The scope extends beyond social media to malicious reviews and defamatory posts on online communities, delivery apps and shopping platforms

A viral YouTube video, a one-star review on a delivery app, a heated post on a parenting community – all of these will fall under the same legal standard in South Korea starting next Tuesday.

The revised Information and Communications Network Act, widely known as the “fake news” law, introduces punitive damages for YouTubers with more than 100,000 subscribers and high-traffic TikTok accounts if they display what authorities define as “unlawful” content. Platforms such as Naver, Kakao, Google and Meta stand to face steep penalties if they fail to police such content.

The enforcement decree spells out who can be sued for punitive damages over illegal and fabricated information.

Individuals on online platforms such as YouTube or TikTok who have posted at least three pieces of content over the past three months and either have more than 100,000 subscribers or average more than 100,000 monthly views in that period will fall under the definition of major online information producers.

If they are found to have deliberately spread false information that causes harm to obtain an unfair advantage, judges can impose damages of up to five times the proven loss. What can be considered an unfair advantage encompasses not just economic gains, but also intangible benefits such as expanding social or political influence.

Meanwhile, platforms with more than 1 million daily active users on average over the last three months are required to operate reporting and monitoring systems. Once a complaint is received, they must verify it through the new transparency centre under the state-run Korea Media and Communications Commission.

Any platform failing to delete content that has already been confirmed as unlawful faces corporate administrative surcharges. Should it refuse to obey formal government corrective orders to take down such content, its CEO can be held personally liable and prosecuted.

The scope extends beyond YouTube videos and social media posts. Malicious reviews and defamatory posts on parenting communities, delivery apps and online shopping platforms are subject to the same standard.

Major platforms are already scrambling to align their systems with the new regime, but say the law asks them to do something they are not designed to do: decide what is true.

“We are tightening our rules to match the new law,” a Naver representative said. “We will get guidelines through the Korea Internet Self-Governance Organisation (KISO). If a case feels ambiguous, we’ll have to send it back to KISO again for review. I think we’re going to have to go through that kind of process quite a lot in the early stages.”

Kakao, the operator of Korea’s most popular messaging app KakaoTalk, has taken a similar stance, according to a source familiar with the situation.

Due to the limits of its system for determining what was true and factual, Kakao “cannot realistically investigate the hidden motives behind each post or determine complex legal facts on its own, so it plans instead to request reviews from KISO and actively comply with the organisation’s deliberation results”, the source said.

Meta, a global company that operates popular platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, is also preparing for the new law, a source familiar with the matter said without elaborating.

A public relations agency representing Google Korea, a tech giant behind the search engine and YouTube, said it has not received guidance from the headquarters yet.

US scrutiny

The “fake news” law also carries diplomatic implications. The United States has recently taken issue with the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), viewing it as an excessive restriction on free speech, and observers expect Washington to scrutinise South Korea’s approach as well, given that American firms are among the most prominent platforms affected.

Experts say the law stems from domestic anxiety over misinformation rather than any desire to single out US firms. But they also admit that South Korea-only rules placing heavy burdens on a few US tech giants could easily be recast as trade disputes or used as leverage in alliance politics, as has already occurred in Europe.

A media scholar, speaking on condition of anonymity, likened South Korea’s approach to Europe’s DSA, which defines very large platforms and imposes extensive obligations on them, many of which fall on US firms.

“The numeric thresholds we are now seeing for users and unloaders basically imitate it,” she said. “Europe has already faced criticism that this was about targeting American companies, and Korea risks inviting similar accusations.”

South Korea’s Starbucks shut for staff history lesson after ‘Tank Day’ promotion backlash

An industry expert, requesting anonymity, voiced a similar concern from the corporate side.

The law “can easily become a spark for trade disputes”, the expert said, pointing to the recent controversy over US-incorporated firm Coupang as an example of how regulatory issues could spill over into the broader Seoul-Washington relationship.

Conservative politicians and activists have condemned the law as a direct threat to freedom of expression and a step towards systemic censorship.

A petition on the National Assembly website calling for the repeal of the law gathered more than 140,000 signatures between May 26 and June 26.

Because the same liability rules apply to everything from viral YouTube videos to parenting forum posts, delivery app reviews and comments on shopping platforms, critics say the law will change how platforms behave towards disputed content.

Faced with the legal risk, operators may decide it is safer to take down a contested review or post as soon as a conflict arises than to keep it up and risk being punished later, raising fears that disputed content could be removed much faster and more often than before.

Independent lawmaker Han Dong-hoon, former justice minister, warned that once the state was empowered to decide what counted as fact, online platforms would be pushed to filter out any information that did not fit its narrative.

“Put simply, the law tells portals and community operators to pre-screen and remove any posts the government deems illegal, and to punish them if they do not comply. Faced with that risk, operators will try to minimise their own liability by erring on the side of deleting more content than necessary, leading to confusion and harmful effects from censorship,” he said in a social media post.

Representative Kim Jae-sub of the main opposition People Power Party went further, likening the law to historic speech-control statutes under authoritarian regimes.

“Hitler had the Heimtuckegesetz, a law against malicious criticism, and Stalin had Article 58 of the Soviet criminal code banning anti-Soviet agitation,” he said. “Now the Lee Jae Myung administration has revised the Information and Communications Network Act, a ‘community censorship law’ that serves the same purpose: to shut down legitimate criticism of those in power.”

He cited past cases in which Lee and the ruling Democratic Party of Korea branded investigations into the Daejang-dong development scandal in Seongnam, Gyeonggi province, and a controversial trip by former Seoul mayoral candidate Chong Won-o, as “fake news” – only for those allegations to later be confirmed as true.

“Just imagine how convenient a governing tool this ‘community censorship law’ will be,” he added.

Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3358967/south-korea-fake-news-law-triggers-free-speech-censorship-fears

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

HopeGirl Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@hopegirlblog
HopeGirl Telegram Channel Chat and Groups: https://t.me/Hopegirl587 
Get Our Free EMF Survival Guide : https://bit.ly/FTWEMF
10 Percent Off our EMF Protection Products with this Link: https://www.ftwproject.com/ref/tenoff

The post South Korea ‘fake news’ law triggers free speech, censorship fears appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

It’s been six years since the British Labour Party-affiliated organisation Centre for Countering Digital Hate published “The Disinformation Dozen” list of “leading [US] online anti-vaxxers.”

The Defender interviewed six of the 12 people on the list. They shared how being included on the list affected their businesses, their relationships and their constitutional right to freedom of speech.

The ‘Disinformation Dozen’: Targeted by Government, Maligned by Media. Where Are They Today?

By Michael Nevradakis, as published by The Defender on 24 March 2026

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. “Like a witch hunt”
3. “Designed to create a chilling effect”
4. “Underlying infrastructure of suppression remains largely intact”
5. Ongoing lawsuits challenge censorship tied to the “Disinformation Dozen” list
6. Related articles in The Defender
7. About the Author

Introduction

In March 2021, one year into the covid-19 pandemic, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (“CCDH”) published its list of “leading online anti-vaxxers,” dubbed “The Disinformation Dozen.”

The impact was immediate.

Social media giants began de-platforming some of the people on the list.

Key Biden administration officials publicly referenced the list and its members and accused them of spreading dangerous “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

The “Twitter Files,” released in 2022 and 2023, showed that Big Tech worked with the [US] Government to censor not only those on the “Disinformation Dozen” list, but also anyone with a significant online following who published content that contradicted the official covid-19 narrative.  That included Children’s Health Defense (“CHD”), which on 17 August 2022, was kicked off major social media platforms, including Facebook and Instagram.  CHD wasn’t on the “Disinformation Dozen” list – but its founder and then-chairman, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was.

“When the ‘Disinformation Dozen’ list was published, Kennedy was still chairman of CHD,” said CHD CEO Mary Holland. “Silencing his voice meant silencing ours – because at the time, his name was synonymous with that of CHD, the organisation he founded and led.”

When Kennedy left CHD to run for US President, it was no longer possible for the government and the CCDH to censor him. “His social media channels were restored,” Holland said. “But to this day, CHD is still being censored.”

Much has changed since 2021. Kennedy is now US health secretary, leading the Trump administration’s ‘Make America Healthy Again’ (“MAHA”) agenda.

Many of the “Disinformation Dozen” continue to actively write, produce documentaries and advocate for health freedom.

Social media platforms and CEOs, including Mark Zuckerberg, have since acknowledged that they censored the list’s members at the Biden administration’s request.

Some media outlets have walked back previous negative coverage of the list’s members.

What about the originator of the “Disinformation Dozen” list? Internal documents leaked in 2024 showed that CCDH planned to launch “black ops” against Kennedy. The group has been linked to the Democratic Party and to “dark money” networks – including to billionaire financier George Soros and his Open Society Foundations.

CCDH is now the subject of a congressional investigation. Its CEO, Imran Ahmed – tied to key figures in the UK government, including some with links to financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein – is facing deportation from the US

This week, six of the list’s members – Charlene Bollinger, Erin Elizabeth, Kevin Jenkins, Sayer Ji, Ben Tapper and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny – spoke to The Defender about how inclusion on the list impacted their lives and livelihoods, the extent to which they continue to face censorship today, the investigations targeting CCDH and lawsuits they are part of which are related to the censorship they faced.

Other ”Disinformation Dozen” members, including Kennedy; holistic psychiatrist Dr. Kelly Brogan; physician Dr. Joseph Mercola; obstetrician-gynecologist physician Dr. Christiane Northrup; and educator, activist and health advocate Rizza Islam, could not be reached for comment. Dr. Rashid Buttar died in 2023.

Several of the list’s members – and Holland – will participate in a MAHA Action Media Hub event on Wednesday on censorship and repression.

“Like a witch hunt”

Erin Elizabeth, founder of Health Nut News, said being included on the “Disinformation Dozen” list was “like a witch hunt.”

“I’ve been banned five times on Instagram,” she said. “I’ve been banned so many times on TikTok I’ve lost count. The last time was for simply quoting Kennedy. It was tragic to lose millions of followers on Facebook alone, let alone six figures on my other platforms, some of which I’d had over 20 years.”

Elizabeth suggested that the list’s members were deplatformed in a coordinated manner. “They wiped us out, most of us, within a half hour of one another,” she said.

Sayer Ji, chairman of the Global Wellness Forum and founder of GreenMedInfo, said the CCDH report “was not journalism. It was a targeting document.” He said that within weeks of its publication, “I was de-platformed across YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, Pinterest … GreenMedInfo lost most of its organic traffic overnight.”

Ben Tapper, a chiropractor and host of Dr. Ben Tapper’s Podcast, said he was targeted soon after a speech he gave in Omaha, Nebraska, opposing covid-19 mask mandates.

“After that speech, my social media was reaching millions of people per month, and we were raising funds for our documentary,” Tapper said. “Then President Biden called us out in a press hearing, and all my social media was deleted.

Tapper subsequently faced five account deletions on Instagram and bans on TikTok and Twitter (now X).

Sherri Tenpenny, a physician and host of The Tenpenny Files podcast, said she “lost hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and Podbean.”

Kevin Jenkins, vice president of the lobbying firm Right Turn Strategies, said he was de-platformed from Instagram, Facebook and Twitter for “a long period of time.”

“Designed to create a chilling effect”

Deplatforming was not limited to social media platforms. Tapper and Tenpenny said they were banned from financial platforms, including PayPal and Venmo.

Charlen Bollinger, founder of The Truth About Vaccines and The Truth About Cancer (“TTAC”), said Google “has strangled” her ability to reach the public through her email lists.

Several of the list’s members said inclusion on the list harmed them professionally.

Bollinger said the censorship “has disrupted our business to the point where we have really struggled financially, which has resulted in our inability to produce and reach millions of people.”

“Immediately our income was cut down considerably, and I had to let my own aunt go, who had worked for me for some time and is a single mother,” Elizabeth said. “I couldn’t afford to keep her on.”

Tapper said that when the “Disinformation Dozen” list was published, “we were slandered falsely in the media, I lost patients in my clinic and received messages from thousands of people stating that I was a threat to public health.”

Several of the list’s members said they were subjected to personal attacks and harm to their personal and family lives. According to Tapper:

“I lost close friends who thought I was on the wrong side of history. My home was broken into, my clinic was vandalised, I received death threats, my phone and my wife’s phone were hacked. We received hundreds of texts per day.

“My clinic was vandalised, I had people protesting at my office, my truck was vandalised, and I had physical altercations in public. Family members disowned us, separated themselves.”

Ji said the “Disinformation Dozen” list accomplished multiple objectives for CCDH.

“The financial impact was severe and sustained. But beyond the economics, the designation was designed to create a chilling effect on anyone who might cite our research or collaborate with us. It worked, for a time,” he said.

Holland said CHD is still subject to this chilling effect. She said:

“We continue to endure an unprecedented level of censorship across search engines and social media, including Facebook and Instagram, where our accounts, which had millions of followers, have not been restored.

“This censorship hurts our organisation. But worse than that, it prevents the public from accessing scientific and medical information, thus depriving Americans of the right to make critical decisions about their health, based on true informed consent.”

“Underlying infrastructure of suppression remains largely intact”

Five years on, a new administration is in government, and the public climate surrounding vaccines and vaccine safety has shifted.

But several members of the “Disinformation Dozen” said they remain censored on most social media platforms and that accounts that were restored reach a smaller audience.

“Among the channels we lost, most recently, YouTube reinstated our TTAC channel with 164,000 subscribers. But this channel is heavily shadow banned, so our community can’t find our films when we release them,” Bollinger said.

Ji said YouTube restored his channels late last year, “acknowledging that the content had never violated their community guidelines.”

“That acknowledgement, quiet as it was, is its own indictment of what happened in 2021,” Ji said. But Ji said he is “still navigating suppression in search, and the shadow of the CCDH designation lingers in ways that are difficult to quantify but unmistakable in practice.”

Jenkins said he feels “without a shadow of a doubt” that he is “still being hampered.” His Instagram account, which previously had about 30,000 followers, has lost many of those followers. “It’s never allowed me to grow,” he said.

Tapper described a similar experience with Instagram. “I feel like my Instagram account isn’t allowing for growth, and every month I lose anywhere from 700 to 800 followers. It has been that way for a couple of years,” he said.

“We have lost at least 1 million followers and subscribers,” Bollinger said. “And while we still have 1.1 million followers on Facebook, 152,000 followers on Instagram and 66,000 followers on X, we can’t reach them due to the intense censorship.”

Some “Disinformation Dozen” members suggested that shadow banning is applied unevenly – to specific posts or to stifle accounts showing signs of growth.

“I feel like certain posts are being shadow banned and censored,” Tapper said. “It all depends on what I post. I feel like if you are over the target, you will be shadow banned or censored.”

Elizabeth said that every time she gains some traction, “they ban my page and I have to start over. This has happened numerous times on every platform except X.”

Tapper and Elizabeth said that only X has restored their previously banned accounts. According to Tenpenny, though, shadow banning continues to take place on YouTube, where the accounts of YouTube users who interview her are removed, and on X, despite the free speech promises of the platform’s owner, Elon Musk.

“I was reinstated on X [but] we are severely shadow banned – we’ve only grown by a few thousand followers in 2025, even though I’ve been speaking and have been a guest on huge platforms,” Tenpenny said.

Jenkins said he is engaged in a daily effort to “work around the algorithms” and discuss topics such as chronic illness.

Several of the list’s members, including Bollinger, Elizabeth, Ji, Tapper and Tenpenny, said they have been able to bypass censorship on Substack, where they have built a substantial audience.

Elizabeth said she has secured a book deal. Ji is working on a book examining the links between Epstein, Bill Gates and pandemic preparedness.  The Bollingers just released a film, ‘Censored: The Fight for the First Amendment’, which “exposes the unholy alliance between government power, Big Tech monopolies and billionaire-funded NGOs.”

“Things have changed in our ability to talk about these things publicly without the fear of being attacked as we were during the covid years,” Bollinger said.

“That is the thing the de-platformers consistently underestimate: you cannot algorithmically delete a relationship built on substance over two decades,” Ji said. He warned that “the underlying infrastructure of suppression remains largely intact.”

Ongoing lawsuits challenge censorship tied to the “Disinformation Dozen” list

Today, several of the list’s members are involved in legal challenges related to the censorship they experienced. This includes CHD’s antitrust lawsuit against the Trusted News Initiative – a partnership formed by Reuters, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, BBC and others.

The lawsuit, filed in 2023, alleges that the Trusted News Initiative violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by collectively colluding with tech giants to censor independent news outlets in a move designed specifically to cripple the smaller publishers’ ability to compete.

Last year, the US Department of Justice filed a statement of interest supporting the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which includes CHD, Bollinger, Mercola and Tapper.

In a lawsuit filed last year, several of the list’s members – Elizabeth, Islam, Ji, Northrup, Tapper and Tenpenny – sued CCDH and Ahmed, Google, Meta and X, and several agencies and officials from the current and previous administrations.

Ji said the lawsuit “challenges the government’s role in coordinating censorship of protected speech.”

In another case, Bollinger sued Google, Meta, X and several federal agencies in December 2024, “for using social media platforms as the tools to silence us.”

Ji said he is also involved in a legal case in the UK seeking his immediate arrest and confiscation of his equipment. He described this as “a situation in which my protected American speech was cited in foreign criminal proceedings.”

The list’s members welcomed the congressional investigation and deportation proceedings CCDH and Ahmed face.

“The effort to deport Imran Ahmed is, from where I sit, a measure of how thoroughly the architecture he helped construct has been exposed,” Ji said. “The vindication is real, but it comes at a cost that the people targeted have already paid.”

Tapper called Ahmed “a serious threat” to free speech and said the American people “deserve transparency about the networks, funding and influence” behind CCDH.

“While we are happy to see Imran Ahmed and the CCDH in this fire, and hopefully removed from the US, he needs to also face justice for his crimes,” Bollinger said.

The list’s members dismissed acknowledgements by Zuckerberg and Big Tech platforms about the censorship they engaged in.

“The admission did not come with accountability or restoration of what was lost,” Ji said. “It came as a casual acknowledgement in a changed political environment. That should trouble everyone regardless of where they sit politically. If the infrastructure exists to suppress speech at government request, it will be used again,” Ji said.

Bollinger said she was hopeful that Zuckerberg and Google were sincere when they claimed they “targeted and censored us and others like us only because ‘the government made me do it,’” but added, “the proof is in the pudding. We are still being targeted and censored.”

Jenkins, who is politically active in New Jersey, credited Kennedy with helping to deliver a “seismic shift” in how the public discusses topics such as vaccines today.

“I speak to a lot of people daily, and the fear that they had about discussing it prior has changed,” Jenkins said. “I’m very encouraged about the work that Kennedy is doing. He’s up against a Herculean group of people that want to continue to lie to Americans and lie to the world, and they’re fighting him at all levels.”

Source: https://theexposenews.com/2026/04/02/disinformation-dozen-are-still-facing-censorship/

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

HopeGirl Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@hopegirlblog
HopeGirl Telegram Channel Chat and Groups: https://t.me/Hopegirl587 
Get Our Free EMF Survival Guide : https://bit.ly/FTWEMF
10 Percent Off our EMF Protection Products with this Link: https://www.ftwproject.com/ref/tenoff

The post “The Disinformation Dozen” are still facing censorship appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

The following is a list of the top 50 organisations in the global Censorship Industrial Complex. You may be shocked to realise that the UK Army’s 77th Brigade is ranked a lowly number 42. That should tell you something!

This article is a reprint. It was originally published on 28 July 2023.

The following are excerpts from ‘Report on the Censorship-Industrial Complex: The Top 50 Organisations to Know’ published by Racket News on 10 May 2023.  In the main, our excerpts serve to provide a simplified list of the organisations included in Racket News’ comprehensive Report.  For ease of reference, the numbers in our list correlate to the numbers in the original Report. We recommend readers at the very least select one or two organisations of interest and read the details the Report contains HERE.  It will be eye-opening.

“The Top 50 List” is intended as a resource for reporters and researchers beginning their journey toward learning the scale and ambition of the “Censorship-Industrial Complex (“CIC”).” Written like a magazine feature, it tries to answer a few basic questions about funding, organisation type, history, and especially, methodology. Many anti-disinformation groups adhere to the same formulaic approach to research, often using the same “hate-mapping,” guilt-by-association-type analysis to identify wrong-thinkers and suppressive persons.

A democratic society requires the nourishment of free debate, disagreement, and intellectual tension, but the groups below seek instead a “shared vocabulary” to deploy on the hybrid battlefield. They propose to serve as the guardians of that “vocabulary.”

1. Information Futures Lab (IFL) at Brown University (formerly, First Draft News)

You may have read about them when: You first heard the terms Mis-, dis-, and malinformation. The term was coined by FD Director Claire Wardle. IFL/FD are also the only academic/non-profit organisation involved in the Trusted News Initiative, a large-scale legacy media consortium established to control debate around the pandemic response.

What we know about funding: First Draft was funded by a huge number of entities including Craig Newmark, Rockefeller, the National Science Foundation, Facebook, the Ford Foundation, Google, the Knight Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, Open Society Foundations, and more. Funding for the IFL includes the Rockefeller Foundation for a “building vaccine demand” initiative.

Closely connected to: Almost all the leading lights of the CIC, including the Stanford Internet Observatory, the Trusted News Initiative, Shorenstein Centre, DFRLabs, the World Economic Forum, the Aspen Institute, Meedan, and Bellingcat.

2. Meedan. You may have read about them when: Meedan ran a range of Covid-19 misinformation initiatives “to support pandemic fact-checking efforts” with funding from Big Tech, the Omidyar Foundation, the National Science Foundation and more. Partners included Britain’s now-disgraced Behavioural Insights Team, or “nudge unit.” In sum: Meedan exemplifies the NGO-to-Stasi stylistic shift, where spying and snitching on private messages in the name of “anti-disinformation” is now considered a public good.

3. Harvard Shorenstein Centre on Media, Politics and Public Policy (Technology and Social Change Project). Type: An elite academic project once regarded as one of the leading centres in the “anti-disinformation” field. In sum: An “anti-disinformation” project that got it wrong so often, even the centre that housed it cut ties.

4. The Public Good Projects. Type: Non-profit consultancy, specialising in health communications, marketing, technology and “disinformation.” In sum: A sophisticated communications and technology outfit with close Big Tech and Big Pharma partners, and a mission to stop “misinformation.”

5. Graphika. Type: For-profit firm with defence connections specialising in “digital marketing and disinformation & analysis.” In sum: With deep Pentagon ties and a patina of public-facing commercial legitimacy, Graphika is set up to be the Rand Corporation of the Anti-Disinformation age.

6. Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLabs) of the Atlantic Council. Type: Public-facing disinformation research arm of highly influential, extravagantly funded, NATO-aligned think tank, the Atlantic Council.

7. Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO).  In sum: The Stanford Internet Observatory may or may not continue to have a high-profile role in building out the CIC, but figures like Renee DiResta and Alex Stamos have already fulfilled a substantial historical function by organising cross-platform content sweeps for Covid-19 and the 2020 election.

8. Poynter Institute / International Fact-Checking Network

What we know about funding: Over $4 million a year goes from Facebook to IFCN partner organisations. Poynter and Politifact meanwhile list the Craig Newmark Foundation, the Koch Foundation, the Knight Foundation, the Omidyar Network, the National Endowment for Democracy, Microsoft, and the Washington Post as funders, among others.

What they do/What they are selling: At-scale, enterprise effort to fact-check earth.

Gibberish verbiage: Little to none. IFCN/Politifact are mostly operated and maintained by people with relationships to journalism, and its products are designed to be consumed by broad audiences.

In sum: The IFCN in particular is a huge-scale fact-checking operation whose conflicted relationship with Meta/Facebook may provide a template for future truth contractors.

9. Integrity Initiative / Institute for Statecraft.  Type: Shady-as-F spook world surveillance and information control plan that will send you voiding in terror.  In sum: Straight Outta Orwell! The Integrity Initiative documents represent one of the most consequential intelligence leaks of all time – the very dirty underpants of NATO.

10. National Conference on Citizenship / Algorithmic Transparency Institute. You may have read about them when: Via its Junkipedia initiative. ATI also runs the “Civic Listening Corps,” “a volunteer network of individuals trained to monitor for, critically evaluate, and report misinformation.”

11. Park Advisors. In sum: A now defunct (and hard to find) disinformation advisory group, connected to GEC, that created a digital testbed for “counter-disinformation” tools.

12. New Knowledge AI, rebranded as Yonder AI, was acquired by Primer.  Type: For-profit internet company that worked for brands and national security entities searching platforms for narrative control, along with detecting narrative manipulation from malign actors.

13. Moonshot CVE.  Type: For-profit tech company working with public and private industry partners to detect and prevent online hate.

14. Annenberg Public Policy Centre (home of Factcheck.org).  Type: Privately funded Public Policy Research Centre affiliated with the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.  In Sum: The Annenberg Public Policy Centre is one tentacle of the Annenberg Foundation’s larger influence operation masquerading as a think tank. Its analysis is informed by and ultimately loyal to the ghosts of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Queen Elizabeth and Walter Annenberg.

15. German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy.  In sum: The German Marshall Fund is a large pass-through for funding from the US and other NATO governments as well as the largest industrialists in those nations to try to shape public perception through front organisations.

16. Ad Council.  In sum: An advertising behemoth created by the largest corporations in WWII to sell war is still, well, doing that.

17. Clemson University Media Forensics Hub.  In sum: Communications professors at Clemson managed to secure a lot of funding from a retired academic and defence contractor who played a very critical role in the Strategic Defence Initiative under the Reagan Administration for a social media analysis/disinformation centre, built largely to feed information to journalists that Twitter’s own analyses consistently refuted.

18. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).  In sum: A new sub-agency of Homeland Security with a monster budget, strong university connections, and a giant purview to the middle of a bureaucratic morass of various other federal agencies and departments, all of whom also have a piece of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure protection portfolio; has rivals in DoD, Department of Energy, FBI, Secret Service and among the intelligence community.

19. Bellingcat.  Type: For-profit Netherlands-based investigative journalism organisation that seems mostly to investigate and/or denounce the practitioners of journalism.  In sum: The “independent” journalist consortium’s spook-a-rific investor group and malodorous contributor roster call into question its agenda-free reporting.

20. Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).  Type: CEPA is a non-profit public policy institution based in Washington, D.C. In sum: CEPA seeks to advance transatlantic political “values” and strengthen transatlantic cooperation to “ensure our collective defence and future security.”

 21. Centre for an Informed Public at the University of Washington. In sum: Through public and private financing, the CIP used its academic status to help with some of the largest censorship efforts targeting speech relating to the 2020 election and Covid-19.

22. Aspen Institute. Type: It has the reputation (and the geographical profile) of an American Davos. In sum: The Aspen Institute is an influential organisation that receives tens of millions of dollars in funding from the US government to comprehensively advance solutions to the world’s problems so that we don’t have to.

23. Trusted News Initiative. Type: Trusted News Initiative is a partnership “founded by the BBC” that includes media and technology organisations from around the world, including Google and YouTube, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, The CBC, The Washington Post, AP, Thomson Reuters, the Information Futures Lab/First Draft, and several more. In sum: A mammoth anti-disinformation initiative bringing together the biggest media and tech companies on the planet.

24. Automated Controversy Detection. In sum: Automated Controversy Detection takes anti-misinformation mission creep to the next level with its open and explicit AI-driven approach to the surveillance of the “content that triggers you.”

25. Centre for Countering Digital Hate. Type: An NGO cut-out engaged in brazen smearing, attacking dissenting views, de-platforming, censoring and pro-active shrinkage of the Overton window.  You may have read about them when: They issued a report called the “Disinformation Dozen.” In sum: Institutional anger-merchant NGO with a murky background and bulldog mentality ready to attack all and sundry, to institute their regime of censorship.

26. Craig Newmark Philanthropies. Type: A large philanthropy founded by the inventor of Craigslist, with a special focus on journalism and disinformation. In sum: A mega-fund core to power the explosive growth of the Censorship-Industrial complex.

27. Omidyar Group. Type: A series of foundations from the founder of eBay providing a huge amount of funding to the Censorship-Industrial complex. In sum: This is a mega-fund and driving force behind the Censorship-Industrial Complex.

28. The Knight Foundation. In sum: A leading force in developing the ecosystem of anti-disinformation organisations, particularly in the US.

29. Google Jigsaw. In sum: Perhaps the slickest and most technically sophisticated of the censorship and speech control initiatives.

30. Full Fact.

Type: A leading UK “fact-checking” “NGO” with mountains of money from Big Tech.

You may have read about them when: Founded by Michael John Samuel, the son of an aristocrat, Full Fact epitomises the elitism and down-talking of the “fact-checking” industry. Full Fact was the first UK member of Facebook’s Third-Party Fact-Checking program. Full Fact led a successful campaign to have vaccine critic and Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen removed from the party. Full Fact has even developed its own AI-driven Robocop to police speech online.

What we know about funding: Full Fact takes huge amounts of Big Tech money, almost $2.5 million between 2019-2021 from Facebook alone. Another example of corporations funding the people who supposedly keep them accountable. They also receive strong support from Google, Poynter, and Omidyar.

What they do/What they are selling: Truth policing in the service of the powerful.

In sum: Leading candidate for the inevitable UK Big Brother award.

31. Media Matters For America.

32. Miburo/Digital Threat Analysis Centre. Anti-disinformation lives, even on Substack!

33. Credibility Coalition. An oddly vague group of researchers that has poured resources into trying to develop what it calls a “shared vocabulary for credibility.”

34. Factcheck.me/Botcheck.me.

35. Duke Reporters’ Lab.

36. Reveal. This EU-funded “social media verification” site is, like many European anti-disinformation projects, more overtly terrifying in its dystopian aims than some of its American counterparts.

37. Global Disinformation Index.

38. US Agency for Global Media/Polygraph/Factograph.

39. Institute for Strategic Dialogue Also funded by the US State Department, the Britain-based ISD offers another smorgasbord of content-suffocation tools, including a “hate-mapper” service and a product called Beam.

40. Wikipedia. Wikipedia, like many tech behemoths, plays the role of a defender of free speech in certain circumstances, but lately, it has become perhaps the most furious grindstone of digital conformity in Western media outside Twitter, Google, and Facebook, institutionalising a system of blockages that increasingly only let through information reported on in an approving way by large corporate or academic institutions.

41. EU Disinfo Lab.

42. UK 77th Brigade. It should tell the reader something that the formation of an active military unit by a key NATO partner which is openly devoted to fighting online “disinformation” and has been credibly accused of mass surveillance of its own citizenry is just the 42nd entry on this list.

43. Claim Buster.

44. DisinfoCloud. It featured a “continuously updated news feed” of disinformation-related items, often with fairly far-out recommendations to “nearly 300 organisations.” This blogged material was available to “select government, civil society, and private sector users.”

45. MythDetector. The fact-checking arm of the Media Development Foundation, funded by USAID and the German Marshall Fund.

46. Verified. The inevitable creep-tastic United Nations fact-checking initiative.

47. Foreign Malign Influence Centre.

 48. Advance Democracy Inc.

49. DisinfoWatch.

50. Countering Disinformation.

Source:  https://theexposenews.com/2026/02/12/top-50-organisations-in-censorship-cartel/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post The Citizen’s Starter Kit to the top 50 Organisations in the Global Censorship Cartel appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

AT THE END OF ALL OF THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS THAT IS BASED ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

I’m hearing that some British creators and subscribers are fleeing Substack due to the platform’s acquiescence to the tyranny of the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA), the analogues of which are also being rolled out in Australia and in the EU. If you are a resident of these countries, the simple act of reading a Substack chat now requires a full body cavity search of your entire Digital Twin.

Due to the fact that censorship is illegal in America, the workaround is “Freedom of Speech, not freedom of reach,” as X.com ex-CEO Linda Yaccarino once said, which basically refers to shadowbanning – the kinder, gentler way to de-platform users.

Whereas, in the UK, they arrest 30 people per day for their tweets. In the US, we’re just algorithmically un-personed, with no warning, no explanation and no recourse, millions at a time, as was my case on several major platforms in January 2021.

Although President Trump has issued multiple Executive Orders during both of his administrations to end censorship and although the House Oversight hearings about the Censorship Industrial Complex did help to dismantle the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), as well as the DHS’ Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) – thus depriving Nina Jankowicz of a plum job violating your First Amendment rights as the head of a full-fledged US Federal Government agency – the sad fact is that censorship is very much alive in the US, because there are still so many Globalist traitors in the US Government and in Big Tech.

VIDEO: “Flashback: Ministry of Cringe!” – Pub. Aug 25, 2025 by ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.net

Share

The Global Engagement Center GEC is the former censorship node within the State Department that collaborated with MI6 and a private company called NewsGuard to blacklist me and hundreds of other publishers from online advertising networks. NewsGuard targeted my website for destruction and has harassed me every year since 2021, exactly as described by PragerU’s Marissa Streit, here.

Hopefully, things are about to change on that front. On December 18th, Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt tweeted-out a thread about the existential threat posed by the censorship regimes of the UK, EU, Australia and Brazil, not just to their own citizens but to the citizens of the US.

Schmitt included this letter to the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who assumed office two months ago, where he referred to Europe’s growing online despotism as a “campaign of foreign subversion” that poses “a direct challenge to our sovereignty and independence as a nation.”

His thread continues:

Over the past decade, we’ve seen alarming attacks on basic liberties across the West. In Europe, many governments have thrown their citizens in jail – sometimes for years at a time – for criticizing mass immigration, gender ideology, and various other parts of the left-wing program. [Like the Finnish MP who faces criminal charges for tweeting a Bible verse!]

Now, they’re seeking to impose their censorship on Americans.

The internet is global. It isn’t split into country-by-country silos. If an EU regulator makes a platform comply with its speech codes, those speech codes end up affecting everyone who uses the platform anywhere.

So foreign bureaucrats are using extraterritorial leverage to impose a new global censorship regime. The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) is the flagship model: it allows Brussels regulators to impose massive fines on any large platform that doesn’t comply with their diktats.

This isn’t abstract: The EU just fined X roughly $140 million. They claim it’s about failing to comply with “transparency” rules, but that’s a smokescreen. The rules are simply a tool the EU uses to punish pro-free speech platforms. The fine is a warning: Start censoring—or else.

And it’s not just the EU. The UK recently passed its own DSA-style bill—the Online Safety Act—and its stringent censorship rules apply to all services that are accessible in the UK, even if the company isn’t based there. Once again, companies that fail to comply face huge fines.

This, too, is not an abstract threat: Britain’s online speech regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), recently embarked on a campaign to enforce the Online Safety Act against Americans exercising their free speech rights here on American soil.

Australia’s eSafety regime has done the same: demanding U.S. companies like X take action against posts by U.S. citizens on American soil—while threatening daily fines if they failed to comply.

