SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
big tech
Without Free Speech, Democracy Dies
To avoid past failures, we must remember freedom of expression is for everyone, including those who we disagree with.
Sep 16, 2025
Democracy is hanging precariously in a world tilted upside down in the face of today’s endless crises. Our rights and freedoms are dwindling. Free speech, an essential precursor to all human rights, is faltering.
Less than 4% of the world’s citizens enjoy a wide range of civic freedoms, and nearly three-quarters live in countries with little. With 1,100 violations and 45% of all violations, freedom of expression topped the CIVICUS Monitor list of global attacks on rights.
States that once set an example as bastions of free speech are also faltering.
United States ‘Leads’ Western Democracies’ Backslide
United States first amendment to the Constitution once stood out as a north star for freedom of expression. Creative freedom, critical journalism, dissent, and mockery of leaders were all a go.
When attacks against journalists and activists took place around the world, the US and Western democracies stood up. They helped protect journalists, activists, and groups persecuted by strongmen leaders.
But today, that legacy is fading. Freedom of expression and free press are struggling in the West. Political commitment to defend free speech both at home and abroad is waning.
The current administration has hurt free expression and journalism more than any modern American government.
Leaders and influencers from the left and right distorted public narratives to win elections or push through their agenda. Big tech, media, and corporations too have played similar games to build traction and profit.
Leading up to last election, US President Donald Trump and allies cried foul at the left’s attacks at free speech. Democrats’ use of the Espionage Act on whistleblowers and influencing of tech and media to promote narrative compliance and political correctness were called out, albeit exaggerated.
Despite that rhetoric, the current administration has hurt free expression and journalism more than any modern American government.
The president himself has sued major media outlets that criticized him. Two outlets, ABC and CBS, settled, putting profits ahead of defending truth and integrity. Days after comedian Stephen Colbert called the settlement “a big fat bribe,” CBS announced cancellation of the "Late Show," the most popular nightly show in the US.
The list of recent attacks is worryingly long. The Federal Communications Commission threatened broadcast licenses. The White House banned journalists and cut funds to public service broadcasters. A bill to protect journalists from state surveillance stalled, and the executive blacklisted law firms defending critics.
While the US’ butchering of free speech stands out, it’s not alone. The United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, Spain, and other Western democracies are seeing free expression dwindling, though at a slower pace.
The hits come diguised as national security, surveillance, anti-extremism and hate speech, anti-defamation, and protest restrictions. These are the same excuses used in countries with fewer civic freedoms. It is the playbook of extreme authoritarian states China, Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia.
Global Failure to Protect Free Speech
The world is failing miserably at protecting free speech. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe journalists have faced bloody clampdowns or arrests in attempts to expose the truth. Two hundred journalists have been reportedly killed in Gaza. That the international community took no action shows its gross incompetence or a complete lack of will.
Many governments around the world use censorship to silence truth, block criticism, and deny access to information. Public information and narratives are also perverted by political, business, military, or other interests.
Where there is a lack of transparency of ownership and capture, vested influence stalls open and democratic public conversation. This is particularly the case where civic and democratic freedoms are limited.
Authoritarian regimes like China and Russia continue to use technology, social media, and artificial intelligence to destabilize global democracies. As we speak, the Kremlin is flooding social media with false information and using artificial intelligence tools to influence Moldova’s elections. China has used similar tactics to create anti-democratic narratives in Taiwan.
Effective counter measures seem non-existent on a global scale today. When and where they existed, countering disinformation and fact-checking efforts often were flawed or exclusive. Even the sincere efforts have been seen as partisan by masses owing to more visible and large-scale efforts excluding voices that didn’t fit convenient political and profit motivations.
Only Citizen Demand Can Save Free Speech
Given failures to defend free speech and acceleration attacks, a silver lining seems illusive. While governments, global organizations, and civil society have proposed plenty of solutions, they often end up as mere rhetoric or at best half-baked projects.
Promoting constitutional freedoms, free speech laws, media transparency, journalistic independence, platform accountability, and such only ever get discussed in technocratic forums. In action, they reach only select groups of society, without ever being inclusive.
Bold action is needed but by movements of citizens. We must start by exercising our free speech to demand the same rights and protections be afforded to all. People’s power standing up and demanding change may just tilt the needle beyond rhetoric. Citizens can force significant action by governments, media houses, or tech platforms.
To avoid past failures, we must remember freedom of expression is for everyone, including those who we disagree with. Pope Leo XIV’s wisdom comes handy here, “We have to know how to listen—not to judge, not to shut doors as if we hold all the truth and no one else has anything to offer.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Incredible Corruption': Blockbuster Report on Trump Crypto Grift Leaves Observers Stunned
"If this is true, this is the largest public corruption scandal in the history of the United States and it's not even close," said one critic.
Sep 15, 2025
The New York Times on Monday published a blockbuster report detailing how US President Donald Trump's administration gave the United Arab Emirates access to high-powered artificial intelligence chips just days after receiving a massive investment in Trump's cryptocurrency startup.
As the Times report documented, Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a member of the United Arab Emirates' (UAE) ruling family, had one of his investment firms deposit $2 billion into World Liberty Financial, the startup founded by members of the Trump family and the family of Trump Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
Just two weeks later, wrote the Times, "the White House agreed to allow the UAE access to hundreds of thousands of the world’s most advanced and scarce computer chips, a crucial tool in the high-stakes race to dominate artificial intelligence," despite national security concerns about these chips being shared with China.
The Times, which interviewed more than 75 people in its investigation of the deals, did not present direct evidence that the two deals were explicitly linked, and the White House denied any connection between the massive investment in the Trump family's crypto firm and the decision to grant UAE access to the chips.
