Michael Schellenberger

Rank 41 of 47
|
Score -105
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
728d
The FBI, George Soros, and Brazil's government say they defend free speech and democracy. But a new, months-long investigation finds that they have been secretly working together to oversee a mass censorship effort that is in direct violation of the US & Brazilian Constitutions.
3/3/2025, 2:24:25 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
330d
The US government didn’t censor anyone, said the media. But it did. Not only that, it worked with other nations to do so. Now, the US government has not only repudiated censorship, it’s put free speech at the center of its foreign policy. Thank you and bravo @SecRubio !
Senior Official for Public Diplomacy
@UnderSecPD
·
333d
“We must stop censorship and suppression of information. The State Department’s efforts to combat malign propaganda have expanded and fundamentally changed since the Cold War era and we must reprioritize truth. The State Department I lead will support and defend Americans’ rights…

The statement addresses issues of censorship, free speech, and international relations, suggesting a shift in US policy and alleging involvement in Brazilian censorship. It implies criticism of both the Brazilian and US governments.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement could potentially cause harm by making serious allegations without providing evidence, which might contribute to misinformation. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It challenges the actions of governments, which could be seen as respecting public accountability, but it risks infringing on the dignity of those involved by making unverified claims. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it focuses on accusations rather than dialogue. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in criticism but lacks constructive dialogue or evidence, which could be seen as a personal attack on the entities involved. [-1]