They’ve also explicitly insisted X remove posts GLOBALLY; not just in Australia.

And Brazil, too, has issued global takedown orders against online speech from users on U.S. soil.

But thankfully, this administration is fighting back. In July, the State Department imposed visa restrictions and sanctions against the Brazilian officials involved in these orders.

Now, it’s time to take further and more aggressive action to protect American speech and sovereignty.

Magnitsky Sanctions are some of our powerful tools to do just that—freezing the assets of foreign actors who violate basic rights and banning them from entering the U.S.

In the past, the State Department has used Magnitsky Sanctions against foreigners in far-flung countries who attack the rights of their citizens.

In this case, they’re waging a direct assault on not just their citizens, but OUR citizens, right here on our own soil.

I’m also asking the State Department to consider visa and travel restrictions. As I noted in my letter, a who’s-who of this cartel recently attended a pro-censorship conference at Stanford.

There’s no reason we should let these people come to our country for strategy meetings.

Some of these foreign censors are currently residing in our country. Imran Ahmed—the British Labour Party operative who founded the Soros-funded Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)—is reportedly here on a visa. The State Department should revoke it. He needs to go back.

Left-wing activist NGOs like CCDH are malignant actors, and play a similar role to the left-wing anti-”hate” groups that have gone after X and @elonmusk here in America. They have played a critical part in this global censorship enterprise, and should face the same consequences.

Under President Trump’s leadership – and thanks to the incredible work of patriots like @UnderSecPD, who I met with to discuss these issues before her confirmation earlier this year—the State Department has staked out a strong pro-sovereignty, pro-free speech posture in the world.

Now, it’s time to build on its successes and go further.

You can read my full letter here.

Schmitt concludes his letter to Rogers by asking, “1. Does the State Department have the statutory tools it needs to combat this foreign censorship threat, or are additional authorities needed? 2. Are any additional legislative solutions needed to help the United States combat the global censorship-industrial complex’s threat to American free speech and sovereignty?” It looks like Schmitt, Rogers and the State Department mean business.

During Tore Maras’ three-hour December 15th podcast, she described looking at the 2026 NDAA, which is the Pentagon’s budget for next year and she assessed that the Global Engagement Center had been quietly resurrected and funded in the final amendment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, which was signed into law on December 18, 2025.

“GEC Functions Re-Routed through the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy” – 18-min excerpt from 3-hour Dec 15th Tore Says Show.

Tore said that although that GEC was dissolved, its functions had now been funneled mainly through the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy.

That office is now headed by Sarah Rogers, the Free Speech activist, who is highly praised by Senator Schmitt in the X.com thread above, calling Rogers a “patriot” who’s advancing the State Department’s “strong pro-sovereignty, pro-free speech posture in the world.”

It appeared to Tore, perhaps without knowing more about Sarah Rogers, that the way the NDAA was written told her that Congress believes that censorship and influence operations are part of modern warfare and that they don’t want a civilian-facing office that looks like it manages speech, because they don’t want us to know that they’re managing speech (because censorship is illegal).

She said this is why she thinks it would be important for President Trump to make an agency that is in charge of these things, so that it can be subject to oversight.

It seems to me that the appointment of Rogers was a very strategic one to handle this censorship war with the decrepit tyrannies of the EU and the British Commonwealth. This isn’t a permanent solution, it’s the Trump administration’s response to the current asymmetrical lawfare attacks on the US.

At the end of all of this, I would like to see an internet bill of rights that is based on the US Constitution. This is what my late friend, John Perry Barlow championed and it’s why he became a Berkman Fellow at Harvard University.

Horribly, the Berkman School has devolved into nest of the same censorship cartel that recently met at the Stanford Internet Observatory, that’s referenced in Schmitt’s X thread.

If the Europeans prefer to be jailed for their tweets, then I guess the only answer is to terminate their access to US internet infrastructure.

Source:  https://forbiddennews.substack.com/p/censorship-war?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post Censorship War appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

– Censorship in Health Information (0:00)

– Censorship by Tech Giants and Media (1:50)

– Censorship of Gold and Silver (4:12)

– Censorship in the Ukraine Conflict (8:11)

– Censorship in Virology and Immunology (10:43)

– Censorship in Evolution and Climate Change (18:42)

– Censorship and Depopulation Agendas (24:28)

– Conclusion and Call to Action (26:02)

Source:  https://www.brighteon.com/ae6dbd3c-535c-4906-ba71-1aa1ba8fffe0

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post Censorship is deployed to protect powerful, corrupt interests from the truth appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Dr. Vernon Coleman first became aware of the censoring of citizens by the British state in the 1970s and 1980s.

In the 1980s, he wrote a good deal about the AIDS hoax, which the establishment didn’t like and culminated in his book ‘The Health Scare’ being banned.

“AIDS was the first attempt to control the world with a pandemic. And it was the similarity between the way AIDS was promoted and the way the coronavirus hoax was being promoted which helped me understand the truth about covid right at the beginning,” he writes.

By Dr. Vernon Coleman

It’s difficult to know precisely when the censorship and the oppression really began, and it’s always been difficult to know who was behind it. But there has been no doubt in my mind that it has for a long time been very real.

In the 1970s and 1980s, I wrote and campaigned a good deal about animal experiments (of which I always heartily disapproved on scientific grounds as well as on humanitarian grounds) and the police in general, and special branch in particular, started taking a close interest in my work from that time on.

Whenever I went to speak at an anti-vivisection rally, I would have my own video cameraman. He would follow me around and film me and everyone I spoke to.

Robin Webb was the Animal Liberation Front’s official press officer and he had his own police cameraman too. When we met and talked, our two devoted cameramen would stand beside us filming us both. I photographed a bunch of policemen who were following me once and wrote an article about them in the Sunday People. One of the photographs was captioned `The Hand of Plod’.

On one occasion, I was prevented from travelling to a demonstration by a police sergeant who threatened to arrest me simply for driving on the road. I sued the Chief Constable. The judge didn’t like me suing a policeman.

The son of a dear friend of mine worked for Special Branch and told me (via his father) that although they followed all my activities closely, they did not regard me as dangerous in a physical sense. “Following my activities closely” meant that they tapped my telephone, sucked messages off my fax machine and every time I moved house, someone arranged for one or two plainly marked telecom vans to sit parked outside my gate for days at a time. Whenever I asked what they were doing, the men inside the van replied that they were just making sure that my telephone line worked well. And this without my ever making a complaint about a dodgy line.

Another MI5 operative confirmed what I had been told.

The oppression was very heavy in those days because animal rights campaigners were pretty much the only reason for the existence of MI5, GCHQ and Special Branch. My phone and fax machine were constantly tapped.

After that, other campaigns attracted the attention of the various branches of MI5, Special Branch and GCHQ.

My successful campaign to force the government to issue controls on benzodiazepine tranquillisers resulted in my phone not working and my mail disappearing.

And then there was AIDS.

AIDS was the first attempt to control the world with a pandemic. And it was the similarity between the way AIDS was promoted and the way the coronavirus hoax was being promoted which helped me understand the truth about covid right at the beginning – in February and March 2020.

In the 1980s, I wrote a good deal about AIDS. I did a great deal of research and wrote a number of articles for The Sun (for which I was the medical correspondent for ten years), and in a number of them, I explained precisely why the Government and the medical establishment were creating entirely false fears. It was clear from all the medical literature that AIDS was not going to kill us all. (The official line, supported and promoted with great enthusiasm by the British Medical Association and the rest of the medical establishment, was that by the year 2000, everyone in the world would be in some way affected by AIDS.)

For the first months of the scare, I appeared a good deal on television and radio to debate the whole AIDS scare.

And then producers who were organising debates suddenly decided that they didn’t want anyone questioning the AIDS story – they wanted their debates to consist entirely of people supporting the official party line.

But I first started to be seriously, seriously banned in 1988 when my book ‘The Health Scandal’ was published by Sidgwick and Jackson in London.

Everyone at the publisher was terribly excited about the book. I met members of the board at some sort of pre-publication drinks do. One bigwig, William Rees-Mogg, a former editor of The Times, told me how important he thought the book was – both for the company and the country. This was, I think, the first book of mine to be targeted and crushed.

And then the mood changed, virtually overnight. The publicity department abandoned the book and the rights department decided that they would not offer the paperback rights to the book to any of the country’s paperback houses. My literary agent at the time couldn’t believe this was happening because the paperback rights to my other books had always attracted healthy bids and some competition. She was even more startled when Sidgwick and Jackson told her that I could have the rights back and sell them myself. This was unheard of. My contract with Sidgwick and Jackson gave them a healthy percentage of the money received for the paperback rights. But S&J had mysteriously decided that they were so alarmed by the book’s contents that they didn’t want to have anything to do with the book’s future.

In the history of commercial publishing, no publisher has ever before or since turned down a decent chunk of money in such a way.

The only thing in the book that could possibly have caused this remarkable change of heart was a chapter dealing with AIDS – in which I demolished the popular establishment argument that AIDS was the biggest threat to mankind and would probably kill us all.

And so my agent sold the paperback rights to a paperback company called Mandarin for a decent sum and, apart from my agent’s commission, I kept all of that because Sidgwick and Jackson were now so alarmed by the book that they didn’t want any of the money. Mandarin printed and quickly sold out a paperback version of the book. But, curiously, they let it go out of print. (In 2023, I reprinted an edition of `The Health Scandal’ as a paperback.)

None of the original hardback or paperback editions of The Health Scandal were ever reprinted. But The Health Scandal is now available again and you can buy a copy via the bookshop on my website.

My next medical non-fiction book, called `Betrayal of Trust’, was rejected by just about every publisher in London – despite the fact that all my previous books had been commercially very successful. Most said they were worried about the legal consequences of publishing it. In other words, they thought they might be sued for libel. I didn’t think this was a serious risk because I had been very careful in compiling the book. I think they were told not to publish the book.

So I published the book myself, sold 10,000 copies of the hardback edition, reprinted it, sold that edition, printed a paperback edition and sold all of those.

That was in 1994.

Ever since then, I’ve been censored, blocked, banned and demonised.

And the censoring, blocking, banning and demonising went up a couple of notches in early 2020 when I called the covid scare a hoax. The authorities didn’t like that very much.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/12/01/a-story-of-censorship-starting-in-the-1970s/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post A story of censorship – starting in the 1970s appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

You got to see this! The censorship is worse than I thought plus tour of our telegram. If I tagged you in this please take a moment to watch it as this relates to you too! -HopeGirl

Source: https://rumble.com/v6zpkbw-the-censorship-is-worse-than-i-thought-plus-tour-of-our-telegram..html?e9s=src_v1_upp_a

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post The censorship is worse than I thought plus tour of our telegram. appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

On 18 July, the US officially rejected the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO”) 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”), citing threats to national sovereignty, free speech and constitutional protections.

If not rejected, the amendments would have allowed the WHO to influence lockdowns, vaccine documentation and pandemic declarations without approval from elected officials or public input.

Austria, Italy and Israel also blocked the amendments before the 19 July 2025 deadline, each emphasising the need for local control over health policy and rejecting unelected global oversight.

Countries that did not formally reject the amendments by the deadline will be bound by them starting 19 September 2025, while four nations have until the 19^th September 2026 to opt out.

People can still take action by checking their country’s position, pressuring local representatives, informing others and organising efforts to defend national health autonomy.

Please note, for much of the following article, Dr. Joseph Mercola takes the viewpoint of US citizens; what the US population has avoided by the US government rejecting WHO’s IHR amendments. For countries that have not rejected them, it is the opposite.  It is what governments have agreed populations within their countries should be subjected to.

As Dr. Mercola highlights the denial of free speech aspects of WHO’s power grab, we should also consider the global impact on free speech that the UK’s Online Safety Act has ushered in, which is affecting Americans as well.  Coupled with the UK government accepting WHO’s sweeping control through the IHR amendments, we cannot rule out that this could mean information will be controlled globally by WHO through the UK government.

Related: UK’s Online Safety Act has kick-started a global frenzy of online censorship and surveillance

As always, we should recall that there are two WHO instruments: the IHR amendments, which is the subject of this article, and the Pandemic Treaty, which has also been referred to as the Pandemic Agreement, Pandemic Accord and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”).

US Has Rejected the Amendments to the International Health Regulations

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

When a joint statement comes from both the US Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of State, it’s worth paying attention. On 18 July 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marco Rubio delivered a formal rejection of the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO”) 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).¹

The reason? The changes would give an unelected international body the power to shape national public health decisions – including pandemic declarations, digital health documentation, and so-called “equitable access” to medical products – without democratic oversight or public debate.

This isn’t just about bureaucratic language. These amendments directly impact your right to privacy, freedom of movement and control over your personal health decisions. The updated rules include vague but far-reaching terms that would allow the WHO to interfere with national emergency response measures, compel governments to implement digital health surveillance tools and facilitate narrative control under the guise of risk communication.

The language is intentionally broad – enough to authorise sweeping actions while avoiding accountability. And unlike WHO membership, these amendments would have been binding even if a nation had exited the organisation altogether. Italy, Israel and Austria have also rejected or objected to the amendments. Their actions mirror the US stance: health decisions need to remain within national borders and be governed by constitutional protections, not dictated by global bureaucrats.

In each case, officials warned of dangerous overreach, unchecked censorship and the erosion of civil liberties under the pretence of public health. Understanding how these amendments were crafted, what they attempt to enforce and why countries are pushing back is key. The next section breaks down what the US rejection means in practical terms – and what it signals for your future autonomy in the face of global health mandates.

Bureaucrats Abroad Tried to Rewrite American Health Policy – but Failed

US leaders have formally rejected WHO’s expanded authority via the 2024 amendments to the IHR. These changes, according to the joint statement from Kennedy Jr. and Rubio, would have allowed the WHO to bypass American law and impose health directives, including lockdowns and vaccine documentation, without approval from Congress or the American people.²

• The amendments aimed to centralise emergency decisions under WHO control.  The rejected amendments gave the WHO power to define and respond to what it calls a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.”

The updated language would have allowed the WHO to intervene in a country’s domestic affairs based on subjective interpretations of global solidarity or health equity. This would’ve included the ability to influence pandemic declarations and responses in ways that directly override national public health agencies and local policies.

• Officials warned that vague terms open the door to censorship.  According to the joint statement, the terminology in the amendments was broad and undefined – phrases like “equitable access” and “risk communication” were left open to interpretation. In practice, this means global officials could have justified censorship or surveillance under the excuse of controlling misinformation or ensuring compliance with “equity” goals.

The US response emphasised that this kind of ambiguity undermines scientific debate and allows politically motivated directives to masquerade as public health guidance. By embedding subjective language into binding agreements, international bodies like the WHO create a framework that narrows acceptable discourse and enforces medical compliance with minimal oversight. This is how policy becomes a mechanism for influence, not protection.

• Digital health tracking was a major red flag.  The rejected language also encouraged countries to adopt digital health documents, including vaccine passports and health ID systems. These tools would’ve facilitated international tracking of people’s medical records and health status, linking access to travel, work or services to WHO-defined compliance standards.

The US government made clear it “will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties.”

• The US criticised the WHO’s poor track record during outbreaks like covid. The joint statement called out the WHO’s response to the covid-19 pandemic, citing its susceptibility to “political influence and censorship – most notably from China.”

Officials stressed that entrusting the WHO with more control after this history of failed transparency and accountability would be irresponsible. Rather than improving emergency responses, the amendments risked repeating the same communication breakdowns and information suppression that marred the global covid response.

• This decision preserves US medical autonomy.  According to the statement, “public health policy continues to be dictated by the values and will of the American people, not unelected global actors.”

The rejection ensures that American citizens retain constitutional protections and are not subject to directives issued by an international agency that does not answer to them. By refusing to accept the new language, US health policy remains under the control of state and federal agencies, not bureaucrats in Geneva.

Kennedy Slams WHO’s Censorship Agenda and Digital Surveillance Push

As reported by The Hill, Kennedy Jr. warned that the newly proposed amendments to the IHR “open the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda and censorship that we saw during the covid-19 pandemic.”³ That kind of control doesn’t just affect officials – it reaches into your life, dictating what information you hear, what platforms allow and how you’re allowed to speak about health.

• Kennedy made it clear: the amendments undermine civil liberties.  “The United States can cooperate with other nations without jeopardising our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America’s treasured sovereignty,” Kennedy stated in a video posted to X (formerly Twitter).⁴

This isn’t abstract policy – it’s about whether unelected officials have the authority to restrict your freedom to travel, gather, speak or make medical decisions during a declared emergency.

• The WHO has no power to mandate, but the amendments would shift that balance.  WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus publicly claimed that the organisation “has never had the power to mandate lockdowns, travel restrictions or any other similar measures.” While technically true under current rules, the new language would have pressured governments to comply with WHO-coordinated responses, including mandates and movement restrictions, without democratic consent.

• The amendments could force countries to create risk communication systems. Kennedy also took aim at a regulation that would require member countries to develop “risk communication” systems. While the term sounds neutral, Kennedy explained that this language is code for information control: systems that control narratives, limit dissent and enforce compliance with official positions.

• Kennedy’s rejection ties back to real-world harms seen during covid.  The article drew a direct line between the proposed rules and the suppression of debate seen in the last pandemic. According to Kennedy, the world has already witnessed what happens when centralised health narratives dominate media, shut down dissent and silence clinicians who question official doctrine. Locking that system into international law would repeat and worsen those mistakes.

