WEF Demands Powers to Regulate Public’s Speech Online

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is demanding that government regulators and tech firms around the world grant the unelected globalist organization the authority to police the public’s speech online.

The WEF is seeking to regulate speech by defining which language should be censored.

Klaus Schwab and his allies want to dictate to regulators, social media companies, and other tech firms, their definitions for what constitutes “hate speech,” “misinformation,” or disinformation.”

Interestingly, the WEF makes no mention of cracking down on speech that could be linked to serious crimes such as terrorism or child abuse, nor does the organization mention targeting false information.

Apparently, the WEF is more concerned with cracking down on political speech or information that may undermine its agenda.

The calls come as the WEF continues to push for more control over the flow of information online.

The Switzerland-based group has repeatedly made calls for the policing of unapproved speech through artificial intelligence (AI) or online censorship.

Schwab and global elite allies have repeatedly shown interest in controlling speech, and therefore the official narrative, online.

When it comes to justifying online censorship, Big Tech’s social platforms frequently use vague terms to justify deleting and censoring content, describing the “offending” information as “misinformation” or  “hate speech.”

They never explain, however, who makes such decisions, based on what authority.

To censor so-called “misinformation,” social media companies such as Facebook use “fact checkers,” who are typically failed left-wing journalists who seek to smear more successful reporters who report on subjects that conflict with their own weak-minded political views.

With loosely defined boundaries, “fact checkers” can censor information that falls into the categories of “disinformation” or “misinformation” without ever having to prove that it is false.

Not least because of this lack of clarity, many people suspect that these sites avoid explaining themselves because there is nothing to explain.

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

The censorship decisions are arbitrary and faceless moderators can silence a person whether they are exercising their First Amendment right or not.

These tactics are clearly designed to serve a policy or control a narrative rather than combat dreaded “misinformation.”

As people see true information and free speech shut down, the public no longer trusts these efforts to allegedly “tackle disinformation.”

To address the failing censorship agenda, the WEF has created, what it calls, the Global Coalition for Digital Safety (GCDS).

The GCDS has produced a document called “Typology of Online Harms.

The claimed goal of the GCDS is to define six categories of “harmful content” that must be censored.

The WEF wants the definitions outlined by GCDS to be used to facilitate “multi-agency and cross-border action.”

In the document, the WEF/GCDS praises efforts by the unelected bearcats in the European Union for cracking down on free speech.

And while the acknowledges the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), the WEF’s Coalition wants to assume powers to provide “common foundational language” on a globalized level.

The WEF argues that the DSA has limited reach because, unlike the “Typology of Online Harms,” the EU’s legislation is not global.

The Coalition Project Lead Agustina Callegari insists that handing such power to the unelected WEF is for the greater good, however.

Callegari argues that the censorship efforts of the WEF would be balanced in terms of “legal, ethical, social, technological, and policy considerations.”

She also claims that speech would be policed online in a way that is “rooted in international human rights frameworks.”

The WEF’s website proceeds to detail the six categories of loose definitions that it intends to police.

The categories are:

  • “Threats to personal and community safety”
  • “Harm to health and well-being”
  • “Hate and discrimination”
  • “Invasion of privacy”
  • “Violation of dignity”
  • “Deception and manipulation” – “disinformation” and “misinformation”

READ MORE: WEF Adviser Calls for Elections to Be Scrapped: ‘Bad for Democracy’

SHARE:
join telegram

READERS' POLL

Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By Frank Bergman

Frank Bergman is a political/economic journalist living on the east coast. Aside from news reporting, Bergman also conducts interviews with researchers and material experts and investigates influential individuals and organizations in the sociopolitical world.

Subscribe
Notify of

Recommended

19
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x