Michael Schellenberger

Rank 46 of 47
|
Score -143
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
3d
This is how the blob weaponizes government agencies for censorship. First, they spread disinfo. They then use it to demand censorship. They use fake NGOs like "Hate Aid" is to deceive public into thinking their illegal censorship is legal. "Trusted flaggers" = government agents.
12/24/2025, 3:46:07 PM
X
In reply to:
Critical Cat |
@Critical__Cat
·
3d
@UnderSecPD The public broadcaster SWR created fake comments which "Hate Aid" labeled as hate crime. These comments do not exist. In this "documentary" they targeted my account and called me out as a "hatefluencer". They hunt me because I pointed out that a guy from the Green Party mocked
Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers
@UnderSecPD
·
4d
WE’VE SANCTIONED: Josephine Ballon, co-leader of HateAid, who flags disfavored speech throughout Europe under the Digital Services Act. In addition to her running an official “trusted flagger” body under the DSA, she serves on Germany’s Advisory Council of the Digital Services
Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers
@UnderSecPD
·
4d
WE'VE SANCTIONED: Anna-Lena von Hodenberg, the leader and founder of HateAid, a German organization founded after the 2017 German federal elections to counter conservative groups. HateAid is an official “trusted flagger” (a censor) under the EU’s anti-speech Digital Services Act
Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers
@UnderSecPD
·
4d
WE'VE SANCTIONED: Clare Melford. She leads Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a UK-based organization that monitors websites for “hate speech” and “disinformation”. If you question Canadian blood libels about residential schools, you're engaging in “hate speech” according to
Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers
@UnderSecPD
·
4d
WE’VE SANCTIONED: Imran Ahmed, key collaborator with the Biden Administration’s effort to weaponize the government against U.S. citizens. Ahmed’s group, Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), created the infamous “disinformation dozen” report, which called for platforms to

The statement and conversation involve a critique of organizations and individuals involved in monitoring and flagging online content, suggesting they engage in censorship and create false narratives. The tone is accusatory and critical, focusing on alleged misuse of power and misinformation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement accuses organizations of creating fake comments and targeting individuals, which could be harmful if unsubstantiated. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement challenges the integrity of individuals and organizations, potentially affecting their dignity and privacy. [-2]
  3. 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, focusing instead on accusations and personal attacks. [-2]