Other Nations Joined the US in Refusing IHR Amendments

Austria, Italy and Israel all took formal action to block WHO’s power grab. Their moves weren’t symbolic. Each took legal or parliamentary action to halt the WHO’s expanded emergency powers before the 19 July 2025 deadline.

Across all three nations, a common theme emerged: health policy needs to be made by local officials who are accountable to their people, not by distant bureaucrats. For citizens of those countries, that means their governments preserved the ability to make local health decisions without international interference.⁵

• Austria lodged a legal objection to buy time and preserve autonomy.  Austria’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva filed a legal objection to the IHR amendments on 17 July 2025, just two days before the deadline.⁶ This objection ensures the amendments won’t apply in Austria until the national parliament has formally approved them.

In other words, Austrians now have a window to pressure lawmakers and block the changes permanently. The Ministry of Health confirmed that the rejection was filed to uphold the Austrian Constitution – not as a formality, but to maintain sovereignty over national health policy.

• Italy flatly rejected the amendments, bypassing future enforcement.  Italy’s Health Minister Orazio Schillaci, with the backing of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, formally declined the amendments on 19 July.⁷ Their refusal wasn’t a conditional objection – it was a full rejection.

According to translated excerpts from the Italian newspaper La Verità, the amendments would have given the WHO authority to issue binding recommendations on quarantines, movement restrictions and supply chain management without consulting the Italian Parliament. Schillaci called it an unacceptable breach of democracy and promised to shield citizens from top-down directives that undermine constitutional rights.

• Israel’s leadership withdrew after months of internal review.  In a bold move, Israeli Health Minister Uriel Bosso announced that Israel would not adopt the new WHO regulations.⁸ The decision came after sustained lobbying from Knesset members, health professionals and legal experts.

Bosso explained that the treaty would give the WHO excessive influence over Israel’s national decisions, especially in areas like defence, economics and education. His final statement made the stakes clear: “This is a complex and considered decision that is intended to protect the interests of the State of Israel and expresses our full responsibility for public health.”

How You Can Push Back and Protect Your Rights

If you’re worried about losing your say in personal health decisions to international agencies, you’re not overreacting – you’re responding to a real shift in power. The 2024 IHR amendments weren’t just technical updates. They were written to centralise control, diminish national sovereignty and give unelected global actors the ability to shape your country’s pandemic response without your input. That’s not a distant threat. It’s already on track to become binding policy in most of the world.

But this isn’t just about politics – it’s about protecting your ability to make informed, voluntary health decisions for yourself and your family. Whether you’re a parent, a business owner or someone who values constitutional protections, you have tools right now to make a difference. Here are five steps I recommend to take action:

1. Find out where your country stands on the 2024 amendments. Start by checking whether your government has submitted a formal rejection or reservation. Most countries had until 19 July 2025 to opt out. If no action was taken by that date, the amendments will become binding on 19 September 2025.

However, if you’re in Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand or Slovakia, your government has until 19 September 2026 to make a decision. That means there’s still time to act locally – push your representatives to reject the amendments before that deadline passes.

2. Engage your elected officials directly.  Don’t rely on petitions or mass emails. Pick up the phone, write a physical letter, or request a meeting with your local representative. Ask them where they stand on ceding health authority to the WHO. Be clear: you expect your country to retain full control over national health emergencies, including decisions about lockdowns, quarantine and personal medical freedom. Hold them accountable by documenting their responses and sharing them publicly.

3. Educate others who still don’t know this is happening.  Most people have no idea these amendments exist or what they mean. Talk to your friends, family, neighbours and coworkers. Use clear language – avoid legal or technical jargon. Explain that this isn’t about rejecting health collaboration, but about maintaining constitutional authority and informed consent. Personal conversations are still the most powerful tool for shifting public awareness.

4. Share examples from countries that have already acted. Like the US, Italy, Israel and Austria all formally rejected or legally objected to the 2024 amendments. Their decisions were grounded in protecting civil liberties, national decision-making, and freedom from censorship. Use their language when talking to others – it’s direct, reasonable, and based on the rule of law. Referencing these nations makes it clear that this isn’t fringe or extreme – it’s responsible governance.

5. Organise locally, start small, but start now. If you’re part of a church, school board, town hall or business network, use those platforms to raise awareness and build momentum. You don’t need to host a rally – start with a discussion group, a Q&A night, or a one-page fact sheet you hand out. The goal is to build informed communities who are ready to advocate for policies that reflect their values – not the agendas of unaccountable international agencies.

You’re not powerless. The laws that govern your health should come from those you elect, not those you’ve never heard of. This is your chance to defend that principle. Take the first step, and help others do the same.

FAQs About the 2024 IHR Amendments

Q: What are the 2024 IHR amendments, and why are they controversial?

A: The 2024 IHR amendments were adopted by the WHO to expand its authority over global health emergencies. These changes give unelected international officials power to influence national decisions on lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and digital health surveillance – without consent from local populations or legislative oversight.

Q: Has the US accepted or rejected the IHR amendments?

A: The US formally rejected the 2024 IHR amendments on 18 July 2025, in a joint statement by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Their decision was based on protecting U.S. constitutional rights, medical autonomy, and freedom from international mandates.

Q: Which other countries have rejected or objected to the amendments?

A: Italy, Austria and Israel also took action to block the amendments before the 19 July 2025 deadline. Italy issued a full rejection; Austria filed a legal objection to prevent enforcement without parliamentary approval and Israel withdrew from adoption entirely following internal government review.

Q: Are the amendments binding for countries that didn’t formally reject them?

A: Yes. For countries that did not submit a formal rejection or reservation by 19 July 2025, the amendments are scheduled to become binding on 19 September 2025. However, four countries – Iran, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Slovakia – have until 19 September 2026 to opt out due to their prior rejection of the 2022 IHR amendments.

Q: What can I do if I disagree with the WHO’s growing authority over health decisions?

A: Take action by learning your country’s official position, contacting lawmakers, educating your community, sharing examples from countries that rejected the amendments and organising locally. These steps help ensure that public health policy remains under democratic control, not dictated by international agencies.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/08/15/four-countries-reject-whos-ihr-amendments/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post US and three other countries reject WHO’s IHR amendments; the UK, the global censorship hub, is not one of them appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

In the UK, the Online Safety Act (OSA) was sold to the public as a way to shield vulnerable people from harmful content, and protect children from internet predators. It sounded like it would ensure a safer, more accountable online experience. The true motivation for its implementation is revealing itself, and is being met by waves of backlash – not only by privacy campaigners, but from regular internet users, tech professionals, artists, and whole sections of parliament. Hundreds of thousands have signed petitions, and legal challenges are underway.

Increasingly, then, the question is being asked: was this ever really about safety?

What This UK Law Actually Does

The OSA gives Ofcom (the UK’s communications regulator) unprecedented power over the country’s digital content. It now mandates that platforms proactively monitor, censor and remove any content it deems “harmful”, even if there’s nothing illegal about it. This includes, by increasingly blurry definitions, hate speech, misinformation and bullying – and can even introduce jailtime for companies failing to comply with them.

Among the most vocal opponents are the encrypted messaging apps, Whatsapp and Signal. The OSA means government regulators can compel these services to install backdoor services to scan the content of messages, which fundamentally undermines the core principle of their end-to-end encryption offerings. Any companies found refusing to comply may now be fined, blocked, or even criminalised. In short: the privacy we were promised is now being mandated against.

This Act also criminalises “unauthorised access” to online content, which critics say could affect basic functions like right-clicking certain things, viewing source code, or accessing archived information.

It’s legislation with sweeping intent, but vague definitions.

The Great Push Back

Over 300,000 people have already signed petitions demanding urgent reform, or total repeal, of the law. Tech experts have confirmed that it can potentially “break” the internet by requiring companies to do things that are either privacy-destructive, or technically impossible. Reform UK has vowed to repeal the Act totally if elected. Conservative MPs are seemingly split, with a growing number now expressing unease over the law’s scope and implementation.

Writers, artists, and musicians have criticised how the Act suppresses political or controversial content under the vague “harm” banner. Journalists say it’s threatening investigative reporting, academics say it will limit digital research and chill free speech, and cybersecurity professionals warn that the law undermines basic encryption, putting users at risk.

This has grown from being a fringe campaign to a nationwide, cross-ideology backlash.

When “Safety” Becomes Control

Public safety was the official justification for the Act, but critics argue that it’s another measure aimed to monitor and control what the public get up to.

This is particularly concerning when considering Ofcom’s granted power of encrypted platforms. It’s one thing for governments to demand the right to scan private messages in the name of “safety” – and it’s another to criminalise its refusal.

As The Critic said: the law is treating adults like disobedient children, and The Spectator compared the Act to internet regulation in authoritarian regimes. There’s a clear growing concern that the OSA is not a public safety measure at all, but is rather a tool to discipline the space and its users – an early step towards controlling what can be said, how, and by whom.

Why Now?

