Company records show that Israel petitioned Meta to take down Facebook and Instagram posts expressing support for Iran, opposition to Israel, and even depictions of Iranian missile impacts.

The government flagged a variety of materials related to the war, including posts mourning the death of Ayatollah Khamenei following his assassination by the U.S. and Israel on the opening day of the conflict, content supportive of Iran’s retaliatory attacks, and Iranian accounts that shared military analysis and propaganda sympathetic to the Iranian regime’s perspective.

In some cases, Meta complied with the censorship requests, the records show, though it is unclear on what grounds. Meta maintains that it only removes content as required by law or materials that violate its speech policies.

When asked how many Iran-related takedown requests had been granted to date since the war began, the company did not answer. The Israeli Ministry of Justice, which submits takedown requests to social media platforms, did not respond to a request for comment.

Israel’s social media lobbying is not new; for years the nation has leaned on its close relationship with Meta to push for targeted enforcement of the company’s content moderation rulebook.

Israel’s Office of the State Attorney routinely lodges complaints to social media platforms on behalf of state security agencies about content deemed illegal or said to promote “terrorism,” according to its website. In the documents reviewed by The Intercept, the office in some cases made no claim that the social media content violated Israeli law. Instead, the office asked that posts or accounts should be removed because they were in violation of Meta’s content moderation rulebook.

Meta, for instance, designates Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a “Dangerous Organization,” and prohibits users from engaging in many forms of positive speech about its actions. This means posts supportive of retaliatory missile launches by the IRGC, for instance, could run afoul of the company’s rules. No such prohibition exists for users who post favorably about the U.S. or Israeli militaries.

Meta did not respond to questions about the Iran war requests, but spokesperson Daniel Roberts provided a statement to The Intercept. “Anyone is able to report content they think violates our rules. Regardless of who or how a piece of content is flagged, we assess it based on our policies, which govern what is and isn’t allowed on our platform. It is wrong and irresponsible to imply that these requests are in any way unusual or improper.”

Meta has faced scrutiny, specifically in the Middle East, for removing content that doesn’t violate the company’s rules. A 2022 audit commissioned by the company itself found discrepancies in its content moderation practices between Arabic and Hebrew content. “Arabic content had greater over-enforcement (e.g., erroneously removing Palestinian voice) on a per user basis.” the company found. A 2023 report by the company’s inhouse Oversight Board described the “over-enforcement” of the company’s Dangerous Organizations and Individuals blacklist, disproportionately composed of Muslim and Middle Eastern entities.

Meta has long claimed that as an American company, it is legally required to sometimes remove content pertaining to certain entities sanctioned by the U.S., such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. But legal scholars say that has little to no precedent or basis in existing sanctions law, which focus on matters of material support rather than political speech. It’s a policy that has created an immense ideological slant: A company headquartered in California can determine what is or is not permissible speech for billions of users across the world, only a fraction of whom are American.

Related

Meta’s Israel Policy Chief Tried to Suppress Pro-Palestinian Instagram Posts

Further adding to the imbalance when it comes to Middle East crises is the fact that Meta has granted Israel privileged access to its content moderation policy teams. In 2024, The Intercept reported how Meta employee Jordana Cutler, a former aide to Benjamin Netanyahu, served as a dedicated liaison to the Israeli government, advocating for the country’s interests and helping facilitate the removal of unwanted speech. Few other countries in the world have a dedicated representative within Meta — in 2020, a similar policy head for India market resigned after revelations she had lobbied for rule enforcement that favored India’s ruling Hindu nationalist party. Asked if Cutler has had a role in facilitating Israeli takedown requests of content relating to the war, Meta did not respond.

“Meta’s close relationship with the Israeli government for takedown requests has been a long-standing issue,” Evelyn Douek, a Stanford Law School professor and scholar of digital speech policies, told The Intercept. “Meta’s acquiescence in lots of takedown requests has been a long-standing practice.”

These asymmetries of censorship power are particularly sensitive during times of war, said Douek.

“Governments wanting to suppress speech that is critical of their war efforts is as old as time,” she said. “Allowing governments to claim national security reasons to suppress speech willy-nilly would obliterate the value of speech protections.”

Related

Facebook Tells Moderators to Allow Graphic Images of Russian Airstrikes but Censors Israeli Attacks

According to a source familiar with the matter, Israel lobbied Meta to implement a blanket rule restricting imagery of war damage within its territory, mirroring an Israeli news media censorship policy that bars journalists from documenting weapon impacts without military approval. Meta has so far declined to implement such a policy for its billions of global users, the source said. Meta did not respond to questions about the status of this request.

The U.S. and Iran signed on Friday a ceasefire agreement, though Israel has suggested it would not abide by the terms of a deal. While many of the censorship requests directly addressed the war, others were tangential to the conflict itself. The records show Israel has pushed to remove content expressing outrage over last month’s storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque by far-right government minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. It also sought to stifle posts critical of rhetoric by Israel that linked Israel’s recent closure of Al-Aqsa with the ongoing war.

In general, Meta grants the vast majority of Israeli governmental takedown requests. The State Attorney’s Office boasted a 92 percent compliance rate in 2023, and a 2025 report by Drop Site News said the overall rate has climbed to 94 percent since the October 7 attack by Hamas.

Records reviewed by The Intercept show Israel asked for Iran war takedowns using the exact same language evoking Hamas’s October 7 attack that it submitted when requesting the censorship of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli speech across the globe during Israel’s war on Gaza.

“It suggests that they don’t expect their requests are being reviewed very carefully,” Douek said.

Douek argued that the wartime censorship requests underscore the danger of policing speech entirely out of public view through “opaque processes” like governmental backchannels.

“These platforms have always maintained that they are neutral, or that they are just a platform for people to express their views, but it has long been true that these companies have always presented a particular view of the world and have been responsive to their own geopolitical and commercial interests, and have always been more responsive to powerful governments,” Douek said.

This creates a deeply lopsided dynamic when it comes to the Iran war: The two arguably best-represented governments in the world within Meta — the U.S. and Israel — are allied belligerents in a conflict against a state deeply sanctioned by the company’s speech rules. “You’re going to end up with a skewed debate,” Douek said.

The post Israel Asked Facebook to Censor Iran War Content, Internal Documents Show appeared first on The Intercept.

This spring, Meta quietly revised its Community Standards policy, an internal company document dictating what its billions of global users can and cannot say online. The latest tweaks can be found in a chapter on “Violence and Incitement,” where a subsection titled “Other Violence” spells out, among other rules, the company’s bans on ads for assassins. It’s in this subsection where Meta last month published a revision to include new limitations for users who mention antifascism.

Policy documents reviewed by The Intercept show the company now treats any “Content that includes the word ‘antifa’ as a potential rules violation if that word appears along with what Meta deems a “content-level threat signal” — meaning a statement that the company believes implies violence.

In some cases, the content that Meta considers a threat signal is commonsensical. If, for instance, a user mentions bringing a weapon to an event, the company flags it as a threat signal. But in other cases, Meta’s process for identifying threat signals is more vague. Under the new rules, Meta might trigger a threat signal when a user posts a “visual depiction of a weapon,” a “reference to arson, theft, or vandalism,” or “military language,” if accompanied by the word “antifa.”

If “antifa” is mentioned in the context of “references to historical or recent incidents of violence” — a category so sprawling that it includes “historic wars” and “battles” —  that post will also be penalized. Should Meta apply this rule as written, the company could, for instance, restrict posts comparing the antifascist nature of World War II to the contemporary antifa movement.

Potential penalties for violating Community Standards range from a full account ban to comments being hidden or suppressed.

The policy change follows years of Meta and its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg’s pivot of political convenience toward President Donald Trump and his base. Following Trump’s second electoral victory, Meta quickly changed its speech rules to allow for anti-transgender slurs and dehumanization of immigrants, The Intercept previously reported, aligning the company with longtime MAGA culture war grievances.

Related

A Redditor Criticized ICE. Trump Is Trying to Unmask Them by Dragging the Company to a Secret Grand Jury.

Asked about the new restrictions on the word “antifa,” Meta spokesperson Erica Sackin pointed to a March transparency report that noted the company would “remove QAnon and Antifa content when combined with content-level threat signals.” The report does not explain what those signals are. Meta did not respond when asked if the company had discussed its antifa speech rules with the Trump administration.

Meta largely outsources the enforcement of its Community Standards rules to low-paid contractors whose interpretation and application of the policies can vary. The company’s automated, algorithmic content moderation systems are also famously glitchy. This combination can result in erratic censorship, particularly when political ideology is classified as violent or terroristic.

The new rules around saying “antifa” on Facebook and Instagram comes amid efforts by the White House to crack down on left-wing political organizing under the guise of national security. Though antifa is a contraction of the word antifascism and not an actual group, Trump last September signed an executive order designating the leaderless decentralized movement as a domestic terrorist organization. A subsequent executive memorandum, NSPM-7, again singled out “antifa” ideology as a cause of “domestic terrorism and organized political violence.”

Prior reporting by The Intercept has shown Meta historically hews closely to federal terrorism labels. Meta in 2020 announced it would tackle the leftist bogeyman under its “Movements and Organizations Tied to Violence” policy alongside QAnon, the right-wing mass delusion that helped foment the January 6 effort to overturn the results of the presidential election by force. Though self-identified antifa adherents have taken part in acts of property damage during protests, analyses repeatedly show that left-wing violence in the United States is a relatively small and rare threat compared to right-wing extremist groups and militias.

The post Facebook and Instagram Tighten Censorship Rules for Saying “Antifa” appeared first on The Intercept.

News of the investigation broke when the Washington Post reported that investigators seized the work laptop, personal laptop, phone, and smartwatch of journalist Hannah Natanson, who has covered the Trump administration’s impact on the federal government and recently wrote about developing more than 1,000 government sources. A Justice Department official told the Post that Perez-Lugones had been messaging Natanson to discuss classified information. The affidavit does not allege that Perez-Lugones disseminated national defense information, only that he unlawfully retained it. The Justice Department and the Washington Post did not respond to request for comment.

The affidavit provides insight into how Perez-Lugones allegedly attempted to exfiltrate information from a Secure Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, and the unexpected way his employer took notice.

According to the FBI, Perez-Lugones printed a classified intelligence report, albeit in a roundabout fashion. It’s standard for workplace printers to log certain information, such as the names of files they print and the users who printed them. In an apparent attempt to avoid detection, Perez-Lugones, according to the affidavit, took screenshots of classified materials, cropped the screenshots, and pasted them into a Microsoft Word document.

Related

FBI Raid on WaPo Reporter’s Home Was Based on Sham Pretext

By using screenshots instead of text, there would be no record of a classified report printed from the specific workstation. (Depending on the employer’s chosen data loss prevention monitoring software, access logs might show a specific user had opened the file and perhaps even tracked whether they took screenshots).

Perez-Lugones allegedly gave the file an innocuous name, “Microsoft Word – Document1,” that might not stand out if printer logs were later audited.

In this case, however, the affidavit reveals that Perez-Lugones’s employer could see not only the typical metadata stored by printers, such as file names, file sizes, and time of printing, but it could also view the actual contents of the printed materials — in this case, prosecutors say, the screenshots themselves. As the affidavit points out, “Perez-Lugones’ employer can retrieve records of print activity on classified systems, including copies of printed documents.”

It’s unclear which printer management software was used by Perez-Lugones’s employer. But several commercial systems allow workplace administrators to view the contents of printed documents.

For instance, PaperCut software offers a print archive feature that, when enabled, allows system administrators to browse the contents of all documents printed or scanned through its software system.

Related

How to Leak Under the Trump Administration

Whenever someone presses print in a network outfitted with this printer monitoring software, the program creates a clandestine copy of the file and generates an image of page every printed. This happens in the background — users might be entirely unaware that the contents of printed files are archived. Workplace administrators can choose how long to retain copies of the documents and how much space the documents can take up.

Aside from attempting to surreptitiously print a document, Perez-Lugones, investigators say, was also seen allegedly opening a classified document and taking notes, looking “back and forth between the screen corresponding the classified system and the notepad, all the while writing on the notepad.” The affidavit doesn’t state how this observation was made, but it strongly suggests a video surveillance system was also in play.

Perez-Lugones’s lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.

The post FBI’s Washington Post Investigation Shows How Your Printer Can Snitch on You appeared first on The Intercept.

The post is part of a growing trend in which the federal government openly embraces the visual language of white supremacy and pop culture cited in instances of racial violence. Over the past year, DHS and its component agencies leaned on mainstream pop music in their social media outreach, pairing enforcement footage with recognizable songs. The approach backfired repeatedly, and the department now appears to be leaning on niche, neo-Nazi-beloved music.

“There was a sense of plausible deniability before,” said Alice Marwick, director of research at Data & Society. Anti-immigrant backers of Trump’s Make America Great Again movement have long been known to spread extremist language and media, but in the past, “those dog whistles were being done by supporters,” she said. “Now they’re being done directly by the administration.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Lyrics from “We’ll Have Our Home Again” opened the manifesto of Ryan Christopher Palmeter, a 21-year-old white supremacist who entered a Dollar General store in Jacksonville, Florida, in 2023, and killed three Black people. Palmeter’s 27-page document echoed the writings of other mass killers, including Brenton Tarrant, according to the Anti-Defamation League. Tarrant, who murdered 51 Muslim worshippers in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019, had praised the former white ethnostate of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and framed his attack as part of a broader racial struggle.

Many recent attackers have been shaped by online extremist culture, Marwick pointed out. “These are young men who were embedded in online communities where memes and songs and books and slogans become part of this cultural fabric,” she said.

The decision to pair official recruitment messaging with music so closely tied to extremist identity politics, just days after one of its agents fatally shot a civilian, raises questions the department’s cultural awareness and basic judgment.

Brian Hansbury, a social media commentator who tracks far-right activity and posts through his Substack, Public Enlightenment, said the timing of the post stood out as particularly jarring. In online extremist spaces, he said, such juxtapositions are often read not as mistakes but as signals. 

Related

Bill Ackman Gave $10,000 to Jonathan Ross GoFundMe Created by User Linked to Nazi Salute Image

“When something like this appears immediately after a high-profile killing, it’s understood as intentional,” Hansbury said. “It reads as a message about who the agency is speaking to and the audience it is trying to reach.”

In other cases, the department has faced backlash for its attempts to use less controversial works of music. Pop singer Sabrina Carpenter condemned a White House/ICE video that used her song “Juno,” calling it “evil and disgusting”; the backlash prompted its removal. Olivia Rodrigo blasted DHS for using her song “All-American Bitch” to promote self-deportation, calling the move “racist, hateful propaganda.” Grammy winner SZA rebuked the Trump administration after her track “Big Boys” was used without permission in a recruitment video. And rock group MGMT had an ICE video featuring “Little Dark Age” removed from X after a copyright takedown request.

Even while making use of mainstream pop music, DHS’s official social media accounts were experimenting with language and imagery centered on national decline, territorial reclamation and cultural threat over the past year. In July 2025, the agency shared an image titled “A Heritage to be proud of, a Homeland worth Defending” alongside the 19th-century painting American Progress, a work frequently cited in white nationalist and “great replacement theory” circles for its depiction of westward expansion and Indigenous displacement. The painting is closely associated with the ideology of manifest destiny.

In December 2025, DHS shared a meme bearing a watermark from iFunny, a platform that has faced repeated criticism and removal from major app stores for hosting racist and extremist content. It mirrored themes that appear in so-called “Agartha” memes, a niche strain of far-right fantasy content that imagines a hidden, racially pure civilization beneath the Earth’s surface. Researchers who track extremist visual culture note that such narratives often romanticize white isolationism and technological superiority. 

“Memes are often used to mainstream white supremacist ideas by starting with beliefs that are more socially acceptable, and then gradually pushing boundaries,” Marwick said.

Those strategies are often deployed with precision. “You see something like a micro-targeted advertising campaign where they test out messaging that they believe will be more palatable to different demographics,” Marwick said.

The imagery in the post aligns closely with “collapse and reclamation” memes that circulate in far-right online subcultures. Those memes frequently depict floating monuments, pyramids, and hidden homelands as symbols of civilizational rebirth. Researchers who track extremist visual culture have documented how such motifs are commonly used in racist and accelerationist meme ecosystems to frame narratives of decline, replacement, and territorial recovery.

Originally written by the Männerbund, a nationalist group associated with Germany’s Völkisch movement, “We’ll Have Our Home Again” has found a second life in modern far-right online culture, reposted and remixed by accounts with names like “Patriot Archive” and “Visigothia” and circulated across YouTube and platforms popular in far-right circles, where versions and videos have drawn hundreds of thousands of views with endless comments referencing Rhodesia.

Members of the Proud Boys have been recorded chanting “By God, we’ll have our home,” the song’s refrain, at rallies in Northern California. 

DHS isn’t the only department in the Trump administration to openly embrace white nationalist rhetoric. Earlier this week, the Department of Labor drew flak for a post that mirrored a Nazi slogan.

It isn’t new to see extremist right-wing ideology perpetuated in online culture. What is new is seeing it echoed in official messaging from a federal law enforcement agency with the power to detain, deport, and use lethal force. 

“Now there is no plausible deniability,” said Marwick. “It’s really clear that the message they’re trying to send is meant to be read one way.”

The post DHS Used Neo-Nazi Anthem for Recruitment After Fatal Minneapolis ICE Shooting appeared first on The Intercept.

The Colorado Information Analysis Center cautioned in a March bulletin that “violent extremists” might perceive “White Supremacy Ideology in ICE Recruitment Materials, Leading to a Potentially Increased Threat Environment.”

The bulletin from an agency tasked with preventing terrorism advised law enforcement offices throughout the United States that these posts could create a “permissive environment to engage in vigilante action and/or violence against individuals perceived to be immigrants.”

These DHS posts, the analysts warned, could convince “white supremacist violent extremists to attempt to join or infiltrate ICE and engage in bias motivated violence, endangering the public, other ICE personnel, and local law enforcement.”

The bulletin circulated following months of inflammatory social media posts by the Department of Homeland Security intended to drive ICE recruitment and promote the Trump administration’s agenda of violent mass deportation.

Colorado officials singled out tweets mimicking memes popular in right-wing online subcultures, referencing the rhetoric, lyrics and tropes commonly used by violent white supremacists, neo-Nazis and the Third Reich. The social media campaign drew widespread criticism, with groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center alleging that DHS “is using white nationalist imagery and language to recruit new employees and arrest immigrants.” DHS has defended its online tactics as “bold and effective.”

The bulletin originated from a Colorado fusion center, part of a network of information clearinghouses for local, state and federal police that spread across the U.S. following 9/11. Originally conceived as a counter-terror measure, fusion centers have evolved into a sprawling surveillance apparatus tracking everything from drugs and shoplifting to student protests despite little evidence of their efficacy as a terror-fighting tool.

Reports from fusion centers are widely circulated among law enforcement agencies nationwide. The bulletin from the Colorado fusion center is notable in that it is the first indication that state officials in the U.S. counter-terrorism establishment are concerned about the messaging of DHS under Trump.

“The fact that you have the fusion center putting out a warning for law enforcement offices based on DHS messaging is surprising, even if it seems appropriate,” said Claire Trickler-McNulty, who spent eight years as an ICE official both under Obama and Biden and during Trump’s first administration.

She described the evidence presented in the bulletin as “rather damning.”

ICE and DHS did not respond to requests for comment.

Do you have information about fusion centers? Contact the authors on Signal at sledge.41 and sambiddle.99.

The posts highlighted in the report were crafted under former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who was fired in March and replaced by Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin. Noem was preceded in her departure by combative DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, who oversaw the agency’s social media push.

The bulletin delved deep into DHS and social media posts, which the report noted have been eagerly reposted by White supremacists from Austria to the U.S.

A January 9 DHS post on X, for instance, included an image of a lone man on horseback with the caption, “We’ll have our home again.” It might look like a piece of romanticized frontier nostalgia to many, but some would recognize the phrase “is a lyric from a song popular within and adopted by white nationalist organizations,” the memo reads. “The lyrics feature lines about reclaiming ‘our home’ by ‘blood or sweat,’ language often used in white supremacist rhetoric.” The memo noted that “Members of the white nationalist group, Patriot Front, have been recorded chanting ‘By God, we’ll have our home,’ the song’s refrain,” and that “Lyrics from the song opened the manifesto of a white supremacist who killed three people at a Dollar General store in Jacksonville, Florida in 2023.”

After The Intercept reported on DHS’ use of the song “We’ll Have Our Home Again” by Pine Tree Riots, lawmakers urged Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, to stop running the ad.

Related

DHS Used Neo-Nazi Anthem for Recruitment After Fatal Minneapolis ICE Shooting

DHS’ quotation of a song known to be popular among neo-Nazis is part of a pattern, the report says, of “repeated use of visual or rhetorical elements that overlap with symbols historically referenced within extremist subcultures.” The memo highlights the frequent use of the term “remigration” by the Department of Homeland Security, a term the Colorado law enforcement analysts explained “dates back to 1930s Germany,” where it was used to advocate for forced expulsion of Jews.

It points out Homeland Security’s use of the “Moon Man” meme, a character from a 1980s McDonald’s advertising campaign that has become popular among online racists for its resemblance to a Ku Klux Klansman. The bulletin highlighted one social media user who replied to a DHS post using the “Moon Man” character, stating “it’s TND time” — an abbreviation for the phrase “total n***** death,” which has spread among white supremacists. This user attached his own version of the meme showing the character posing before a swastika flag with a rifle.

“I appreciate them putting it together and so clearly laying out the dangers of using this white nationalist imagery,” Trickler-McNulty said.

The report includes a disclaimer noting that it doesn’t intend “to imply ideological alignment between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and white supremacist ideology.” But the analysts show how the social posts were quickly gaining traction among white supremacists, who were encouraging each other to sign up as immigration agents.

“During the timeframe that these posts from DHS have circulated online,” the intelligence bulletin warns, “white supremacist violent extremist groups have been simultaneously advocating for their followers to join ICE and/or musing about the potential for ICE to turn into a white supremacist militia.”

In a “neo-Nazi accelerationist social media channel,” for instance, internet users talked about infiltrating ICE and using its authority to form a “breakaway militia,” auguring a nationwide race war. Users on a neo-Nazi message board, the bulletin says, “discussed the advantages of joining ICE, viewing it as an opportunity for ‘accelerating conflict in the US’ and ‘beating up race traitors.’ One user claimed that someone in the network had already been a captain at an ICE-contracted detention facility.”

A spokesperson for the Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, which oversees the fusion center, did not answer when asked whether the agency had received a response from DHS about its bulletin. The fusion center spreads information to “private sector, local, tribal, and federal organizations,” spokesperson Micki Trost said in an email statement. “Bulletins help us share information with this network to meet our mission.”

The bulletin also argues that DHS’ posts could provoke violence against law enforcement from those who oppose white supremacists. Antifascist activists might “misinterpret DHS messaging and perceive all ICE personnel, and by extension law enforcement and government officials, as supportive of or complicit in white supremacy, therefore creating perceived justification for violence targeting those individuals,” the report says.

Spencer Reynolds, a former DHS official who advised the department on intelligence collection, domestic terrorism and other national security issues, rejected this warning that law enforcement might find itself at risk. “The intelligence report’s conclusion that DHS’s rhetoric may push both ‘anti-fascists’ and white supremacists to violence presents a false equivalency that ignores historical and present-day facts,” Reynolds, now senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, told The Intercept.

“From this country’s founding to today’s crisis, Black people and other people of color have always been victims of white supremacist violence. It is deeply flawed of the bulletin to suggest that ‘both sides’ are likely to resort to violence due to the administration’s inflammatory rhetoric,” he said. “In reality, white supremacy, not the people who adamantly oppose it, has fomented mass violence and oppression throughout our country’s existence.”

The post ICE Recruitment Tweets Are So Racist That Cops Feared They Could Incite Neo-Nazi Violence appeared first on The Intercept.

The station’s educational program “Let’s Learn” became an object of ire for the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency this spring over the 2021 episode “The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish,” in which the drag queen and children’s author Lil Miss Hot Mess sings about drag performance to the tune of “The Wheels on the Bus.” The subcommittee’s chair, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., opened the “Anti-American Airwaves” hearing in March by claiming that “PBS News is not just left-leaning, but it actively uses taxpayer funds to push some of the most radical, left positions like featuring a drag queen on the show” and calling Lil Miss Hot Mess a “child predator” and a “monster.”

Far from defending the programming, PBS CEO Paula Kerger distanced the broadcaster from the show. 

“The drag queen was actually not on any of our kids’ shows,” she said, claiming the episode made it to the PBS website by mistake and had already been removed. PBS followed up with a letter that said it had “removed all remaining references to the Episode” online on March 26, 2025.

But it wasn’t just PBS: The New York member station that produces “Let’s Learn” — which had stood by the episode under scrutiny in previous years — then quietly removed the episode across its platforms, according to an Intercept analysis. WNET also erased two other episodes about a children’s book featuring a a transgender protagonist, the analysis shows.

WNET did not respond to requests for comment. A PBS spokesperson reiterated Kerger’s claim that the episode was uploaded by mistake and said its removal was unrelated to the current political climate, but did not respond to questions about why over 250 other “Let’s Learn” episodes are still available for viewing on the official PBS website.

Public broadcasting was an object of U.S. conservative wrath for decades before the Trump administration. But as the current government has intensified its attacks, PBS has engaged in other recent examples of self-censorship. PBS removed a scene in which Art Spiegelman discusses an anti-Trump cartoon from a documentary about the artist, and it pulled a gaming documentary with transgender themes from planned syndication — then relisted it after The Atlantic asked about the deletion. But the erasure of WNET’s programming on drag and transgender culture shows the effects reaching a local level, where the station that produced the episodes elected to take them down — despite previously having defended them.

After premiering in the spring of 2021, “The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish” quickly garnered social media outrage and news coverage. Following the first round of backlash, WNET added a disclaimer on its YouTube channel and the “Let’s Learn” website, noting that the series is “not funded or distributed by PBS.” 

Related

The Real, Sinister Political Threat of Tennessee’s New Anti-Drag Law

But at the time, WNET defended the episode, telling Fox News that Let’s Learn “strives to incorporate themes that explore diversity and promote inclusivity, which are relevant to education and society. Drag is a performance art that can inspire creative thinking and the questioning of stereotypes.”

The outrage didn’t go away: Two years later, Oklahoma’s Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt explicitly mentioned the episode when he vetoed a bill to extend funding for his state’s PBS station. 

Despite all the attention, WNET continued to make the episode available — until this year. 

An Intercept analysis showed that following the DOGE hearing, WNET quietly removed all mentions of the episode across its platforms. 

The original episode page now displays a generic error message, reading “Oops! The page you are looking for was not found.” “The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish” no longer appears in a list of episode titles, and the video is listed as private on the WNET Education YouTube channel. WNET also instructed search engines not to list the episode’s old webpage. 

Aside from removing “The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish,” WNET has additionally removed at least two more “Let’s Learn” episodes, The Intercept has found. 

In the November 2020 episode “Max and the Talent Show,” author Kyle Lukoff reads his book of the same name. The story concerns a white transgender boy named Max who helps his Black male friend Steven prepare for a talent show and “find the perfect gown, shoes, cape, and tiara,” according to the School Library Journal. The journal calls the book “an excellent choice as an early reader with an LGBTQIA+ theme.” 

WNET removed that episode and another, called “Brain and Same Both Have Long ‘A.’” That hourlong episode also features “Max and the Talent Show,” which students read in order to “practice sounds with the long ‘a.’” 

Although it has been erased from PBS and WNET platforms, “The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish” can still be viewed via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. 

The post PBS Station Wipes Drag and Trans Content After DOGE Outcry appeared first on The Intercept.

The proposal, titled “Speaking With American Men: A Strategic Plan,” from Ilyse Hogue, the former president of the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America, and John Della Volpe, polling director for the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics, is one of several pitches floating around in Democratic policy spaces aimed at making up ground with demographics the party lost in 2024. The plan was immediately panned online by critics who argued that young men would view this type of approach as inauthentic. 

In the last election, young white men swung aggressively in the direction of Trump, voting for him by a 28-point margin, after supporting Joe Biden in the last election. 

Online media has largely been credited with the shift, particularly among young white men. 

In an analysis of 320 of the most popular online shows across platforms such as Youtube, Rumble, and TikTok, Media Matters found that right-leaning shows were significantly more popular, accounting for roughly 82% percent of the total following of online shows analyzed. It also found that 9 out of 10 of the most followed online shows were right-leaning. Evidence suggests that young men are absorbing what these far-right streamers are sharing. A survey ahead of the election from the Equimundo Center for Masculinities and Social Justice found that more than 40 percent of young men trust one or more misogynistic voices online.

The plan would raise $20 million from Democratic donors, which the project’s leadership has reportedly already begun to collect, to study the “syntax, language, and content” that’s popular among young men in online spaces, then develop content that spreads an “aspirational vision of manhood that aligns with Democratic values without alienating other core constituencies” and partner with influencers. 

Experts on masculinity and gender in politics argue that while it’s good to research why young men left the party, investing millions to recreate a “Joe Rogan of the left” fundamentally misunderstands why young men moved so rapidly to the right — and misses an opportunity to woo them back. 

“To try to create the next Joe Rogan, it’s [misguided],” said Gary Barker, president and CEO of Equimundo Center for Masculinities and Social Justice. “Because it’s going to come across as preaching and a kind of lab-designed android.”

Last year, Barker and Equimundo released a report on the “Manosphere,” tracking how young men engage in online communities and why. Barker’s research suggests that young men are attracted to these spaces out of a desire for community and for someone to speak directly to them about their social, political, and economic anxieties. 

Right-wing influencers and Republicans fill that void, stoking those anxieties and creating a useful scapegoat in women, minorities, and immigrants. “They’ve talked to men about their feeling of anxiety and said, ‘You’re right to feel anxious. You’re not the problem. Tear it all down,’” said Barker.  

