What if the real story isn’t just that the government is shaping online discourse, but that it paid nearly $1.5 billion to do it?
Behind the headlines about "misinformation" and online safety is a vast financial infrastructure that redirected taxpayer money away from roads, schools, and public services, and into a censorship machine hidden behind grants, contracts, and nonprofit shell games. Nearly a billion went to a single military contractor.
Hundreds of millions more were scattered across Ivy League research labs, Beltway think tanks, and media nonprofits, all tasked with moderating the national conversation on everything from Covid to elections. Some groups got repeat funding.
Others acted as quiet pass-throughs, funneling money to private vendors and AI developers building sentiment-monitoring tools. If you want the receipts, where the funds went, who got rich, and what they did with your money, this is where it all comes into focus.
We explore this today.
|
Despite its mission to challenge Big Tech dominance, Mozilla now finds itself tethered to one of its largest rivals in a paradox that could threaten the very survival of its flagship browser, Firefox.
As the Justice Department pushes forward with remedies aimed at curbing Google’s monopoly over online search, Mozilla’s financial dependence on the search giant is surfacing as a glaring vulnerability, one that the organization admits could become existential.
Mozilla’s Chief Financial Officer, Eric Muhlheim, testified in court on Friday, describing the potential fallout of the DOJ’s proposals as dire. “It’s very frightening,” he said if Google were barred from paying to remain the default search provider in Firefox.
That payment, ironically, forms the lifeblood of a browser that was created to stand as a counterweight to corporate control of the internet. Firefox generates roughly 90 percent of Mozilla’s revenue, and Muhlheim confirmed that about 85 percent of that comes from its agreement with Google; an arrangement that funds both Mozilla’s for-profit arm and, by extension, the nonprofit foundation behind it.
While the court has already determined that Google’s use of default search engine contracts amounts to illegal monopolistic behavior, Mozilla’s testimony underscores the tangled consequences of dismantling those deals. Mozilla, positioned as a David to Google’s Goliath in the browser wars, depends on the very dominance the DOJ seeks to unwind.
Muhlheim didn’t mince words about what severing the deal could mean. The immediate loss of that income would require sweeping cutbacks. He spoke of a “downward spiral” in which reduced funding for product development would degrade Firefox, prompt user attrition, and potentially “put Firefox out of business.” The ripple effects, he warned, would hit Mozilla’s other initiatives—such as its work on ethical AI and open web standards.
The contradiction is hard to miss: Firefox, hailed by digital rights advocates as a rare independent in a browser market increasingly shaped by Apple’s WebKit and Google’s Chromium, is only able to survive because of a search contract with Google. Its own browser engine, Gecko, was developed precisely to prevent a single corporation—then Microsoft—from dictating how the internet worked. Now, two decades later, Mozilla’s survival hinges on the largesse of another tech behemoth.
The DOJ’s broader vision involves creating a more competitive search landscape where multiple companies could vie for placement in browsers like Firefox, eventually replacing Google’s dominant position. But Mozilla isn’t banking on that happening soon. Muhlheim warned that even in a best-case scenario, such a transition would take years, years Mozilla may not have if its revenue stream evaporates. “We would be really struggling to stay alive,” he said.
During cross-examination, he acknowledged the downside of being overly reliant on a single partner. He also conceded that Opera, another independent browser, has managed to generate more revenue from ads than search deals, suggesting a path Mozilla could theoretically follow. But, Muhlheim argued, Firefox’s focus on user privacy complicates efforts to build a similar business model.
While Mozilla supports giving users more options when choosing a browser on new devices, a so-called “choice screen,” it resists requiring a similar interface for selecting search engines. Muhlheim said Firefox already provides multiple ways for users to pick their preferred search tool, adding, “Choice is a core value for us, but context matters…The best way to get to choice is not always a choice screen.”
Toward the end of his testimony, Judge Amit Mehta posed a hypothetical: Would Mozilla benefit from a world where another company could match Google in both quality and monetization? Muhlheim didn’t hesitate: “If we were suddenly in that world, that would be a world that would be better for Mozilla.”
Yet for now, that world remains out of reach, and the organization that once set out to break tech monopolies remains deeply entangled with one of the largest. |
Governments and corporations are working hand in hand to control what you can say, what you can read; and soon, who you are allowed to be.
New laws promise to “protect” you; but instead criminalize dissent.
Apps and sites deplatform, demonetize, and disappear accounts that step out of line.
AI-driven surveillance tracks everything you do, feeding a system built to monitor, profile, and ultimately control.
Now, they’re pushing for centralized digital IDs; a tool that could link your identity to everything you say and do online. No anonymity. No privacy. No escape.
This isn’t about safety, it’s about power.
If you believe in a truly free and open internet; where ideas can be debated without fear, where privacy is a right, and where no government or corporation dictates what’s true; please become a supporter.
By becoming a supporter, you’ll help us: Expose online censorship, surveillance, and the digital ID agenda Challenge restrictive laws that threaten free expression Provide independent analysis on the erosion of digital rights Support voices who refuse to bow to pressure from governments or Big Tech
We don’t answer to advertisers or political elites.
If you can, please become a supporter. It takes less than a minute to set up, you’ll get a bunch of extra features, guides, analysis and solutions, and every donation strengthens the fight for online freedom.
Thank you.
. |
In late April Meta made changes, effective immediately, to the Ray-Ban Meta "smart glasses" privacy policy, which appears designed to turn the device into a surveillance machine for training AI models.