The UK is in a period of high public distrust of its government. There’s economic strain, mass migration, and generally volatile political sentiment. Online platforms are arenas in which dissent still finds traction, with articles being published, memes shared, and videos posted, expressing dissatisfaction with current events.

Public sentiment is poor in the country, and censoring how and where people can express these feelings – and even hiding the protests or demonstrations that showcase how the public is feeling – is not having the intended effect. It’s making people more outraged, not less.

The OSA, therefore, feels like a way of managing dissent under the guise of protection. Perhaps trying to fragment any political opposition to stop it becoming organised, and a way to throttle speech while telling people it’s for their own good.

Censoring the Edges

Under the Act, content deemed vaguely “harmful” – even if not illegal – is still subject to penalty. This can include political criticism, satire, and controversial opinions. Content moderation algorithms will now need to make moral judgements about what qualifies as emotionally or mentally damaging. These are systems that are already fallible. Will there be any oversight or appeal to these digital decisions?

For critics, this is where the law becomes dangerous. There is a blurry line between harm and offence, giving regulators the ability to redefine these terms as they see fit, with near-total discretion to remove or suppress content that deviates from their imagined centre. Online reactions display the thoughts of many:

“And there it is, the real reason for the OSA — the prevention of wrongthink. Can’t have the plebs thinking outside the status quo”

“Funny how gambling adverts on YouTube seem to be exempt.”

With the following also including the recent decision to lower the voting age in the UK:

“16-year-olds will be allowed to vote, but won’t be able to learn what is happening in their own country?”

“This blocks 16 year olds from seeing news footage from warzones. So now we’re in the place where they can vote for a party that wants to go to war but not view the consequences of that.”

Thoughts like these are being echoed nationwide. They are not put forward by fringe conspiracy theorists, but ordinary people trying to reconcile the contradiction between an open society and a closely controlled information architecture.

Public Mood & Rise of Reform UK

Reform UK, under the leadership of Zia Yusuf, has made repealing the Act a central plank of its campaign. Yusuf recently told supporters that the Act is a “borderline dystopian overreach” and a betrayal of democratic principle. His criticism taps into a broader frustration: that the people who supposedly serve the public no longer trust them to think, speak, or decide for themselves.

What makes the current backlash unique is how unifying it is. For once, tech libertarians, artists, and populists are on the same side. They all see the same threat: that this isn’t about safety at all. It’s about obedience.

Changing the Infrastructure of Speech

Laws like this change the way we operate. The internet is altered with friction rather than with force. Platforms pre-emptively remove content in anticipation of fines, journalists pause before publishing, whistleblowers go quiet, and the public learns to think twice before speaking to ensure they don’t get censored.

Final Thought

The Online Safety Act is the start of a new chapter in how speech is governed in the UK. And it’s clearly extremely unpopular with the public. If the goal is safety, then the government seems to have missed. If the goal is control, then it’s well on its way.

Is this about keeping children safe? Or has it far extended its reach to keep everyone in line?

Add your thoughts below.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/08/01/censorship-not-safety-revealing-the-truth-behind-uk-online-agenda/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Censorship, NOT Safety: Revealing the Truth Behind UK Online Agenda appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

In the UK, the Online Safety Act (OSA) was sold to the public as a way to shield vulnerable people from harmful content, and protect children from internet predators. It sounded like it would ensure a safer, more accountable online experience. The true motivation for its implementation is revealing itself, and is being met by waves of backlash – not only by privacy campaigners, but from regular internet users, tech professionals, artists, and whole sections of parliament. Hundreds of thousands have signed petitions, and legal challenges are underway.

Increasingly, then, the question is being asked: was this ever really about safety?

What This UK Law Actually Does

The OSA gives Ofcom (the UK’s communications regulator) unprecedented power over the country’s digital content. It now mandates that platforms proactively monitor, censor and remove any content it deems “harmful”, even if there’s nothing illegal about it. This includes, by increasingly blurry definitions, hate speech, misinformation and bullying – and can even introduce jailtime for companies failing to comply with them.

Among the most vocal opponents are the encrypted messaging apps, Whatsapp and Signal. The OSA means government regulators can compel these services to install backdoor services to scan the content of messages, which fundamentally undermines the core principle of their end-to-end encryption offerings. Any companies found refusing to comply may now be fined, blocked, or even criminalised. In short: the privacy we were promised is now being mandated against.

This Act also criminalises “unauthorised access” to online content, which critics say could affect basic functions like right-clicking certain things, viewing source code, or accessing archived information.

It’s legislation with sweeping intent, but vague definitions.

The Great Push Back

Over 300,000 people have already signed petitions demanding urgent reform, or total repeal, of the law. Tech experts have confirmed that it can potentially “break” the internet by requiring companies to do things that are either privacy-destructive, or technically impossible. Reform UK has vowed to repeal the Act totally if elected. Conservative MPs are seemingly split, with a growing number now expressing unease over the law’s scope and implementation.

Writers, artists, and musicians have criticised how the Act suppresses political or controversial content under the vague “harm” banner. Journalists say it’s threatening investigative reporting, academics say it will limit digital research and chill free speech, and cybersecurity professionals warn that the law undermines basic encryption, putting users at risk.

This has grown from being a fringe campaign to a nationwide, cross-ideology backlash.

When “Safety” Becomes Control

Public safety was the official justification for the Act, but critics argue that it’s another measure aimed to monitor and control what the public get up to.

This is particularly concerning when considering Ofcom’s granted power of encrypted platforms. It’s one thing for governments to demand the right to scan private messages in the name of “safety” – and it’s another to criminalise its refusal.

As The Critic said: the law is treating adults like disobedient children, and The Spectator compared the Act to internet regulation in authoritarian regimes. There’s a clear growing concern that the OSA is not a public safety measure at all, but is rather a tool to discipline the space and its users – an early step towards controlling what can be said, how, and by whom.

Why Now?

The UK is in a period of high public distrust of its government. There’s economic strain, mass migration, and generally volatile political sentiment. Online platforms are arenas in which dissent still finds traction, with articles being published, memes shared, and videos posted, expressing dissatisfaction with current events.

Public sentiment is poor in the country, and censoring how and where people can express these feelings – and even hiding the protests or demonstrations that showcase how the public is feeling – is not having the intended effect. It’s making people more outraged, not less.

The OSA, therefore, feels like a way of managing dissent under the guise of protection. Perhaps trying to fragment any political opposition to stop it becoming organised, and a way to throttle speech while telling people it’s for their own good.

Censoring the Edges

Under the Act, content deemed vaguely “harmful” – even if not illegal – is still subject to penalty. This can include political criticism, satire, and controversial opinions. Content moderation algorithms will now need to make moral judgements about what qualifies as emotionally or mentally damaging. These are systems that are already fallible. Will there be any oversight or appeal to these digital decisions?

For critics, this is where the law becomes dangerous. There is a blurry line between harm and offence, giving regulators the ability to redefine these terms as they see fit, with near-total discretion to remove or suppress content that deviates from their imagined centre. Online reactions display the thoughts of many:

“And there it is, the real reason for the OSA — the prevention of wrongthink. Can’t have the plebs thinking outside the status quo”

“Funny how gambling adverts on YouTube seem to be exempt.”

With the following also including the recent decision to lower the voting age in the UK:

“16-year-olds will be allowed to vote, but won’t be able to learn what is happening in their own country?”

“This blocks 16 year olds from seeing news footage from warzones. So now we’re in the place where they can vote for a party that wants to go to war but not view the consequences of that.”

Thoughts like these are being echoed nationwide. They are not put forward by fringe conspiracy theorists, but ordinary people trying to reconcile the contradiction between an open society and a closely controlled information architecture.

Public Mood & Rise of Reform UK

Reform UK, under the leadership of Zia Yusuf, has made repealing the Act a central plank of its campaign. Yusuf recently told supporters that the Act is a “borderline dystopian overreach” and a betrayal of democratic principle. His criticism taps into a broader frustration: that the people who supposedly serve the public no longer trust them to think, speak, or decide for themselves.

What makes the current backlash unique is how unifying it is. For once, tech libertarians, artists, and populists are on the same side. They all see the same threat: that this isn’t about safety at all. It’s about obedience.

Changing the Infrastructure of Speech

Laws like this change the way we operate. The internet is altered with friction rather than with force. Platforms pre-emptively remove content in anticipation of fines, journalists pause before publishing, whistleblowers go quiet, and the public learns to think twice before speaking to ensure they don’t get censored.

Final Thought

The Online Safety Act is the start of a new chapter in how speech is governed in the UK. And it’s clearly extremely unpopular with the public. If the goal is safety, then the government seems to have missed. If the goal is control, then it’s well on its way.

Is this about keeping children safe? Or has it far extended its reach to keep everyone in line?

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/08/01/censorship-not-safety-revealing-the-truth-behind-uk-online-agenda/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Censorship, NOT Safety: Revealing the Truth Behind UK Online Agenda appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.