However, Barker said that Democrats shouldn’t be trying to recreate that strategy even if it would work for them. “You don’t want a Democratic Mr. Beast,” he said. “It’s horribly manipulative. It’s exploitative of people. I’m not sure if we can get something so big online that doesn’t follow a playbook that’s either exploitative, exaggerated, or harm-inducing. And if we do, I think it’s going to feel like it’s preaching to you.”

If Democrats want to win back young men, they’ll have to prove to them that their economic and social issues matter to them, said Melissa Deckman, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute and author of “The Politics of Gen Z: How the Youngest Voters Will Shape Our Democracy.”

Deckman’s research found that young men’s political shift toward Republicans was heavily influenced by the economy. “A lot of young men feel that the American Dream is increasingly out of reach for them. And the Democratic Party certainly didn’t have an answer for how their policies or their vision might help them get a better paying job,” she said.

While Deckman’s research suggests that young men felt chided by the Democratic Party instead of helped, nostalgia for the economy under Trump was a significant factor in their shift. “For a lot of young men, especially those that don’t pay a lot of attention to politics, they remember the economy being better under the first Trump administration,” she said. 

Related

Take Out the Trash: A Proposal to Clean Up the Democratic Party

A more populist economic message could resonate with this group of voters, argued Deckman. “There’s an economic blueprint that can emerge that is less elitist and less about giving tax breaks to billionaires. I think that has a broader reach, but for whatever reasons, I think a lot of young men aren’t hearing that message from Democrats, and I kind of struggle with it. Is it a messenger issue, or is it they’re just not receptive to it?” she said. 

Barker argues that the real problem is that Democrats have been trying to sell a “piecemeal” approach to economic issues that feels automatically inadequate for the issues we’re facing. 

“Piecemeal compensatory social policies don’t work. I mean, they work for some segments of the population, but they don’t take on the root of what’s driving so much of the inequality, which is leading to white men’s death of despair, and has always been part of people of color’s economic challenges,” said Barker.

Nina Smith, a Democratic strategist and former senior adviser to Stacey Abrams, said instead of propping up a creator who checks the perfect ideological boxes, Democrats should embrace the online spaces for young men that already exist. 

For example, creators like Hasan Piker, a left-leaning creator with over 5.5 million subscribers on Twitch and broad popularity among young men, has largely been ignored by the Democratic establishment. Piker’s political content leans farther left, sharing a populist economic message paired with strong criticism of U.S. foreign policy in Israel. 

“There is a tendency to shy away from those spaces because our favorite thing to do in the Democratic Party is to, pardon my language, shit on the left,” said Smith. 

Aside from entering authentic online spaces that already connect with men, both Smith and Barker said the most important way to reach young voters is in person. “We get the best out of young men [when] we actually go and see them face to face,” said Barker. 

Smith pointed toward the success of youth conservative movements like Turning Point USA as an example of how ground game can make a huge difference with the groups Democrats are trying to win back.

Related

Marco Rubio Is Attacking American Education. International Students Are His Pawns.

“I honestly believe it would be better for us to have a bus tour than to spend a bunch of money on research that is cold,” she said, “Turning Point did that sort of investment where they did a tour to different college campuses, and that’s how they got in contact with these young people.” 

Republicans have created a space for young men to blow off steam, Barker said. Now, Democrats need to find a way to offer them something better. 

“Trump did not offer men anything that will make their life better,” he said. “What he did is he offered them a place to yell at the wind for a little while. It doesn’t seem like it should be that tough for us on the left to at least pull them in, out of a space where they’re just yelling at the wind.”  

The post The Futile Quest to Build a “Liberal Joe Rogan”  appeared first on The Intercept.

Republicans have been discussing banning TikTok since Donald Trump’s first term, with a plethora of justifications centered around Chinese interference. But in the wake of Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, conservatives have become hyper fixated on policing pro-Palestinian messages on the app, accusing TikTok of influencing young Americans to “support Hamas” and favoring pro-Palestinian content. TikTok, for its part, has vigorously defended itself against the perception that it favors Palestinian perspectives and asserted that its algorithm does not “take sides.”

Related

TikTok SCOTUS Battle

Nina Smith, a political communications strategist and former senior adviser to Stacey Abrams, said the GOP’s messaging around TikTok and Palestine is emblematic of the party’s double standards on free speech. “They’re pushing for their ability to say all manner of things on the internet. And yet they want to try and censor people who are very concerned about, justifiably concerned about what’s going on in the Middle East,” Smith said. “And so it’s absolutely a freedom of speech violation.”

The de facto ban on TikTok was tucked into a $95 billion legislative package for aid to Ukraine and Israel that Congress passed in April. The legislation required TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance — which is based in Beijing, China, and incorporated in the Cayman Islands — to either sell to an American company or face a nationwide ban. TikTok countered that the law did not provide the company with enough time to find a suitable buyer and have ByteDance divest its asset. The Supreme Court took up the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against the company in December, and the justices will hear arguments on Friday.

Blaming TikTok

Republican lawmakers’ handwringing about TikTok users speaking out about Gaza began in the early days of Israel’s now 15-month war on the enclave.

“Good old TikTok: Chinese spy engine and purveyor of virulent antisemitic lies,” Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., tweeted in late October 2023.

In an op-ed the following month, Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., argued that the Chinese Communist Party was using TikTok to push anti-Israeli propaganda. “How did we reach a point where a majority of young Americans hold such a morally bankrupt view of the world? Where many young Americans were rooting for terrorists who had kidnapped American citizens — and against a key American ally? Where were they getting the raw news to inform this upside-down worldview? The short answer is, increasingly, via social media and predominantly TikTok,” wrote Gallagher.

Related

In No Labels Call, Josh Gottheimer, Mike Lawler, and University Trustees Agree: FBI Should Investigate Campus Protests

Other Republicans expressed similar perspectives following the passage of the de facto ban. While discussing pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses in May, Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., a co-sponsor of the TikTok ban legislation, argued that the platform was manipulating young Americans against Israel. “I don’t think there’s any question that there has been a coordinated effort off these college campuses, and that you have outside paid agitators and activists,” he said on a call with university trustees, as The Intercept previously reported. “It also highlights exactly why we included the TikTok bill in the foreign supplemental aid package because you’re seeing how these kids are being manipulated by certain groups or entities or countries to foment hate on their behalf and really create a hostile environment here in the U.S.”

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, echoed his colleagues’ messaging. “Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature,” said Romney at a forum in May. “If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relative to other social media sites — it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts.”

The congressional fixation on TikTok’s influence on discourse over the war in Gaza was so intense that the company felt the need to address it in a recent filing to the Supreme Court. “Allegations that TikTok has amplified support for either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are unfounded,” wrote TikTok’s attorneys in the brief. “The allegation was nonetheless a substantial focus of congressional deliberations.” 

TikTok has also pointed to its large user base from the Middle East and Southeast Asia as a possible explanation for more content about Palestine than about Israel on the platform. (Another explanation for the discrepancy is that TikTok has a large percentage of users under 29, a demographic much more likely to sympathize with Palestinians.) The company said that although more people had tagged their videos with #freepalestine, the videos tagged with #standwithIsrael received 68 percent more views per video in the United States, indicating, if anything, that the algorithm at the time favored pro-Israeli messages. 

Related

How the Gaza War Is Reshaping Social Media

Reporters have dug into the question of whether or not TikTok features more Palestinian perspectives than other social media platforms and found the divide comparable to other similar platforms. A Washington Post report from November 2023 found that the #freepalestine hashtag appeared 39 times more on Facebook than the #standwithisrael tag, and 26 times more on Instagram than the pro-Israel hashtag. Both of those platforms are owned by Meta, a U.S. company with a U.S. founder. On TikTok, the Washington Post found, the #freepalestine tag appeared 38 times more than videos tagged with #standwithisrael over the same 30-day period.

There’s also the fact that the short-form video app, which has 170 million U.S.-based users, has made it even easier for people to see footage directly from the ground in Gaza, perspectives that are often absent from mainstream media coverage of the war. TikTok creator Bisan Owda, for example, is a 25-year-old Emmy Award-winning filmmaker and journalist who has documented her real-time experiences throughout Israel’s assault on the besieged enclave. She frequently begins her videos with the same gut-punching refrain: “It’s Bisan from Gaza, and I’m still alive.”

That’s the reality that Republicans hope to hide.

The post The TikTok Ban Is Also About Hiding Pro-Palestinian Content. Republicans Said So Themselves. appeared first on The Intercept.

This past July, YouTube deleted Inlakesh’s private backup account. And in August, Google, YouTube’s parent company, deleted his Google account, including his Gmail and his archive of documents and writings.

The tech giant initially claimed Inlakesh’s account violated YouTube’s community guidelines. Months later, the company justified his account termination by alleging his page contained spam or scam content.

However, when The Intercept inquired further about Inlakesh’s case, nearly two years after his account was deleted, YouTube provided a separate and wholly different explanation for the termination: a connection to an Iranian influence campaign.

YouTube declined to provide evidence to support this claim, stating that the company doesn’t discuss how it detects influence operations. Inlakesh remains unable to make new Google accounts, preventing him from sharing his video journalism on the largest English language video platform.

Inlakesh, now a freelance journalist, acknowledged that from 2019 to 2021 he worked from the London office of the Iranian state-owned media organization Press TV, which is under U.S. sanctions. Even so, Inlakesh said that should not have led to the erasure of his entire YouTube account, the vast majority of which was his own independent content that was posted before or after his time at Press TV.

A public Google document from the month Inlakesh’s account was deleted notes that the company had recently closed more than 30 accounts it alleged were linked to Iran that had posted content critical of Israel and its war on Gaza. The company did not respond when asked specifically if Inlakesh’s account was among those mentioned in the document.

Inlakesh said he felt like he was targeted not due to his former employer but because of his journalism about Palestine, especially amid the increasingly common trend of pro-Israeli censorship among Big Tech companies.

“What are the implications of this, not just for me, but for other journalists?” Inlakesh told The Intercept. “To do this and not to provide me with any information — you’re basically saying I’m a foreign agent of Iran for working with an outlet; that’s the implication. You have to provide some evidence for that. Where’s your documentation?”

Misdirection and Lack of Answers

Over the past couple years, YouTube and Google’s explanations given for the terminations of Inlakesh’s accounts have been inconsistent and vague.

YouTube first accused Inlakesh of “severe or repeated violations of our Community Guidelines.” When a Google employee, Marc Cohen, noticed Inlakesh’s public outcry about his account termination in February 2024, he decided to get involved. Cohen filed a support ticket on Google’s internal issue tracker system, “the Buganizer,” asking why a journalist’s account was deleted. Failing to get an answer internally, Cohen went public with his questions that March. After drawing the attention of the YouTube team on Twitter, he said he eventually received an internal response from Google which claimed that Inlakesh’s account had been terminated owing to “scam, deceptive or spam content.”

Cohen, who resigned from Google later that year over its support of the Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza, said had he not gotten involved, Inlakesh would have been left with even less information.

“They get away with that because they’re Google,” Cohen said. “What are you going to do? Go hire a lawyer and sue Google? You have no choice.”

When Inlakesh’s Gmail account was deleted this year, Google said his account had been “used to impersonate someone or misrepresent yourself,” which Google said is a violation of its policies. Inlakesh appealed three times but was given no response.

Only after The Intercept’s inquiry into Inlakesh’s case did Google shift its response to alleged Iranian influence.

“This creator’s channel was terminated in February 2024 as part of our ongoing investigations into coordinated influence operations backed by the Iranian state,” a YouTube spokesperson told The Intercept. The termination of his channel meant all other accounts associated with Inlakesh, including his backup account, were also deleted, YouTube said.

When The Intercept asked YouTube to elaborate on the reason behind the account deletions, such as which specific content may have flagged the account as being linked to an Iranian state influence operation, a YouTube spokesperson replied that YouTube doesn’t “disclose specifics of how we detect coordinated influence operations,” and instead referred The Intercept to Google’s Threat Analysis Group’s quarterly bulletins. TAG is a team within Google that describes itself as working “to counter government-backed hacking and attacks against Google and our users.”

Google’s Threat Analysis Group’s bulletin from when Inlakesh’s account was first terminated states that in February 2024, a total of 37 YouTube channels were deleted as a result of an “investigation into coordinated influence operations linked to Iran.” Four of these accounts, the document notes, were sharing content which “was critical of the Israeli government and its actions in the ongoing Israel-Gaza war” and had “shared content depicting alleged cyber attacks targeting Israeli organizations.” Google said in the document that the other 33 terminated YouTube channels had shown content “supportive of Iran, Yemen, and Palestine and critical of the US and Israel.”

A Pattern of Censorship

Google has a long-standing and well-documented practice of censoring Palestinian content or content critical of the Israeli government, in addition to evidence of human rights abuses in other conflicts. Such censorship has only exacerbated during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza,

The company deploys various methods to censor content, such as teams of experts who manually review content, automated systems that flag content, reviews of U.S. sanction and foreign terror organization lists, as well as takedown requests from governments.

For the past decade, Israel’s Cyber Unit has openly run operations to convince companies to delete Palestine-related content from platforms such as YouTube.

Related

Israeli Group Claims It’s Working With Big Tech Insiders to Censor “Inflammatory” Wartime Content

Among U.S. allies, Israel had the highest percentage of requests resulting in takedowns on Google platforms, with a nearly 90 percent takedown rate, according to Google’s data since 2011. This rate outpaces countries like France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Google’s home country, the United States. Absent from Google’s public reports, however, are takedown requests made by individual users, a route often weaponized by the Israeli cyber unit and internally by pro-Israel employees.

The scale of content deleted specifically due to U.S. sanctions is also difficult to quantify since such decisions happen without transparency. A recent investigation by The Intercept revealed that YouTube quietly deleted the accounts of three prominent Palestinian human rights organizations due to the Trump administration’s sanctions against the groups for assisting the International Criminal Court’s war crimes case against Israeli officials. The terminated pages accounted for at least 700 videos erased, many of which spotlighted alleged human rights abuses by the Israeli government.

Dia Kayyali, a technology and human rights consultant, said that in the past several years, as Big Tech platforms have relied more on automated systems that are fed U.S. sanction and terror lists, rights groups have seen an increase in the number of journalists within the Middle East and North Africa region who have had their content related to Palestine removed from YouTube, even when the content they post does not violate the company’s policies. The same could have happened with Inlakesh’s account, Kayyali said.

“And that’s part of the problem with automation — because it just does a really bad job of parsing content — content that could be graphic, anything that has any reference to Hamas,” Kayyali said. Hamas is included within the U.S. foreign terror organization list and Iran remains one of the most sanctioned countries by the U.S. government.

Google and other Big Tech platforms rely heavily on U.S. sanction lists in part to avoid potential liability from the State Department. But such caution is not always warranted, said Mohsen Farshneshani, principal attorney at the Washington, D.C.-based Sanctions Law Center.

Related

YouTube Quietly Erased More Than 700 Videos Documenting Israeli Human Rights Violations

Multinational corporations like Google tend to lean toward “overcompliance” with sanction regulations, often deleting content even when it legally is not required to do so, harming journalists and human rights groups, said Farshneshani.

Under U.S. law, in the Berman Amendment to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, informational materials — in this case, reporting and journalism — are exempt from being subject to sanctions.