In a message sent to users, Meta said that its "AI on the glasses" - that is, some of the settings - are changing.
The giant's explanation is that this is allegedly necessary to use Meta AI "more easily" - but also, "help us make product improvements."
The policy update rests on "opt-outs": from now on, the Meta AI with camera use is always enabled on the glasses, unless the user goes to the trouble of turning off the "Hey Meta" in the settings.
This is the activation phrase for Meta's AI assistant. The second change regards the way Meta stores voice recordings from Meta AI users - now, those are kept by default in the cloud.
The reason the company gives for this is "improving" either Meta AI or, "other Meta products."
The option to disable this behavior is now gone. Once again users are made to jump through additional hoops, and that's the tried and tested Big Tech way of steering their behavior and interaction with apps and services in the desired, by Big Tech, way.
In this case, Meta AI users will have to go to the settings and manually delete their voice recordings.
When making these decisions, companies like Meta effectively "dumb down" their "smart" products (by removing voice interaction with the assistant, reducing automated usability to manual deletion...).
And that's on top of rubbing the wrong way those who are uncomfortable with increasingly privacy-intrusive mechanics behind the said products and services.
In addition to selling what's obviously not an "improved privacy experience," Meta and its ilk still insist that obscuring what's happening under the hood means a better ("easier") user experience.
The most grim and negative scenarios as to why any of this is being done, or how it could be (ab)used in the future, aside - the obvious intent is to take the exploitation of user data to another level, at this junction, to ensure massive datasets are available for AI model training.
The notification users received about the latest policy changes adds a little insult to injury when it concludes by reiterating, "You're still in control."
"In control" to turn off "Hey Meta" and manually delete Meta AI interactions, that is. |
The US State Department has included Australia among the countries whose governments are criticized for subjecting US social media platforms to demands to censor users.
In Australia's case, the demands rest on advancing particular gender-based agendas - specifically, transgender-related policies.
The State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor used the example of a Canadian Chris Elston ("Billboard Chris") who is campaigning against subjecting children to puberty blockers, arguing they are too young to offer any meaningful consent to such life-changing procedures. "The greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now," is how Elston describes the situation.
When Elston took to X to oppose the UN's World Health Organization (WHO) appointing a transgender activist to the transgender policy advisory board - and, possibly to make matters worse, used "the wrong pronoun" while referring the Australian in question - the government Down Under managed to get X to censor one of his posts last year, in a manner "geo limited" to Australia.
But that was in 2024 - and the current White House is not happy about any of this.
"Censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety," the State Department's Bureau announced, while naming Elston's case as an example of "coercion" against US social media.
Elston, understandably, finds this turn of events "tremendous" - from a US government that more or less openly or tacitly espoused similar policies and techniques, to a new one that stands behind his right to free expression.
"It's tremendous to have the State Department support what we all know is true: free speech is a fundamental right, critical to a democratic society," Elston said in his reaction to the State Department's press release.
Elston, X, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International, and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, have taken the eSafety Commissioner to court, with the result of the legal challenge expected later in 2025.
Others that the State Department chose to name and shame now as "distinguished" international purveyors of censorship is former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton (again in connection with pressure on X), as well as the Turkish authorities (who picked on Meta).
The statement stressed that regardless of whether content may be "objectionable" - that does not justify censorship, which ultimately "undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety."
The State Department emphasized that the US diplomacy "will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms." |
By 2027, the European Union (EU) is set to use its Anti-Money Laundering regulations (AMLR) to ban privacy cryptocurrencies (crypto-asset accounts allowing anonymization of transactions) and anonymous accounts (accounts using anonymity-enhancing coins).
This is interpreted by observers to be defined in the Markets in Cryptao-Assets Regulation (MiCA).
The European Crypto Initiative (EUCI) has come out with its "AML Handbook" focusing on how AMLR obligations affect crypto asset service providers (CASPs), as well as financial and credit institutions.
These "strict" prohibitions are contained in AMLR Article 79, the key takeaway being that they will be banned from any handling of anonymous accounts.
There is little room, if at all to change the framework, and reportedly only on the surface level, without affecting the gist of the legislation.
And this is a set of rules, including AMLR (as well as Anti-Money Laundering Directive, AMLD, and Anti-Money Laundering Authority Regulation, AMLAR). The "wiggle room" is now by and large contained in the powers of the European Banking Authority that is in charge of implementing and delegated acts - which is taken to mean that some details still need to be ironed out still, for CASPs' full harmonization to be defined.
Once the rules are officially final, the EU requirement will be for any CASPs present in at least six of the bloc's member countries -in a way that is "substantial" - to be fully subjected to direct AMLR supervision.
On July 1, 2027, 40 firms will be chosen (at least one per EU member) for supervision. The "substantial" operational ability here means at least 20,000 customers in a member country - alternatively, a CASP firm eligible to fall under the rules will have to have $56 million or more transaction volume.
Meanwhile, customer due diligence will apply to all transactions higher than the euro equivalent of $1,100.
The overarching thinking behind the policy here is that Decentralized Finance (DeFi) platforms have proven to be fertile ground for criminals - and, specifically, money laundering (from crypto to fiat money).
But this is happening even though the actual level of money laundering via crypto compared to fiat remains negligent - not to mention, requiring significantly more involvement from bad actors. |
|
Thanks for reading,
Reclaim The Net
|
|
|
|
https://tirarelacqua.blogspot.com/2024/07/google-inculata-sangue-dal-piu-piccolo.html
Post
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento