP users from the moderation system the rest of us face. It turns out Facebook engineers have assigned a point value to each type of engagement users can perform on a post (liking, commenting, resharing, etc.). For each post you could be shown, these point values are multiplied by the probability that the algorithm thinks you'll perform that form of engagement. These multiplied pairs of numbers are added up, and the total is the post's personalized score for you. Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter all run on essentially the same simple math formula. Once we start clicking the social media equivalent of junk food, we're going to be served up a lot more of it–which makes it harder to resist. It's a vicious cycle

Note: Read our latest Substack focused on a social media platform that is harnessing technology as a listening tool for the radical purpose of bringing people together across differences. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on Big Tech and media manipulation.

'Selling anger': How cable news profits from outrage

It's no secret that cable news networks have partisan reputations. But new research shows the divide extends beyond which party a network appears to support. Over the past decade, these networks have increasingly focused on criticizing the opposing political party, a tactic researchers say is less about informing viewers and more about "selling anger." "These networks are more interested in talking about the opposing political party rather than their own candidates. This was not the case 15, 20 years ago," said Diego Garcia, the ... co-author of the working paper. The findings show that politics dominates cable news, accounting for about 60% of all named individuals mentioned–rising to over 75% during election years. But more revealing is who gets talked about: MSNBC spends more time discussing Republicans than Democrats, while Fox News focuses more heavily on Democrats. In 2024, Fox covered Democrats 60% of the time, with MSNBC showing the reverse. Garcia speculates that cable networks began to test different kinds of content when social media became widespread in the mid-2010s, and discovered that outrage boosts viewership. "I think Fox was the first one to figure this out, and they started pushing this negative rhetoric in their news," he said. "They're actually now the No. 1 cable news channel in the U.S. by far." Fox News now commands over 60% of the cable news audience–a dramatic jump from a more evenly split landscape a decade ago.

Note: Watch our 31-min video titled, "How to Transform Media Polarization, One Echo Chamber At A Time." For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on media manipulation.

Obama admin assessed Russia played no role in 2016 election result, declassified docs show

The Obama administration knew before and after the 2016 election that Russia did not affect the vote's outcome through cyberattacks. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard made public more than 100 pages of emails, memos and other records cataloguing what she called Obama officials' "conspiracy to subvert President Trump's 2016 victory." Both before and after Democrat Hillary Clinton's loss, the US Intelligence Community assessed that Russia played no significant role influencing the election. Among the documents was a Sept. 12, 2016, Intelligence Community Assessment that determined "foreign adversaries do not have and will probably not obtain the capabilities to successfully execute widespread and undetected cyber attacks" on election infrastructure. On Dec. 7, 2016, then-DNI James Clapper's office also concluded: "We have no evidence of cyber manipulation of election infrastructure intended to alter results." But those findings were suppressed after the FBI ... said it was going to "dissent" from the draft's conclusions "based on some new guidance." Clapper then spearheaded an alternative intelligence report claiming the Kremlin orchestrated hackings of Democratic National Committee emails ... and intervened in the presidential contest in favor of Trump. [Obama] ordered a new intelligence assessment from the CIA, FBI, NSA and DHS ... which ended up including the since-debunked dossier produced by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele.

CIA Contradicts Obama Officials' Sworn Denials About Russiagate Report

New evidence suggests that some of the highest-ranking officials in the Obama-era CIA and FBI perjured themselves regarding their claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin helped Donald Trump secure his victory in 2016. A newly released CIA review challenges their sworn denials to Congress that the Steele dossier – a discredited set of allegations about Trump funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign – was used as the basis for the years-long Russiagate probe that hamstrung President Trump's first term. The eight-page review conducted by career CIA analysts found the dossier did, in fact, worm its way into the text of the highly classified report known as an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) to buttress the thinly sourced, yet inflammatory allegation that "Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances." Former CIA Director John Brennan, for one, insisted in his sworn May 2017 testimony before Congress that the Steele dossier was not "in any way" used as a basis for the so-called ICA completed in late December 2016. Likewise, then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper said in an official January 2017 statement that "we did not rely upon [the dossier] in any way for our conclusions." The CIA review shows that the unverified and now-debunked dossier was used as support for the intelligence analysis, not just as a sidebar as Obama officials have maintained.