Such a carveout should have protected Inlakesh’s page from being deleted, Farshneshani said. Google likely could have taken down specific videos that raised concern, or demonetized specific videos or the entire account, he said. (Inlakesh said that years before terminating his videos and account, YouTube had demonetized some of his content depicting Israeli military violence.)

“Deleting an entire account is far from what the statutes or the regulations ask of U.S. entities,” Farshneshani said. “The exemption is meant for situations like this. And if these companies are to uphold their part of the bargain as brokers of information for the greater global community, they would do the extra leg work to make sure the stuff stays up.”

State-Sponsored Media

While YouTube and Google have not stated whether Inlakesh’s history with Press TV played a factor in the deletion, the Iranian state-funded outlet has long been under Google’s scrutiny. In 2013, Google temporarily deleted Press TV’s YouTube account before permanently deleting the channel in 2019 along with its Gmail account amid the first Trump administration’s sanctions campaign against Iran. The Biden administration in 2021 seized and censored dozens of websites tied to Iran, and in 2023 placed sanctions on Press TV due to Iran’s violent crackdown on anti-government protesters after the in-custody death of Mahsa Amini.

Press TV also has been accused by rights groups and journalists for filming and airing propaganda videos in which individuals detained by Iran are coerced to “confess” to alleged crimes in recorded interviews, as a part of the government’s attempts to justify their imprisonment or execution.

Press TV did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment.

Out of the many videos on his YouTube account, Inlakesh recalled only two being associated with his work for Press TV: a documentary critical of the 2020 Trump deal on Israel–Palestine and a short clip about Republicans’ Islamophobic attacks on Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., in 2019. The rest either predate or postdate his stint at Press TV.

Press TV’s U.K. YouTube channel at times appears listed as an “associated channel” in archival versions of Inlakesh’s personal YouTube page. A YouTube spokesperson stated that YouTube uses “various signals to determine the relationship between channels linked by ownership for enforcement purposes,” but did not clarify what the specific signals were.

Inlakesh maintained that he had editorial independence while at Press TV and was never directed to post to his personal YouTube page.

Jillian York, the director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said she understood Google’s need to moderate content, but questioned why it deleted Inlakesh’s account rather than using its policy of labeling state-sponsored content, a system that itself has been plagued with problems. “More labels, more warnings, less censorship,” York said.

“The political climate around Palestine has made it such that a lot of the Silicon Valley-based social media platforms don’t seem particularly willing to ensure that Palestinian content can stay up,” she said.

Killing the Narrative

Inlakesh said he lost several documentaries about Israel and Palestine that were hosted exclusively on YouTube. However, what he lamented most was the loss of footage of his independent coverage from the West Bank, including livestreams that document alleged Israeli military abuses and were not backed up elsewhere.

One such video, he said, was a livestream from a protest at the major Israeli settlement of Beit El on February 11, 2020, against President Donald Trump’s lopsided annexation plan for Israel and Palestine.

Through the haze of tear gas, Inlakesh filmed Israeli soldiers camped out at a nearby hill, aiming their guns at the crowd of mostly children throwing rocks.

“And then you see the children drop,” Inlakesh recalled, followed by the bang of a gunshot. Paramedics rushed over to retrieve the children as Inlakesh followed behind. In all, Inlakesh said he filmed Israeli military gunfire hit three Palestinian children, a likely war crime violation, leaving them with wounds to the arms, legs and torso.

“You’re killing part of the narrative,” Inlakesh said. “You’re actively taking away the public’s ability to assess what happened at a critical moment during the history of the conflict.”

The post A Journalist Reported From Palestine. YouTube Deleted His Account Claiming He’s an Iranian Agent. appeared first on The Intercept.

After Charlie Kirk was murdered at Utah Valley University, graphic videos of the right-wing provocateur’s assassination went viral on every major social media platform. It’s not surprising that such violent footage quickly spread — especially around a killing as high-profile as Kirk’s. What’s unusual, however, is how long those videos have been allowed to stay up.

Search Kirk’s name on Instagram right now, and for every three videos of him “owning” a college student in a debate, there’s at least one of him bleeding out. Search “Charlie Kirk shooting,” and your feed will be inundated with videos of the incident. This was not always the case. After a gunman livestreamed his attack at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand in 2019, Meta said it took down 1.2 million versions of the video before users could upload them to the platform. The Southern Poverty Law Center also tracked uploads of videos after mass shootings in Christchurch; Halle, Germany; and Buffalo, New York, and found a dramatic decrease after the seventh day of each of those shootings. 

Related

America Tolerates High Levels of Violence but Suppresses Photos of the Slaughter

Owners of social media companies like Facebook, Instagram, X, and YouTube have traditionally responded much faster to the proliferation of such graphic violence on their platforms, at least in the West. (Internet users in places where these platforms dedicate less resources to moderation like Gaza or Tigray are all too familiar with the kind of deluge of gore American users were subject to these past few weeks.)

Lawmakers including Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., have called on the platforms to delete the videos of Kirk’s gruesome assassination.

“He has a family, young children, and no one should be forced to relive this tragedy online. These are not the only graphic videos of horrifying murders circulating— at some point, social media begins to desensitize humanity. We must still value life,” Luna wrote on her X account. “Please take them down.”

But for several years, Republican legislators, in the name of free speech, have pushed tech companies to gut the very systems they now expect to protect them. It was part of pressure campaign intended to force social media companies to fire moderators, abandon fact-checking, and weaken their hate speech policies. As Luna and Boebert now demand the removal of videos of Kirk’s gruesome assassination, they’re experiencing the predictable consequence of the information ecosystem their party created — and are now horrified that the chaos has turned inward.

In 2023, after Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, succeeded Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., as chair of the House Judiciary Committee; he immediately used his platform to start subpoenaing Big Tech and research organizations that study online hate speech and misinformation, like the Stanford Internet Observatory. Jordan accused them of a “marriage of big government, big tech [and] big academia” that attacked “American citizens’ First Amendment liberties.” Notably, last year, congressional Republicans accused the FBI and tech platforms of collaborating to defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election by suppressing posts related to Hunter Biden’s laptop. 

Meanwhile, conservative activists sued the Biden administration complaining that it pressured social media companies to censor conservative views on Covid-19 vaccines and election fraud. Though they lost the suit, Republicans have long held that platforms have overly censored their posts. Studies also show that Republicans are far more likely to spread misinformation. During the 2016 election, for example, 80 percent of the disinformation on Facebook came from Republican-leaning posts. Another 2023 study found that conservatives were eight times more likely to spread misleading content than those who lean liberal. In other words, Republicans were more likely to be censored by social media because their posts were more likely to violate their policies.

Of course, a lot has changed since then, and tech companies have gone much further in appeasing conservatives. Perhaps, the biggest coup d’état for conservatives in the battle against “liberal tech” was Elon Musk’s purchase and subsequent rebranding of Twitter. To appease Republican activists, Musk — who recently advocated for the imprisonment of those who belittle the death of Kirk — promised to turn Twitter into a “free speech” platform. His first move was laying off a majority of the company’s staff involved in devising and implementing its content moderation policies. One former Twitter staffer who used to work in this division estimated that almost 90 percent of the company’s content moderation staff was laid off. Twitter, now X, also said it would rely on its Community Notes feature and AI to moderate content.  

Related

My Ban From X Is About One Simple Thing: Elon Musk Controlling the Flow of Information

Musk’s changes were not only in staffing, but also in how strongly the company enforces its policies. While Twitter’s hate speech policies still exist on paper, the platform has chosen not to enforce and has instead verified hundreds of accounts belonging to white supremacists, reinstated the accounts of notorious promoters of anti-trans content, and of course, brought back Trump who was excommunicated from the platform for his role in inciting the January 6 riots. Musk also joined Republicans’ attack on researchers who monitor disinformation by suing the Center for Countering Digital Hate in 2023 — though that lawsuit was later dismissed. 

The inflection point for this yearslong campaign by conservative activists was Meta’s capitulation to their demands shortly after Trump’s election win. In January, CEO Mark Zuckerberg, dressed in a loose black T-shirt and a gold chain, told Facebook and Instagram users the company would drastically scale back its third-party fact-checking operation. He told users the company would also ease enforcement of its hate speech rules, especially around immigration and gender. “It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuck said. 

While Meta, YouTube, and others have said their content policies would apply to the Kirk assassination videos, to capitulate to Republican demands, they have not only reduced how strongly they review content but also gotten rid of much of the staff that does that work.

Like Twitter, Meta has since quietly laid off many of the people that work on its trust and safety teams while also announcing it would double-down on AI based moderation. Not even a month after Meta announced its content policy changes, users reported seeing more graphic content on the platform.

“Underinvesting in platform safety has serious consequences,” says Martha Dark, the co-executive director of Foxglove Legal, a tech accountability nonprofit that advocates for content moderators. “It’s striking that after years of demanding platforms ease up on enforcement, some politicians are now outraged at the very consequences of that pressure. You can’t have it both ways: Weakening moderation inevitably means violent and graphic content is left up for longer and spreads more quickly,” Dark adds.

As for the tech companies’ claims that AI can carry the burden of their content moderation load: Olivia Conti, a former Twitter product manager who focused on abuse detection algorithms, told me that these algorithms may as well be “pizza detectors” because they “flag anything with predominantly red tones.” Even the hashing technology that tech platforms have traditionally used to identify these videos can easily be evaded through small edits.

Ellery Biddle, the director of impact at Meedan, a technology nonprofit that studies harmful speech and gender-based violence online, says that while some content moderation can be assisted by AI, “you still need teams of smart people to tell the AI what to do.”

Republicans intended to take aim at the teams that moderate hate speech and harassment. But those very people are also responsible for the job of monitoring and removing gruesome videos, like that of Kirk’s death.

The post Videos of Charlie Kirk’s Murder Are Still on Social Media — and That’s No Accident appeared first on The Intercept.

Turning Murder Into Content

Half a decade later and I still remember his voice. A young man lies on the ground, begging, pleading, screaming as another man, swinging a machete, forces him to place his right arm on a small wooden bench. The attacker wants to make things easier on himself.

But it was never going to be easy.

The assailant begins hacking away. Swinging the panga again and again and again, taunting his victim as he delivers the blows. It unfolds slowly. You learn that even for a strong man with a large, sharp blade, it’s difficult to amputate an arm. Excruciatingly difficult.

It’s got to be the longest 1 minute and 18 seconds ever. After the final swing, you see the victim kicking his legs back and forth — in a way I’ve never seen another human move — writhing in agony on the ground.

For a while, my sources in conflict zones, and others who knew I investigated atrocities, would regularly send me such gruesome videos. There was the man lying in a street in the Democratic Republic of Congo as an assailant with a machete attempts to cut off his leg below the knee; I can still remember the exact sound of his cries. There’s the video of the captured Kurdish fighters. I recall how the second woman to be killed — just before she’s shot, point blank, in the head — watches the execution of her comrade. She doesn’t plead or cry or even flinch.

I would dutifully watch the videos, analyze them, and then pitch an article if I could make something of the footage. “You are going to die,” said a Cameroonian soldier, speaking to a group of women he referred to as “BH” — shorthand for the terrorist group, Boko Haram. In that video, which I reported on for The Intercept back in 2018, soldiers force their victims to kneel, including a woman with a toddler strapped to her back. One of those men directs the tiny girl to stand next to her mother. He then pulls the little girl’s shirt over her head, blindfolding her. You can guess what follows.

Videos of war zone violence, from Myanmar to Ukraine to the Middle East, have proliferated even more in the years since. Drones chasing panicked soldiers, or even toying with their quarry, before killing them, have grown into a popular modern motif. And graphic video of ambushes, executions, and traditional trophy “photos” are a commonplace. This type of footage, which used to lurk at LiveLeak and deeper recesses of the internet, is now more ubiquitous, circulating in more accessible online locales like Reddit.

Watching footage of such slaughter comes with a price. In 2015, Eyewitness Media Hub conducted a survey of people who often work with graphic “user-generated content.” Even back then, more than half of the 209 respondents reported that they viewed distressing media several times weekly. Twelve percent of the responding journalists and almost a quarter of the human rights and humanitarian workers said they viewed such traumatic content daily. Forty percent of respondents said that viewing such distressing images and video had a negative impact on their personal lives, leaving them with feelings of isolation, flashbacks, nightmares, and other stress-related symptoms. One quarter reported high or even very high “professional adverse effects.” More recently, a 2023 study of 300 Pakistani journalists found more than 66 percent reported experiencing indirect trauma.

“Intrusive recollections — re-seeing traumatic images one has been working with — are not unusual,” wrote Gavin Rees at the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, where I was once a fellow. “Our brains are designed to form vivid pictures of disturbing things, so you may experience images popping back into consciousness at unexpected moments.”

I’ve certainly found this to be true. As a conflict and crisis reporter, I saw some disturbing things in the field which lodged in my brain. But strange as it may sound, some gruesome videos have had more staying power than horrors I saw in person. It’s a phenomenon that I’ve also encountered among other journalists, soldiers, veterans, and witnesses of war violence. I once knew a man who saw something incredibly traumatic — an almost unthinkable atrocity — which his mind blocked out almost entirely. He watched a movie where nearly the same type of murder-spectacle played out and was horrified. He told me that after watching the film, he couldn’t believe someone would do such a thing — and yet, he had seen exactly that same horror show.

In recent months, my laptop has been filling up with a different type of snuff film. The footage is very similar to those Cameroonian clips: defenseless people being slaughtered as the murderers film. In these cases, however, the videos are shared not by some low-ranking murderer or accomplice-in-arms. The first of them was posted on social media by the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, President Donald Trump. Several later videos were posted online by self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. The most recent clips have been shared by a military command headed by a four-star Marine Corps general, Southern Command chief Gen. Francis L. Donovan.

Related

Top Pentagon Official Admits Boat Strike May Have Killed Victims of Human Trafficking

Under Operation Southern Spear, the U.S. military has conducted more than 60 attacks on so-called drug boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific Ocean, killing more than 200 civilians, since September 2025.

Experts in the laws of war, as well as members of Congress from both parties, say the strikes are illegal, extrajudicial killings. These summary executions are a deviation from the standard practice in the long-running U.S. war on drugs, in which law enforcement agencies generally detained suspected drug smugglers and brought them to trial. After each of these double or triple or mass murders, Trump, Hegseth, or SOUTHCOM have posted a video of those civilians being executed from above.

Snuff films have become a signature of the second Trump administration. Just eight days after Trump took office for a second time, Sebastian Gorka, the senior counterterrorism director on the National Security Council, said he presented Trump with a target in Somalia. “Kill him!’” Trump replied, and the man was slain in an airstrike. “He declassified the video because the president wanted to post it. So he posts the video of the hammers of hell being dropped on this ISIS leader,” Gorka recalled with a laugh. “President puts it on Truth Social. … He got 120 million likes in like 18 hours. And at the bottom of that post, he wrote, ‘We will find you and we will kill you.’ Which we have made into the motto of our directorate.”

This cavalier attitude toward turning murder into online content stands in stark contrast to past U.S. military responses to videos of killings released by foes. Twenty years ago, U.S. military officials condemned terrorist “snuff films” — snipers filming their kills — in Iraq. And when it came to a video of two dead American troops shared online, the U.S.-led Multinational Division Baghdad “condemn[ed] the release of the video in the strongest of terms.” The command added: “It demonstrates the barbaric and brutal nature of the terrorists and their complete disregard for human life.”

A decade later, as the Islamic State group released shocking execution videos, one of Hegseth’s predecessors — Chuck Hagel — expressed revulsion at the group’s spectacle of slaughter. “I think regardless of your background, your experience, just as a human being with having some sense of decency and respect for human life and other people, it makes you sick to your stomach,” he said of the group’s videos of the killing of defenseless civilians. “But it again reminds of the kind of brutality and the barbarism that is afoot in some of these areas of the world.”

But Gorka — back then the national security editor of Breitbart News — had a different takeaway. He also mentioned ISIS’s brutality but seemingly with more than a hint of admiration. “Every American, everybody who stands for the values of this republic needs to watch these videos because then you understand the nature of the threat of the brutality of the people we’re facing,” he said of ISIS’s snuff films in 2014. “It’s very, very slick. Think about one thing — just two weeks ago, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of al Qaeda, issued a 55-minute lecture in Arabic. … That’s not going to bring you recruits. That’s not going to further your cause as a jihadist. These people do instant little messages. They do these short videos. They have a very, very professional audio/visual social media crew.”

Related

Trump and Musk Delight in the Sounds of Human Suffering With Sick “ASMR” Immigrant Video

Whether or not Gorka has been the driving force behind the snuff film fixation, the Trump administration seems to be larded up with MAGA minions channeling their inner ISIS. When the Iran war began, military officials began spoon-feeding Trump so-called highlight reels of strikes on targets, according to reporting by NBC: “The daily montage typically runs for about two minutes, sometimes longer, the officials said. One described each daily video as a series of clips of ‘stuff blowing up.’”

The White House has then taken such footage and spliced in clips from action films, TV shows, and video games to create online content. In one, the White House combined clips from Nintendo’s Wii Sports with videos of attacks on Iran. Another — captioned “STRIKE” — featured a former professional bowler, anthropomorphic AI bowling pins labeled “Iranian regime officials,” a fake fighter jet, and real airstrike footage. Videos of airstrikes were also combined with short clips — “Gladiator,” “Braveheart,” “John Wick,” “Superman,” “Better Call Saul,” “Dragon Ball Z” — to create “JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY,” a video posted by the White House and eagerly shared online by top administration officials. It ends with a voiceover saying “flawless victory” — an audio clip from the video game “Mortal Kombat.”

“Hey White House, please remove the Tropic Thunder clip. We never gave you permission and have no interest in being a part of your propaganda machine. War is not a movie,” Ben Stiller, who directed and starred in the movie “Tropic Thunder,” featured in the aforementioned Justice video, wrote on social media. Three months later, the White House’s murderous mash-up remains on X.

The White House employs a media strategy that melds influence operations with influencer culture, muddying the news cycle, laundering lies, and countering critical coverage by flooding the zone with shoddy propaganda, TikTok-style memes, rancid AI slop, and music videos. “We’re here. We’re in your face. It’s irreverent. It’s unapologetic,” Kaelan Dorr, a deputy assistant to the president who runs the digital media team, told the Washington Post last year, after countering criticism of its brutal anti-immigrant policies with social media that turned federal viciousness into a joke. The Trump administration’s viral war porn provides another layer of calloused cruelty obscuring the human costs of America’s global killing spree.

In a 2002 New Yorker essay on images of the suffering wrought by war or torture, Susan Sontag reflected on photographs of Black victims of lynchings from the 1890s to the 1930s. “The lynching pictures tell us about human wickedness. About inhumanity. They force us to think about the extent of the evil unleashed specifically by racism. Intrinsic to the perpetration of this evil is the shamelessness of photographing it,” she wrote. “The pictures were taken as souvenirs and made, some of them, into postcards; more than a few show grinning spectators, good churchgoing citizens, as most of them had to be, posing for a camera with the backdrop of a naked, charred, mutilated body hanging from a tree.”

The Trump administration’s snuff films are no less dehumanizing or shameless — even if the victims are censored in the footage — and the cheering replies on social media celebrating the boat strikes and murder memes are the modern-day equivalent of those churchgoers’ grins. But unlike the singular images of horrific violence meted out on black victims across the U.S., we are — 100 years later — drowning in endless videos of boat strikes and drone attacks and impacting missiles and bombs dropped on apartment buildings. The voyeuristic nature of the content dehumanizes the victims and debases us all.

Related

Boat Strike Survivors Clung to Wreckage for Some 45 Minutes Before U.S. Military Killed Them

Trump, Hegseth, Gorka, and Donovan might be immune to any shame, regret, or guilt. Serial killers — people who murder a series of victims over a period of time — often lack empathy or remorse. But the entire kill chain involved in strikes and the propaganda apparatus that transforms footage of murders into social media content is filled with thousands of people — military personnel, members of the intelligence community, White House workers, and others — for whom these videos might not be so easy to dismiss and forget.

Most of the Trump administration’s boat strike footage plays like the movies of his childhood, flickering black-and-white footage, and the movies of his parents’ youth, silent films. You don’t hear the explosion of a missile’s impact or the cries of the wounded and dying. In that respect, it’s different than a homemade video of a young man having his arm hacked off with a machete. Those sounds, those cries got stuck in my head — more so than even the visual horror. The Americans who make the snuff films possible might be spared this. But in the end, that might actually be worse.

A veteran once told me of a murder he replayed again and again in his head for the rest of his life. Like the boat strike footage, he said there was no sound. That’s what he said was so terrifying. This veteran always saw the victim, mouth agape, screaming in agony. But he could never conjure a soundtrack. It was awful. Unnerving. Maddening. Agonizing. It caused his head to ache, his chest to tighten, and his guts to twist into knots. This horrific hush was deafening. He told me that, decades and decades later, it was — above all — this “silent scream” that tortured him.

The post The Trump Administration’s Shameless Snuff-Film Fixation appeared first on The Intercept.

La Tilde quietly began development early this year and appears to still be a work in progress, pitching itself as a modern media brand for Latin American audiences with articles published in both Spanish and English. Its name references the accent mark emphasizing vowels in Spanish; “news with an accent” is the site’s catchphrase.

“The tilde is not an ornament. It is a millennial arrow designed to provide direction, save space, and turn up the volume,” a narrator states in a promotional video for the site bearing telltale signs it was AI-generated, such as a newspaper whose sloppily rendered headline reads “SO THEE HOUTIERRER TO TO GHAHOBATEE,” followed by imagery of two medieval monks. “That is why we place the accent on what matters. From the regional pulse and your well-being, to the big ideas and the global context.”

So far, La Tilde’s coverage amounts to an unusual blend of personal finance tips (“Why instant payments matter so much for your business and your wallet”) and articles extolling the value of U.S. military operations in Latin America (“Operation Absolute Resolve: The mission that captured Nicolás Maduro and set a new standard for precision and coordination”).

Its article on the U.S. abduction of the Venezuelan president praises the mission in Trumpian prose, calling it “The Perfect Operation – Coordination, Timing and Precision at an Unprecedented Scale,” and “a military operation of coordination and accuracy never seen before.” Citing “information obtained exclusively by La Tilde,” it describes the operation’s tactical brilliance, flawless execution, and incredibly precise coordination of military assets in the air and on the ground.

If this reads like Pentagon a press release, that’s because it is. An explanation for its glowing coverage of the U.S. military can be found after clicking a small link tucked at the bottom of the site. “La Tilde is a product of an international media organization publicly funded from the budget of the United States Government,” its About page reads.

This easily missed disclosure language is identical to two other Pentagon-sponsored propaganda sites recently revealed by The Intercept.

Targeting audiences, foreign or domestic, with state-run information campaigns remains a politically sensitive topic, and a token disclosure that La Tilde is a U.S.-funded platform allows the American government to say it technically informed readers about the actual source of the information.

Related

These Middle Eastern News Sites Are Actually U.S. Government Propaganda Operations

According to a defense official familiar with U.S. information operations, La Tilde is operated as a military messaging platform for U.S. Special Operations Command South, or SOCSOUTH, which executes special forces missions throughout South and Central America as well as the Caribbean. When asked about SOCSOUTH’s role behind La Tilde, spokesperson Trevor Wild replied with the text of the site’s About page noting that it’s a government operation, but declined to comment further.

U.S. Southern Command, or SOUTHCOM, which is broadly responsible for coordinating military assets in the countries La Tilde targets, denied involvement. SOUTHCOM “does not fund, operate, or have any official association with La Tilde,” according to spokesperson Steven McLoud, who did not respond to further questions.

Unlike most news websites, La Tilde carries no bylines, masthead, or mention of actual staff of any kind. Although the site claims it employs “dozens of freelance reporters and content creators,” at least some of the site appears to have been generated by a large language model. Running articles through Pangram, an AI-text detection service, produced multiple hits for both English and Spanish writing either partially or entirely written by machines (though such tools are known to deliver false positives).

Emerson Brooking, a fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab and former Pentagon cyber-policy adviser, told The Intercept he was struck by site’s shoddiness, describing it as “AI all the way down.”

Despite the low quality of AI-generated articles, this approach could help the Pentagon spin up propaganda efforts faster than in the past. “If you can generate new content and even news fronts at the flip of a switch, your influence operations can shift target and focus much more quickly,” Brooking said. “That seems to be the thinking behind recent AI-powered Russian and Chinese networks, for instance.”

An analysis of subdomains hosted on LaTilde.co reveals the site plans to launch bespoke versions for readers in Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Panama, and Peru.

Some pro-U.S. content is clearly tailored to these national audiences. An article filed to the site’s “In Good Hands” section highlights the benefits of U.S.–Panamanian joint jungle warfare training exercises, regaling readers with how “temperatures and heart rates climb at the Cristóbal Colón Naval Air Base as Panamanian security forces push forward through the ‘Green Mile,’ the demanding final test of the Combined Jungle Operations Course.” Such joint initiatives are, according to La Tilde, a bulwark against China’s efforts to engage in similar joint exercises in Latin America. Rather than engage with “Beijing’s predatory practices,” the article suggests countries should follow Panama’s lead and “seek training opportunities closer to home or with longstanding partners such as the United States.”

Related

Pentagon Reveals Attacks in Latin America Are Just the Beginning

The article makes no mention of the controversy surrounding PANAMAX, a joint military exercise between SOUTHCOM and the Panamanian forces that has sparked increased protest on the grounds it violates national sovereignty. Permanent U.S. military installations in Panama were shuttered in 1999 as part of a 1977 treaty between the two countries; Panamanian opposition parties decried the reestablishment of an American military presence under the guise of joint exercises as a “camouflaged invasion.” Participants in the 2025 PANAMAX exercise La Tilde is pushing include the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, previously known as the School of the Americas, a Pentagon training institute whose graduates included thousands of Latin American death squad gunmen and dictator Manuel Noriega.

The importance of military and intelligence-sharing compacts with the U.S. is a recurring theme. “Far from weakening sovereignty, this kind of cooperation can strengthen it,” one article says.

Other stories from La Tilde argue the American side of Latin American controversies, similarly downplaying issues of national sovereignty. One piece describes how the U.S. abduction of Maduro “has reawakened a long-contained hope among millions of Venezuelans inside and outside the country.” Another alleges Ecuador is a nexus of the international cocaine trade, echoing claims the Trump administration has used to expand Operation Southern Spear, SOUTHCOM’s Caribbean airstrike campaign that has killed more than 200 civilians to date.

It’s unclear who exactly is operating the site on a day-to-day basis. A similar network of military propaganda pages, descendants of an Obama-era information warfare program called the Trans-Regional Web Initiative, appears to be administered by military contractor General Dynamics Information Technology. Renée DiResta, who co-authored a 2022 report on online propaganda efforts backed by U.S. Central Command, told The Intercept that the TRWI successor websites share a common Google Ads identifier code owned by General Dynamics, according to a recent comprehensive analysis of the network she conducted. La Tilde also runs a legal disclosure with identical language as those sites.

General Dynamics did not respond to multiple requests for comment about La Tilde.

Halcyon Group International, another information warfare contractor that operates Diálogo Américas, a similar pseudo-news site backed by the Pentagon, told The Intercept it was not involved with La Tilde.

Design of the La Tilde website was subcontracted to Antpack, a Colombian digital marketing firm. Multiple files hosted on the site created by the AI image-generation service Midjourney contain the word “Antpack” in their name. The Intercept signed up for a user account on La Tilde, part of planned functionality that will let readers comment and save articles for later. Once registered, The Intercept was able to view comments left on a non-public version of the site used by its developers, who posted under names corresponding to LinkedIn profiles of Antpack employees. Antpack did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Related

Pentagon Document: U.S. Wants to “Suppress Dissenting Arguments” Using AI Propaganda

U.S. Special Operations has a long record of leading the American internet propaganda efforts, ranging from high-tech efforts to less-sophisticated projects like phony online newsrooms. SOCOM has since 2018 operated the Joint Military Information Support Operations Web Operations Center, which coordinates information warfare and online psychological operations.

The Intercept reported in 2023 that SOCOM was working on acquiring state-of-the-art “deepfake” video fabrication technologies to “generate messages and influence operations via non-traditional channels,” according to procurement documents. La Tilde appears to be using low-effort AI tools rather than anything cutting-edge. Art accompanying its stories often includes portion of the prompt used to quickly generate the image in the file name, and shows mixed results, such as a rendering of the White House portico missing several of its columns or a diploma with garbled text. Photographs illustrating pro-SOUTHCOM messaging, however, are drawn from the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service, an official Pentagon media library.

“The intent is probably to fill these sites with generic material, build an audience base, and then slip in more pieces of explicit propaganda, like that rather fulsome recounting of the U.S. attack on Venezuela,” Brooking said. “This is how you build these sorts of networks. But the content is lazy, the AI is bad, and the required disclosures make the whole thing a farce.”

The post The Pentagon Is Running an AI Propaganda Mill Targeting Latin America appeared first on The Intercept.

In a letter sent to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Reps. Becca Balint, D-Vt., and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., questioned how the social media company approved an ad campaign from the Department of Homeland Security featuring the song “We’ll Have Our Home Again,” which is popular in neo-Nazi spaces. The lawmakers urged Meta to cease running the ad campaign on its social media platforms and asked whether the company would commit to ending its digital advertising partnership with DHS.

The Intercept was among the first to report ICE’s use of the song in a paid post recruiting for the agency, which published shortly after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis. In their letter, the members of Congress cite The Intercept’s reporting.

Related

DHS Used Neo-Nazi Anthem for Recruitment After Fatal Minneapolis ICE Shooting

The lawmakers also questioned imagery contained in the ads that extremism researchers said echoes far-right “reclamation” narratives long associated with racist violence and accelerationist ideology.

“Businesses are not on the sideline at this moment and it is important they also know how they are contributing to what is happening in Minnesota and across the country,” said Balint. “A lack of change is not neutrality but complicity.”

Meta did not respond to a request for comment. The Department of Homeland Security, which has not responded to the congressional letter, defended its recruitment messaging in a statement to The Intercept.

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin rejected comparisons between the ads and extremist propaganda, arguing that criticism of the campaign amounted to an attack on patriotic expression.

“By Reps. Becca Balint and Pramila Jayapal’s standards, every American who posts patriotic imagery on the Fourth of July should be cancelled and labeled a Nazi,” McLaughlin said. “Not everything you dislike is ‘Nazi propaganda.’ DHS will continue to use all tools to communicate with the American people and keep them informed on our historic effort to Make America Safe Again.”

McLaughlin also accused critics of “manufacturing outrage” and said the controversy had contributed to a rise in assaults against ICE personnel. “It’s because of garbage like this we’re seeing a 1,300% increase in assaults against our brave men and women of ICE,” she said.

Related

Judge Censored an ICE Agent’s Face Over “Threats.” His Info Was a Google Search Away.

McLaughlin did not provide evidence to support the claim. Similar assertions by the Trump administration about sharp increases in assaults against immigration agents are not reflected in publicly available data.

The most controversial ad in the campaign was a paid DHS recruitment post that published less than two days after the fatal shooting in Minneapolis. It paired immigration enforcement footage with the song “We’ll Have Our Home Again” by Pine Tree Riots. Popular in neo-Nazi online spaces, the song includes lyrics about reclaiming “our home” by “blood or sweat.” In the ad, it played as a cowboy rode a horse with a B-2 Spirit bomber flying overhead.

After publicly rebuking allegations that the song had neo-Nazi ties, DHS later removed the recruitment post from its official Instagram account, according to a review of the page and reporting by other outlets. The department did not announce the deletion or respond to questions about why it was taken down. DHS did not address the song’s documented circulation in white nationalist spaces or its appearance in the manifesto of a 2023 mass shooter.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch project has separately documented the song’s origins and circulation within organized white nationalist networks. The song was written and performed by Pine Tree Riots, a group affiliated with the Männerbund, which the SPLC has previously identified as a white nationalist organization. Hatewatch also found that the song has circulated widely in extremist online spaces and appeared in recruitment efforts by far-right groups.

Balint and Jayapal framed the controversy as bigger than a single post. They accuse Meta of profiting from a large-scale digital recruitment campaign relying on themes that would stand out to white nationalists. They questioned what safeguards existed to prevent extremist-linked content from appearing in government advertising, and whether recent changes to Meta’s hate-speech policies allowed the company to run the ads.

The letter details the scale of the recruitment push. According to the lawmakers, DHS spent more than $2.8 million on recruitment ads across Facebook and Instagram between March and December of last year, and paid Meta an additional $500,000 beginning in August. During the first three weeks of last fall’s government shutdown, ICE spent $4.5 million on paid media campaigns, the lawmakers write. The letter also cites reporting showing DHS spent more than $1 million over a 90-day period on “self-deportation” ads targeted at users interested in Latin music, Spanish as a second language, and Mexican cuisine.

Balint and Jayapal argue that such spending has been made possible by an influx of funding for ICE. A decade ago, ICE’s annual budget totaled less than $6 billion. Under new federal appropriations enacted last year, the agency has roughly $85 billion at its disposal, making it the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the United States. According to analysts cited by lawmakers, its budget is bigger than all other federal law enforcement agencies combined.

The lawmakers pointed to what they described as a deterioration in internal oversight and hiring standards, including waived age limits, large signing bonuses, and reports of recruits being rushed into the field without adequate training. They argued that the combination of rapid expansion, aggressive recruitment, and weak platform safeguards poses risks to public safety.

“It is important that we scrutinize how that funding is being used, particularly if it is being used to attract certain demographics for hiring while pushing others to the periphery, or out of our society,” Balint said.

The letter asks Meta to disclose the scope and duration of its advertising agreement with DHS, provide any communications related to the recruitment ads, and explain what restrictions apply to paid government content under its policies.

Meta’s Community Standards prohibit content that promotes dehumanizing speech, harmful stereotypes, or calls for exclusion or segregation targeting people based on protected characteristics, including race, ethnicity, national origin, and immigration status.

The policies also state that Meta removes content historically linked to intimidation or offline violence and applies heightened scrutiny during periods of increased tension or recent violence involving targeted groups. The members of Congress questioned whether those standards were enforced consistently for paid government advertising tied to DHS recruitment.

“There are a whole host of safeguards that should be considered,” Balint said. “But at a minimum, they need to abide by their own community guidelines.”

Related

Deportation, Inc.

Balint said the inquiry is ongoing and could expand beyond the recruitment campaign itself. “I am certainly going to continue looking into how private groups are profiting off of or contributing to the untenable dynamic with ICE that is putting our communities at risk,” she said.

Since the recruitment campaign became the subject of public scrutiny, DHS and ICE have not made additional posts using the same song, imagery, or music across their official social media accounts.

The post Lawmakers Call on Meta to Stop Running ICE Ad Featuring Neo-Nazi Anthem appeared first on The Intercept.

Posts marking Passover, Good Friday, and Easter in 2026 included explicitly religious messaging, including imagery of Christian crosses and references to “Christ’s sacrifice” and the Resurrection. The Intercept’s analysis, which catalogued of the department’s Instagram posts from 2020 through early 2026, found these posts show a clear change in messaging not only from the Biden years, but also from President Donald Trump’s first term.

“From a digital diplomacy point of view, this looks like more than a change in images. It suggests a shift in how the U.S. government is presenting itself online,” said Corneliu Bjola, a professor of digital diplomacy at the University of Oxford. “In earlier years, posts projected a broad and inclusive image — what you might call ‘the shiny city on the hill.’ The 2026 pattern points to a narrower and more controlled message about strength and authority — ‘fortress America.’”

Long considered the government’s primary diplomatic arm, the State Department historically used its account to highlight a wide range of international, cultural, and religious observances. In 2020, under the leadership of former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the State Department used its account to mark holidays and observances including Juneteenth, Chinese New Year, Ramadan, Eid al-Fitr, Eid al-Adha, Yom Kippur, and Kwanzaa.

Since Secretary of State Marco Rubio assumed his role, observance-related posts have been limited to Christian and Jewish holidays, including one that featured an impassioned speech by Rubio describing the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The account has not marked major Islamic holidays or other widely observed cultural events that it routinely highlighted in prior years.

Federal agencies have already faced scrutiny over controversial social media posts. The Department of Homeland Security has recently drawn scrutiny for using a neo-Nazi-linked song in a recruiting post, and the Department of Labor has faced criticism for social media imagery depicting an all-white, all-male workforce in a 1950s-style campaign, including a post that read, “One Homeland. One People. One Heritage. Remember who you are, American.”

Meanwhile, the State Department has moved away from posts highlighting multiculturalism in the United States and abroad.

Under Pompeo, the State Department made posts highlighting initiatives such as the International Religious Freedom Alliance and women’s empowerment efforts. The account also recognized events such as World Press Freedom Day, World Refugee Day, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, and the International Day of Reflection on the Rwanda Genocide, among others.

The range narrows significantly under Rubio. Posts during this period place greater emphasis on borders, sovereignty, and enforcement, alongside a more limited set of cultural and religious observances. In September 2025, the account featured a video of Rubio meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel as the country continued its assault on Gaza in what human rights groups and some international observers have described as a genocide.

Related

Trump’s Orwellian Board of Peace Consists Entirely of Human Rights Abusers

In 2025, posts marking observances were limited to a small set of holidays and commemorations, including International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Yom HaShoah, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Christmas, and D-Day. Several posts emphasized religious or national themes, including a Columbus Day post that referenced “glory to God and country.”

The posts have also shifted to heavily feature the likeness of President Donald Trump. In early 2026, roughly 40 percent of posts included Trump’s image, a higher share than during either the Biden administration or Trump’s first term. On Tuesday, The Bulwark reported that the State Department is finalizing plans to include President Donald Trump’s image in a redesigned U.S. passport.

Asked why the account no longer marks a broader range of international and religious observances, including major Islamic holidays that had been featured in prior years, a State Department spokesperson said the content reflects the priorities of the current administration.

“Obviously, the president is featured prominently in our posts. He sets U.S. foreign policy, and the State Department’s role is to execute and communicate that agenda,” the spokesperson said. “Our content reflects the priorities of the current administration, including a renewed focus on seriousness and diplomacy. Decisions about what to highlight, including observances, are made by communications professionals.”

Related

He Tweeted Charlie Kirk “Won’t Be Remembered as a Hero.” The State Dept. Revoked His Visa.

Rather than highlighting diplomatic events or cultural observances, the account frequently features stylized graphics of Trump and administration officials alongside slogans emphasizing immigration enforcement, national sovereignty and security. Some posts resemble campaign messaging, including phrases such as “Send Them Back” and “This Is Our Hemisphere,” as well as graphics touting policy outcomes like visa revocations.

Former U.S. diplomats and public diplomacy officials told The Intercept the shift marks a break from long-standing norms that have historically emphasized nonpartisan messaging and broad cultural representation in official government communications.

Daniel Kreiss, a political communication scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the shift reflects a broader pattern across government agencies.

“The cultural and religious diversity that represents all of America — and frankly, for the State Department, the world — is no longer being represented, based on your data, in favor of overrepresenting what the administration cares about,” Kreiss said. “It’s sending a key public signal that these agencies are operating faithfully to the president and his coalition.”

The shift, experts say, is not just about what the United States chooses to show the world, but also what it no longer does. In digital diplomacy, what is omitted can be as consequential as what is shown.

The post Marco Rubio Is Rebranding the State Department as Explicitly Christian appeared first on The Intercept.

A stream key is like an account password for livestreaming content on social media. Before a stream goes live on a user’s social media account, they must input a stream key into their broadcast software of choice.

Google, which owns YouTube, describes stream keys as being akin to “your YouTube stream’s password and address.” Facebook tells streamers “Don’t share your stream key. Anyone who has access to it can stream video from your page.”

The Department of War, however, routinely posts stream keys on its Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) website, a portal hosting military videos and photos for media usage. The website is open to the public and doesn’t require an account to browse – or to come across stream keys.

An Intercept analysis found that the Department of War has publicly posted stream keys on this service for years. The stream keys are typically posted prior to upcoming scheduled streams. For example, Twitter stream keys were posted for the U.S. Cyber Command change of command ceremony live stream in 2018. X and YouTube keys were also posted for last year’s West Point commencement ceremony. More recently, the stream keys for the department’s X, YouTube, and Facebook accounts were posted in the hours leading up to a livestream of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth giving burgers to the the National Guard in Washington, D.C. in August.  

They aren’t hard to find. The stream key posted on the DVIDS site can be seen by browsing the portal’s sequentially-numbered webcast URLs, or querying search engines for terms such as “stream key” and “DVIDS.” At times the Department of War uses stream keys that expire after each stream, allowing the takeover of one specific upcoming event but preventing persistent unauthorized access. Sometimes, however, the Department of War leaves stream keys unchanged for years, allowing for the takeover of upcoming streams on various social media platforms even if the stream keys for a specific event aren’t posted for that event.

This vulnerability wouldn’t allow attackers to take over social media feeds at any time. A hacker would need to wait for an upcoming Department of War webcast and then use the keys to start broadcasting their own content. The Pentagon maintains a public schedule of upcoming webcasts on their DVIDS site.

Stream keys are not made public for all Department of War streams. For instance, the keys were not publicly disclosed on September 5 for the livestream of President Trump signing an executive order rebranding the Department of Defense as the Department of War.

The Department of War did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The Intercept has found no evidence that stream keys have been exploited to take over a Department of War stream. But past security incidents show the danger of such vulnerabilities. Imposters, for instance, have used artificial intelligence tools to impersonate politicians, including mimicking Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s voice to contact various U.S. politicians and foreign ministers. If this kind of deceptive content appeared on official government channels, even briefly, the consequences could be significant, warned security technologist Bruce Schneier. “You can imagine this being used for some kind of confusion event,” he cautioned.

AI-based hoaxes can have wide-ranging implications. In 2023, for example, a fake image of smoke coming from a building near the Pentagon caused a dip in the stock market. The Department of War is no stranger to security lapses, including discussing a bombing campaign in Yemen on Signal with journalists earlier this year.

Exposing stream keys “doesn’t rise to the level of putting strangers on your Signal chat,” Schneier said, but he considers it a sloppy practice that should be fixed immediately.

Cooper Quintin, Senior Staff Technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that the “concern here is less that an adversary would spread disinformation — our own federal government is doing plenty of that already.”

The bigger risk, Quintin said, is that the vulnerability could be used to discredit real footage. “This could be used to lend plausible deniability to any legitimate videos that got posted to that account.”

In other words, the government could use this as justification to erase any official stream – say an embarrassing press conference or a hot mic moment – by claiming it was manipulated content posted by a hacker, not a video posted by the Department of War itself.

The post Department of War Doesn’t Defend its Web Streams From Hackers appeared first on The Intercept.

Every time you turn around recently, it feels like there’s new reporting about insiders cashing in on prediction markets. On Thursday, a U.S. Army Special Forces soldier who was involved in the raid to capture Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela was arrested on charges that he used classified information to make more than $400,000 by betting on the operation before it happened. In the hours before the U.S. attacked Iran, hundreds of anonymous bets over $1,000 were placed on the U.S. striking Iran by the next day, which the New York Times said suggested that some users might’ve “seen the strike coming.”

Prediction markets, such as industry leaders Polymarket and Kalshi, have exploded in popularity. They create or exacerbate an array of problems, but at the Media and Democracy Project, or MAD, we believe they have the potential to severely harm the way news is reported, perceived, and engaged with — threats that deserve far more attention from the public.

Related

These Apps Let You Bet on Deportations and Famine. Mainstream Media Is Eating It Up.

MAD calls the use of prediction markets in news stories “casino journalism.” There is too much already, and it is likely to get much worse if not nipped in the bud. But we are optimistic it can be stopped if news organizations recognize the threat and respond.

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal’s publisher, Dow Jones, announced a partnership with Polymarket. The Associated Press, CNN, Substack, and CNBC have all made similar deals, the terms of which have not been disclosed. So it was extremely troubling to see the Wall Street Journal report that “Polymarket Bets See Over 70% Chance of U.S. Forces Entering Iran in Next Month” on March 30, and not just because of the fear of a broader war. This so-called news story provided none of the journalistic insight that was touted when the partnership was announced — just the betting odds. It looks more like an advertisement for their new partner than real journalism and, while the betting market was active, had a link to Polymarket.

Do news organizations and journalists really want to gamify the news? What are the long-term impacts on a paper if they make a practice of such reporting? Should news outlets see the betting markets as partners? News organizations, the practice of journalism, and the public are all much better served if the media outlets instead set policies constraining the use of these markets in their reporting and altogether forbidding financial deals where the outlet profits from the success of the prediction markets.

MAD has long called for less horse-race journalism and more substantive reporting. Many others have done so for even longer, including New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen, who has pushed for a focus on “not the odds, but the stakes.” But prediction markets are horse-race journalism taken to its most cynical end point, one that will only serve to supercharge reporting on who’s up and who’s down at any given moment, particularly because these markets are open 24/7.

There are many ways prediction markets can be manipulated or misbehave in other ways, but let’s consider their stated best-case use. Suppose that prediction markets achieve their claims of providing better forecasts than other methods. Even if that were true, casino journalism is bad for journalism and the public. Predictions crowd out coverage of substance. In politics, this means less information to help voters evaluate candidates. Focusing on the odds gives the impression that the horse race is more important than the issues. Prediction markets turn events that have an impact on people’s lives — and carry a real human cost — into pure entertainment.

Tarek Mansour, the CEO of Kalshi, has said it does a “very, very good job at distilling information and surfacing truth to people,” even as it seeks to “financialize everything.” He presents it as providing a new, better source of information and as changing the way their readers digest the news. In an interview with the Financial Times in February, he said, “Prediction markets don’t make money off somebody’s losses, they make money off somebody’s engagement.” But the type of engagement matters a great deal. Increasing the nicotine content of cigarettes increases smokers’ “engagement” with the tobacco industry. Gambling is also addictive; as sports betting has become commonplace, participants have found that, over time, they mostly lose. Promoting these markets as part of the news is likely to damage readers’ trust and can also harm their overall well-being.

Related

Amy Goodman on the Media’s “Access of Evil”

Quite apart from the questionable news content of prediction market bets, the news industry needs to recognize how implicated it is in shaping how these markets function. Most of the “propositions” offered on these markets are based on news reports; reporters provide the raw material on which these bets are made. In effect, traders on prediction markets are betting on the content of news stories. 

This has tremendous potential to be a corrupting influence on journalists. An Israeli journalist recently received death threats over his refusal to rewrite his report on an Iranian missile strike, on which $23 million of prediction market “investments” were riding. As the markets become larger, and their use in news increases, the incentive for market manipulation will also grow. There could be intense temptation for insider trading of all kinds that would destroy the credibility and integrity of these markets, bringing the news business down with it. There are already many worrisome incidents related to these markets, such as the soldier who enriched himself based on classified info. Centering prediction markets will create a substantial risk of scandals that will implicate and embarrass news organizations.

MAD is heartened that most news outlets have not engaged in deals or embedded prediction market prices as news. The New York Times’ Guidelines on Integrity begin with the statement, “Our greatest strength is the authority and reputation of The Times. We must do nothing that would undermine or dilute it and everything possible to enhance it.” So we are hopeful that the Times and other responsible news outlets will defend their reputations by setting clear public policies limiting how prediction markets may be used and what kinds of business relationships they will engage in.

Related

Why the Media Won’t Report the Truth About Trump

Any news organizations that have already signed on with Kalshi or Polymarket should publicly disclose the terms of these relationships. Reporters should be forbidden from citing the markets as valid forecasts and should be barred from using the platforms themselves. We encourage more reporting on substantive impacts of governmental actions and less speculation on the prospects that the policies will be implemented.

Horse-race journalism was already a detriment to nurturing an informed citizenry. But casino journalism has no place at all in any functioning democracy.

The post We Need to Kick Prediction Market Betting Out of Journalism While We Still Can appeared first on The Intercept.

In August 2024, the Biden administration hosted hundreds of influencers at the White House for the first-ever Creator Economy Conference. Neera Tanden, a senior Biden adviser, took to the stage and bemoaned anonymity online. The influencers alongside her agreed, pushing the idea that anonymous speech on the internet is harmful, and regulation is needed to force the use of real names on social media. The audience whispered excitedly as those on stage spoke about how proposed laws like the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, could unmask every troll. 

This narrative of online safety, particularly in relation to children, has become central to the bipartisan effort to censor and deanonymize the internet for everyone. Today, a package of a dozen “child online safety” bills is moving forward in the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. The laws, framed as a way to crack down on harmful content and make the internet safer, would force social media companies to enact invasive identity verification measures in order to keep children from accessing online spaces.

The problem is that there’s no way to reliably verify someone’s age without verifying who they are. A platform cannot magically discern that a user is 16 without collecting identifying information, whether through government documents such as a passport, payment information like a credit card, or other identity-disclosing data. Whether that data is stored by the platform itself or outsourced to a vendor, the result is always the same: A user’s offline identity is forever linked with their online behavior.

Stripping anonymity from the internet would constitute one of the most sweeping rollbacks of civil rights in recent history. It would allow for unprecedented levels of mass surveillance and censorship, endangering the most marginalized members of society. Whistleblowers exposing corporate wrongdoing could be tracked and fired, government employees speaking out about illegal behavior or bad policies could face prosecution, and activists organizing protests could be identified and surveilled before ever setting foot on the street.

Related

Google Fulfilled ICE Subpoena Demanding Student Journalist’s Bank and Credit Card Numbers

Already, the U.S. government is flooding social media platforms with subpoenas seeking to unmask hundreds of anonymously run anti-ICE social media accounts. These laws would make it all the more easier for the government to target and prosecute those who dissent. 

Vulnerable members of society will suffer most. Trans people under attack from the government could be identified and outed without their consent. Undocumented immigrants could be cut off from the ability to communicate and connect with advocates. Young people seeking abortions in states with restrictive laws might no longer have the ability to access information safely and anonymously.

Not only will a de-anonymized internet be valuable to the government as it seeks to tighten control, it will also make it easier for any corporation or bad actor to intimidate, blackmail, or exploit people by leveraging their own data against them.

The quest to remove anonymous speech from the web is not new. Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, formerly known as Morality in Media, have long pursued these laws, arguing that online anonymity fuels pornography, exploitation, and general moral decay. In recent years, Democrats have become integral to advancing these proposals, falsely claiming that surveillance laws will crack down on Big Tech or curb social media addiction.

None of these surveillance laws do any of that. In fact, the laws will lead to more data being collected on kids, which predatory companies can then use to target them in more invasive ways. Already, these bills are standing in the way of protecting kids online: Last week, the FTC said it would decline to enforce COPPA, a landmark law that mandates the protection of children’s data, in order to incentivize ID verification.

The laws would create a massive new market for third-party identification vendors, many funded by the same tech investors who backed social media giants, such as Peter Thiel, who funded ID verification platform Persona via his investment group Founders Fund. Smaller apps will be forced to shoulder the enormous cost of enacting identity verification measures, hindering their ability to operate, and making it harder to compete with Big Tech companies that are leveraging these laws to consolidate power.

It’s no surprise then that Big Tech companies are also heavily involved in lobbying for various versions of these laws. Elon Musk has endorsed KOSA. The Digital Childhood Alliance, a group that frequently posts about the dangers of “Big Tech,” is secretly funded by Meta, and has played a role in pushing the App Store Accountability Act. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently told a court that Apple and Google should verify the identity of every smartphone user at the operating system level, which would permanently end anonymous internet access for everyone.

This exact invasive scheme is being boosted by Democratic lawmakers like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who recently signed an ID verification law for all operating systems, including Linux, and has mused about banning all social media for users under the age of 16.

These efforts have “been brewing for or for a few years now, but just in the last few months, we’ve seen a lot of momentum,” said David Greene, senior counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. While it’s tempting to take a paternalistic attitude toward young people, Greene said that it’s crucial to recognize young people have rights too, and often use the internet when taking part in social justice movements.

“Young people still have human rights,” he said, “and that includes the right to access information and to associate with other people and to speak to the world. These laws are designed to diminish those rights.”

Related

How Student Protesters and Immigrants Became Targets of Trump’s Surveillance Tech

Young people have led campuswide protests against the genocide in Gaza and against ICE across the country. Laws that restrict and surveil online access would severely limit their speech and ability to organize. And as the U.S. escalates attacks in the Middle East and immigration agents exert more power at home, activists are becoming concerned by the assault on anonymous speech.

“Whenever imperialist governments go to war, they become more authoritarian at home,” Evan Greer, director of digital rights group Fight for the Future, posted to Bluesky.

The Kids Online Safety Act, co-sponsored by members of both parties, is one of the most dangerous proposals currently making its way through Congress. The law would empower state attorneys general to mass censor any content online deemed “harmful to minors.” The Heritage Foundation has already come out publicly and said it plans to leverage KOSA and similar “online safety” laws to remove LGBTQ+ content and abortion content from the internet. 

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., the lead co-sponsor of KOSA, said that it was essential to pass the law to protect “minor children from the transgender [sic] in this culture.” Jonathan Haidt, the author of the bestselling book “The Anxious Generation,” who has played a major role in rallying political and public support for these laws globally, has promoted the fringe theory that some young people become trans because of the social media they consume.

As KOSA has encountered growing backlash, more lawmakers have started pushing proposed ID verification at the operating system or app store level. On Wednesday, the X account for the House Energy and Commerce Committee boosted a dubious poll from far right think tank the American Principles Project, a group that has opposed abortion and same-sex marriage, declaring, “The OVERWHELMING majority of voters agree—app stores should have to verify users’ age to prevent minors from downloading apps without parental consent.” 

But enacting identity verification at the app store level does nothing to address the privacy issues at play. Privacy activists and those fighting the law have sounded the alarm about how the App Store Accountability Act creates a sprawling, insecure data-sharing pipeline that mandates divulging highly sensitive user age data with millions of general-audience apps. This is why users in some states are being forced to provide their government IDs to download things like a weather app or calculator app. The way the law equates the entire internet and treats every app in the app store as inherently pornographic will also inevitably chill speech.

Rising reactionary sentiment and right-wing extremism under Trump has accelerated the push for online age verification, Greer said. “Online protest, documenting war crimes, even news articles could be suppressed [if these laws pass].” Already, similar versions of these laws are playing out abroad. Soon after the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act took effect last summer, the law was used to restrict content, including videos documenting police violence, posts challenging the government’s narratives on Palestine, and a subreddit dedicated to documenting Israel’s war crimes.

China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia have used their vast online surveillance systems to crack down on speech challenging the government, imprisoning activists who leverage social media to challenge power. Dozens more countries are seeking to replicate authoritarian-style internet surveillance within their own borders. Indonesia, Malaysia, France, and Australia are among those that have embraced identity verification systems that would eliminate anonymous speech online under the guise of protecting children. 

Related

He Tweeted Charlie Kirk “Won’t Be Remembered as a Hero.” The State Dept. Revoked His Visa.

“The through-line couldn’t be clearer: destroying online anonymity is a way for government to be able to identify ­— and ultimately punish — dissenters,” said Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a civil liberties group. “In the United States, the federal government’s recent demands that online services identify critics of DHS and ICE serves as a chilling example of the types of attacks on lawful speech that such laws will only enable further.” 

The harms of widespread government censorship, he said, are only compounded by the “massive privacy and security threats posed by collecting personally identifiable information en masse.” Systems built to remove anonymity in the name of “child safety” will be used to identify whistleblowers, protest organizers, and critics of federal agencies, Cohn said. “At this point, not seeing the planet-sized red flags is more a result of willful blindness than anything else,” he said. 

For journalists, dissidents, and vulnerable communities, the ability to gather and share information anonymously online is critical. Just this week, The Atlantic reported that the Pentagon is seeking to use powerful AI models from companies like Anthropic and OpenAI to mass surveil U.S. citizens by harvesting broad swaths of commercially available data. Age verification laws would dramatically expand the collection of identity-linked browsing and speech data, endangering users and creating new troves of data for commercial and government exploitation.

LGBTQ+ youth frequently rely on anonymous online spaces to explore identity and seek support, particularly in hostile states. Kansas recently invalidated hundreds of trans residents’ driver’s licenses. As harmful laws that target LGBTQ+ people spread, openly identifying as LGBTQ+ online could put people in danger. Tying online access to government-issued IDs will also deter vulnerable young people from seeking help or gaining information about crucial topics like abuse or sexual health. Reproductive justice activists have been sounding the alarm about state efforts to de-anonymize organizations providing abortion and reproductive health information online.

Whistleblowers especially rely on anonymous accounts to call out corporate or government wrongdoing. During Trump’s first administration, dozens of employees and scientists within the government set up “rogue” Twitter accounts, revealing firsthand information about the administration’s efforts to gut federal agencies and censor scientific information. The “rebel” accounts mirroring those of NASA, the U.S. National Park Service, and other agencies revealed crucial research on topics like climate change to the public. 

The push to eliminate online anonymity is ultimately a fight over whether the internet remains a space for dissent and free expression or further becomes a dystopian digital panopticon that operates as an arm of the surveillance state. A free society depends on the right to publish and consume information anonymously and to organize and speak privately. Age verification policies only bolster the power of Big Tech and give the government complete authority to surveil and censor online speech.

The post Congress Is Considering Abolishing Your Right to Be Anonymous Online appeared first on The Intercept.

The TikTok deal announced on Thursday poses a fundamental threat to free and honest discourse about Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Under the reported deal, the Chinese company that owns the short-video social media app, ByteDance, will transfer control of TikTok’s algorithm and other U.S. operations to a new consortium of investors led by the U.S. technology company Oracle. The long-gestating deal will give Oracle’s billionaire pro-Trump board members Larry Ellison and Safra Catz the power to impose their anti-Palestinian agenda over the content that TikTok users see.

Most mainstream U.S. media coverage of the TikTok deal has completely ignored the explicitly anti-Palestinian agenda of its biggest Western investors. TikTok has played a critical role in helping hundreds of millions of users see the ugly reality of Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza. But the Trump-favored billionaires who will take over TikTok’s U.S. operations have a documented agenda of both suppressing voices critical of Israel and supporting the very Israeli military that has killed so many Palestinian civilians. Without safeguards in place, TikTok’s U.S. operations could soon become an exercise in blocking users from seeing and reacting to the crimes against humanity perpetrated by a major U.S. ally.

Related

Poised to Take Over TikTok, Oracle Is Accused of Clamping Down on Pro-Palestine Dissent

Ellison and Catz have a documented record of supporting Israel and its military. Ellison is a major donor to the Israeli military — in 2017, he donated $16.6 million to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, what was at the time the nonprofit’s largest single donation ever — as well as a close confidant of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Catz, who stepped down as Oracle’s CEO in September, has also been quite blunt about the company’s ideological agenda. The Israeli American billionaire said while unveiling a new Oracle data center in Jerusalem in 2021, “I love my employees, and if they don’t agree with our mission to support the State of Israel then maybe we aren’t the right company for them. Larry and I are publicly committed to Israel and devote personal time to the country, and no one should be surprised by that.” The Ellison family has also brought his pro-Israel agenda to CBS News, where Larry’s son, David Ellison, recently installed anti-Palestinian ideologue Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief.

TikTok played an important role in the sea change of U.S. opinion about Israel, particularly among young people. It’s why the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, the organization I work for, condemned the sale as a “desperate” attempt to silence young Americans.

What’s at stake is no less than whether or not U.S. voters will continue to be able to see what Israel’s military is doing to Palestinians. While many mainstream media outlets pushed coverage of Israel’s war in Gaza that was deferential to Israeli government talking points, TikTok users watched unfiltered videos of Israel’s horrific attacks on Palestinian civilians.

The effects are undeniable: A March Pew Research poll found Israel’s unfavorable rating among Republicans aged 18 to 49 had risen from 35 to 50 percent (among the same age group of Democrats, the country’s unfavorability also climbed almost 10 percentage points to 71 percent). A September New York Times/Siena University survey found 54 percent of Democrats said they sympathized more with the Palestinians, while only 13 percent expressed greater empathy for Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear that he understands the consequences of access to unfiltered social media. He recently described the sale of TikTok as “the most important purchase happening. … I hope it goes through because it can be consequential.” Netanyahu, who faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity in Gaza, sees control of TikTok as a part of Israel’s military strategy. “You have to fight with the weapons that apply to the battlefield, and one of the most important ones is social media,” he continued.

President Joe Biden signed legislation in 2024 mandating that ByteDance sell its U.S. operations. That law forced the sale of TikTok under threat of an outright ban, which briefly took effect in January 2025. The new “agreement,” which is reportedly set to close on January 22, will establish a new and separate TikTok joint venture that will control U.S. operations, U.S. user data, and the TikTok algorithm. Just over 80 percent of the new company, dubbed “TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC,” will reportedly be owned by investors that include Oracle, private equity group Silver Lake, and Abu Dhabi-based MGX. ByteDance will retain a 19.9 percent share.

Related

The TikTok Ban Is Also About Hiding Pro-Palestinian Content. Republicans Said So Themselves.

The official arguments for forcing the sale focused on preventing Chinese government surveillance of TikTok users, but some elected U.S. officials were more honest. At a McCain Institute forum in May 2024, then-Sen. Mitt Romney said, “Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relative to other social media sites — it’s overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts.”

That’s why advocates for human rights and a free press must work to challenge and reverse this government-sanctioned censorship effort. That means calling on both current and future members of Congress, as well as future White House administrations, to undo this dangerous media consolidation. The Ellison family’s control of TikTok, Paramount, and potentially other massive media properties in the future is a threat to free and open public discourse about U.S. foreign policy, particularly U.S. military support for Israel.

The work of chilling dissent has already been underway. Even before the 2024 law was passed, TikTok had begun taking steps to silence users who have criticized Israel. In July 2025, TikTok hired Erica Mindel, a former Israeli soldier with a documented record of anti-Palestinian politics, to police user speech on the platform. Given the Israeli military’s long record of propaganda, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, especially toward Palestinians, no former Israeli soldier should have been given the power to police TikTok users’ speech.

Even so, savvy social media users have long demonstrated an ability to organize and evade social media censorship, jumping from platform to platform regardless of what Western billionaires like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have tried to do. These challenges will continue in new forms, as demonstrated by the recently launched #TakeBackTikTok campaign. The campaign is pushing for a “user rebellion” in which American TikTok users challenge the Oracle takeover by flooding the platform with content in support of Palestinian liberation. Organizers began making their case last weekend with a massive projection onto Oracle’s U.K. offices.

This is a critical moment. The transfer of TikTok’s algorithm from ByteDance to Oracle would mean that TikTok’s content would move from being controlled by a company under the influence of a Chinese government committing genocide against Uyghurs to being controlled by U.S. investors who want to silence TikTok users’ opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Once billionaire anti-Palestinian investors and ideologues take control, TikTok users who are critical of Israel will need to fight even harder and more creatively to evade the suppression of free speech. Millions of U.S. citizens now support an end to unquestioned diplomatic and military support for Israel. Anti-Palestinian billionaires like Ellison and Catz know this full well, and it’s up to us to stand in the way of their efforts to subvert the will of the many.

Correction: December 21, 2025, 6:10 p.m. ET
This story previously stated that, under the deal, Oracle could now moderate the content that 2 billion users see, which is the number of TikTok users globally, rather than in the U.S. As the deal is not yet final, it remains to be seen how many users could be affected.

The post Anti-Palestinian Billionaires Can Now Control What TikTok Users See appeared first on The Intercept.

When Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr talks about broadcast licensees serving the “public interest,” he loves to emphasize “localism.” 

Localism is the idea that powerful entities (in this case, broadcasters) should serve the needs and interests of the communities they service. In the abstract, it’s hard to argue with, especially at a time when news deserts are spreading, small-town outlets are folding, and, thanks to the administration in which Carr serves, local public radio stations are reeling.

When you look at the fights Carr actually picks with broadcasters over the “public interest” requirement, however, a curious pattern emerges. They aren’t local stories at all, unless you consider Tehran and San Salvador local. They’re national and global stories that upset not residents of underserved heartland communities, but President Donald Trump, the man whose gilded face Carr wears as a lapel pin. 

Sure, when he’s playing for the home crowd, Carr will openly admit, and even brag about, helping Trump reshape the national media to his liking. That’s what he did at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, bragging about such “wins” as the Paramount–Skydance merger in Trump’s ongoing feud against media adversaries. Carr’s FCC approved that deal only after unconstitutionally extracting editorial concessions from CBS News and helping Trump launder a multimillion-dollar alleged bribe though the courts.

But in less partisan settings, from congressional testimony to mainstream media interviews, localism has become Carr’s go-to talking point whenever he’s pressed on his unconstitutional efforts to police news content or confronted with his past statements railing against the partisan suppression of news. He’s not censoring the airwaves, he claims; he’s just sticking up for the little guy. 

Yet Carr has never threatened a broadcast license because a newsroom ignored city council meetings or local crime, or offered a biased take on a school board’s budget decisions. It would, of course, violate the First Amendment for him to do that too — the FCC, as Carr once said, “does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the ‘public interest.’” But at least it would be consistent with his populist gimmick.

Related

The Latest FCC Censorship Push No One Is Talking About Targets Incarcerated People

In fact, his threats arise from coverage on national news networks, not their local affiliates, which actually hold the broadcast licenses he’s threatening to revoke. In other words, he’s threatening to punish local news stations for national content they don’t produce, and sometimes don’t even air, that angers Trump.

Let’s play back some of Carr’s greatest hits; see if you can spot the localism. 

• When Trump complained that news outlets were running “fake news” about Iranian missile strikes, Carr warned that broadcasters running “hoaxes and news distortions” would lose their licenses if they didn’t correct course.
• After MSNBC declined to carry a White House briefing on the deportation of Kilmar Ábrego Garcia, Carr accused Comcast of ignoring “obvious facts of public interest” and warned “news distortion doesn’t cut it.” MSNBC (now MSNOW) is not a local outlet — it’s a cable station that the FCC doesn’t even regulate. 
• Carr investigated KCBS, a San Francisco radio station, leading to rampant self-censorship in fear of retaliation. That might sound local, but the story that drew his ire was about a federal immigration enforcement operation. He didn’t care if the locals in the Bay Area wanted to know what immigration officers were up to — only that his boss does not want them to know. 
• Carr investigated CBS over the same interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris that Trump sued over, despite experts’ virtually unanimous agreement that the claims were frivolous. Then he helped Trump shake down Paramount for the aforementioned palm-grease by waiting until two days after Trump’s settlement check arrived to approve CBS parent Paramount’s merger with David Ellison’s Skydance. He touted that merger as proof of Trump “winning” his war on the media at CPAC. 
• When Trump sued the BBC over a documentary about January 6, Carr wrote to the heads of PBS and NPR demanding transcripts and video of any American broadcast of the program, claiming the British broadcast about events in Washington, D.C., contained “news distortion.”
• After late night host Jimmy Kimmel commented on the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Carr warned that if ABC and Disney did not “take action” against Kimmel, the FCC would act. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he said, drawing comparisons to mafia movies.

Carr also likes to tell broadcasters what they should air, but he doesn’t implore them to report more or better local news. Instead, he launched the “Pledge America Campaign,” calling on broadcasters to meet their public interest obligations by airing “patriotic, pro-America content” celebrating “the historic accomplishments of this great nation from our founding through the Trump Administration today.”

And in an expressly anti-local “public interest” intervention, Carr enthusiastically backed Trump’s directive to give the Army-Navy football game an exclusive broadcast window. Carr said in a press release earlier this month that “such scheduling conflicts weaken the national focus on our Military Service Academies and detract from a morale-building event of vital interest to the Department of War.” Because, of course, the hallmark of community broadcasting is not letting fans watch their local teams because the Pentagon needs a morale boost for its illegal, unpopular wars.

As a prior version of Carr knew, the FCC cannot police journalism for ideological bias. Localism is a Trojan horse Carr uses to legitimize his attack on the Constitution. 

His only serious effort to impact local news undermines it instead by consolidating more local licenses under conglomerates like Nexstar and Sinclair — companies that are ideologically aligned with Trump on national issues but have long track records of ruining local coverage through cost cutting. Carr even bent ownership rules to approve a $6.2 billion Nexstar–Tegna merger, which a federal judge halted Friday because of harms to local news consumers.

Nexstar is aggressively cutting jobs at flagship stations like WGN in Chicago and KTLA in Los Angeles, even as it lobbies for permission to expand further. Sinclair has decimated local newsrooms across the country, replacing them with centralized national programming — the exact opposite of the localism Carr claims to champion.

The real Brendan Carr is the unrepentant censorship czar who shows up at CPAC and openly threatens broadcasters on X, not the slicker version who rails against coastal elites to change the subject when questioned about his unconstitutional antics. 

Carr is among the most shameless bootlickers (or Florsheim dress shoe-lickers) in an administration full of sycophants. The only localities whose interests he serves are the White House and Mar-a-Lago. He’s the last person who should be policing the “public interest,” locally or anywhere. 

The post Trump’s FCC Chief Says His Censorship Protects the Little Guy. It Really Serves One Powerful Man. appeared first on The Intercept.

The situation has only gotten worse for Dalton Eatherly, the race-baiting online pest better known as “Chud the Builder.” Earlier this spring, Eatherly was out on bond after being arrested in Nashville on theft, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest charges after allegedly walking out of a restaurant on an almost $400 tab. Days later, prosecutors say he went on to do something far more serious: allegedly shooting and nearly killing a man outside the Montgomery County Courthouse in Clarksville, Tennessee. 

On Wednesday, a Davidson County judge revoked his bond after reviewing his conduct and new evidence surrounding the shooting.   

“It sounds premeditative, like he’s going to kill somebody,” one Montgomery County investigator said at the hearing, pointing to Eatherly’s videos and social media posts. 

There’s no mystery about what drives Eatherly, who livestreamed his violent, racist goals to thousands of supporters every step of the way. 

In an age where racist rhetoric can not only be mainstreamed but can also be monetized, Dalton Eatherly represents its newest and lowest violent common denominator. He’s part of a new wave of right-wing streamers who profit by coaxing donations to push out racist hate speech via social media.

But Chud has taken the gambit even further than his counterparts. He’d carry out his antics in public, streaming himself hurling the N-word at minorities while armed with a pistol and pepper spray. His videos show him threatening to blow his targets’ “brains out,” often fantasizing that his escalation would end in violence, legal impunity, and the start of a race war. “Series finale is dead chimp on the pavement and you monkeys rioting when I walk free,” he wrote in a now-deleted X post on May 7. 

A week later, he’d be strapped to a gurney after allegedly shooting a Black man, as well as himself, during the courthouse altercation. 

Both men survived, but Eatherly now faces a torrent of charges, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony. He also faces up to 60 years in prison. 

Related

Trump Admin Wants to Make It Easier for White Men to Sue for Discrimination

Eatherly’s online notoriety has also translated into real-world support. In the weeks since the shooting, supporters descended on Tennessee courtrooms, turning routine hearings into spectacles. At one appearance, Jake Lang, the Trump-pardoned January 6 rioter and far-right activist, was removed by bailiffs after disrupting the court proceedings. (He received a 10-day jail sentence for contempt, the maximum sentence under state law.)

All this attention has done little to improve Eatherly’s legal position. A judge set Eatherly’s bond at $1 million in the Montgomery County shooting case. While supporters raised more than $300,000 for his defense, judges repeatedly rejected efforts to leverage that support into his release before his bail was revoked.

Part of Chud’s online appeal rests in how this new generation of white supremacists have morphed into online personalities to reach new followers. The far-right internet has spent the last decade learning how to refine the raw materials of extremism into entertainment. 

Related

The Right Wing Desperately Wants to Make Charlie Kirk Its MLK

Trump institutionalized hate speech into a legit political currency, but the new brand of online white supremacy often eschews institutions or electoral politics completely. Instead of espousing militant insular doctrine, figures like Nick Fuentes have used social media to soften their appeal to a broad group of nihilistic young men. 

Young conservatives came of age during a period of collapsing institutional trust. Surveys from Gallup, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins have found young Americans increasingly distrust government, media, political parties, and other traditional institutions. For a segment of the online right, that disillusionment has curdled into political alienation — a belief that the system is not merely failing, but fundamentally incapable of delivering the future they were promised. Figures like Chud offer them convenient explanations for why those promises have been broken by pointing to anyone who isn’t a white American. 

They have also seized on this edgelord disillusionment for their own personal gain and notoriety. Envisioning an America that isn’t white or right fast enough. Often wrapping their rhetoric in a plausible deniability of shock content and prank. In this era, online racist rhetoric did not simply become more visible, it became more permissible, migrating from the internet’s fringe communities into mainstream political and social media culture.

Chud frequently targeted Black neighborhoods in his livestreaming, constantly hurling racial epithets and labeling his enemies “chimps” while framing these racist stunts as renegade expressions of “free speech.” In one video, he’d antagonized a pedestrian before pepper-spraying him and a crowd of onlookers.

In the initial Nashville incident, Chud livestreamed himself hurling racist insults at a restaurant before staff kicked him out. Police later arrested him for allegedly leaving without paying his sizable bill. 

Eatherly’s story is less remarkable than many would like to believe.

The internet is now littered with young men and women chasing some version of the same racist, rage baiting, and accelerationist fantasy. Chasing hate can now yield significant online clout and even revenue. Researchers who study online hate have found social media’s reward systems can reinforce and escalate extremist behavior, with an audience’s approval often encouraging users to produce more hateful content.

Federal prosecutors have spent the last several years prosecuting people who moved beyond posting. In September 2025, prosecutors charged organizers of “Terrorgram,” a white supremacist online group, with soliciting hate crimes and soliciting the murder of public officials. Authorities have subsequently linked recent racially motivated shooters in San Diego and Buffalo as adherents of the online extremist ecosphere. 

Fortunately, Chud the Builder was blunted before any stunt went too far off the rails. 

Now, instead of broadcasting from a sidewalk, Eatherly sits in custody facing charges that could keep him behind bars for decades. He didn’t start the “race war” he framed as inevitable, and the legal immunity he joked about has yet to materialize. What remains is a criminal case and a growing pile of evidence documenting months of public provocation.

Eatherly’s days of online shock content may be over, at least for now, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of others ready and willing to step up to fill the void. We exist in a social media-driven world that rewards the Chuds of the world, and where, at a moment’s notice, you too could be unwillingly cast as the subject of someone’s livestreamed hate stunt.

The result is a generation of online personalities chasing attention through violent escalation, with each trying to outdo the last for their chance at virality. Most will never pull a trigger. But as Eatherly’s case demonstrates, when your audience rewards and even craves confrontation, eventually someone will try to turn the fantasy into reality.

The post Chud the Builder Fantasized About “Race War.” Now He’s Charged With Attempted Murder. appeared first on The Intercept.