However, the paper interviewed three ethics lawyers who said that "the back-to-back deals violate longstanding norms in the United States for political, diplomatic, and private dealmaking among senior officials and their children."
Other political observers were stunned by the Times' report.
"If this is true, this is the largest public corruption scandal in the history of the United States and it's not even close," commented Ryan Cummings, chief of staff at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
US foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen questioned whether Witkoff's dealings with the UAE and other countries were impacting his ability to do his job in other areas.
"Maybe Witkoff is too busy pushing deals to enrich his and Trump’s families to focus on getting an Israel-Gaza hostage deal over the line, recognizing the Russians are not interested in ending the war on Ukraine, etc.," she speculated.
Alasdair Phillips-Robins, a fellow in the Technology and International Affairs Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, marveled at the reporting that Trump's negotiation team appeared to be willing to grant UAE access to the chips without forcing any major geopolitical tradeoffs.
"This sounds like the world's weakest negotiation: telling the UAE they'll get unlimited chips before they've agreed to a single concession in return," he wrote.
Independent journalist Jacob Silverman, who has written extensively on the politics of the US tech industry, remarked that the Trump administration's actions exposed in the Times report were "impeachable" and smacked of "incredible corruption."
In addition to his cryptocurrency-related dealings with UAE, Trump has also come under scrutiny for accepting a luxury jet from the government of Qatar that he plans to use for the remainder of his term in office and that will be given to his official presidential library after he leaves the White House.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Warn Against Ted Cruz's Industry-Friendly 'Sandbox' for AI
"The mantra in Silicon Valley is 'move fast and break things,' and that's exactly what Big Tech will do with a green light to override the laws and regulations they don't want to follow," one expert said.
Sep 10, 2025
US Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz on Wednesday unveiled a legislative framework for artificial intelligence, including a bill to create a "regulatory sandbox," which the Texas Republican said is part of President Donald Trump's AI Action Plan.
The Strengthening Artificial intelligence Normalization and Diffusion By Oversight and eXperimentation (SANDBOX) Act "gives AI developers space to test and launch new AI technologies without being held back by outdated or inflexible federal rules," Cruz's office said in a statement.
While his office celebrated support for the bill from "notable organizations in the tech space like the Abundance Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Information Technology Council," the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen swiftly sounded the alarm over the industry-friendly proposal.
"Public safety should never be made optional, but that's exactly what the SANDBOX Act does," said Public Citizen Big Tech accountability advocate J.B. Branch. "Companies that build untested, unsafe AI tools could get hall passes from the very rules designed to protect the public. It guts basic consumer protections, lets companies skirt accountability, and treats Americans as test subjects."
"It's unconscionable to risk the American public's safety to enrich AI companies that are already collectively worth trillions."
"The mantra in Silicon Valley is 'move fast and break things,' and that's exactly what Big Tech will do with a green light to override the laws and regulations they don't want to follow," Branch warned. "AI corporate executives see the opportunity to deploy all sorts of unregulated and untested products that can threaten our children's safety, consumers' privacy, and American democracy."
"It's unconscionable to risk the American public's safety to enrich AI companies that are already collectively worth trillions," he added. "The sob stories of AI companies being 'held back' by regulation are simply not true, and the record company valuations show it. Lawmakers should stand with the public, not corporate lobbyists, and slam the brakes on this reckless proposal. Congress should focus on legislation that delivers real accountability, transparency, and consumer protection in the age of AI."
Brendan Steinhauser, CEO of the Alliance for Secure AI, was similarly critical of Cruz's legislation on Wednesday.
"Ideally, Big Tech companies and frontier labs would make safety a top priority and work to prevent harm to Americans. However, we have seen again and again that they have not done so. The SANDBOX Act removes much-needed oversight as Big Tech refuses to remain transparent with the public about the risks of advanced AI," he said. "This raises many questions about who can enter the so-called 'regulatory sandbox' and why. We hope that we will get answers to these questions in the coming days."
Passing the SANDBOX Act, plus streamlining AI infrastructure permitting and opening up federal datasets to AI model training, is just the first pillar of Cruz's five-part framework. Part two focuses on combating government censorship. The third section is about countering "burdensome" state and foreign AI regulations. Pillar four calls for protecting Americans from scams and fraud, as well as safeguarding US schoolchildren. The fifth prong is about bioethical considerations and AI-driven eugenics.
In the absence of federal regulation, states have acted on AI. As Reuters detailed Wednesday:
Several states have criminalized the use of AI to generate sexually explicit images of individuals without their consent. California prohibits unauthorized deepfakes in political advertising and requires healthcare providers to notify patients when they are interacting with an AI and not a human.
Colorado passed a law last year aimed at preventing AI discrimination in employment, housing, banking, and other consequential consumer decisions. The tech industry has lobbied for changes to the law, and the state legislature recently pushed forward its implementation to mid-2026.
In July, ahead of the introduction of Trump's plan, over 90 groups focused on consumer protection, economic and environmental justice, labor, and more collectively called for an AI blueprint that "delivers on public well-being, shared prosperity, a sustainable future, and security for all."
Branch, whose group is part of that coalition, said at the time that "AI is already harming workers, consumers, and communities—and instead of enforcing guardrails, this administration is gutting oversight."
He said the defeat earlier this summer of a Senate measure that would have prevented state-level regulation of AI for a decade sent a clear message from the public: "No more handouts for Trump's tech bro buddies."
"We need rules and accountability," Branch said, "not a Silicon Valley free-for-all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular