The Daily Psyop

President Donald Trump has been quite vocal about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) lately, and today was no exception. In his speech at the Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville, he made his stance crystal clear. He said, “There will never be a CBDC while I am president.”

This statement echoes his previous comments on the matter, where he has consistently expressed strong opposition to the idea of a CBDC. He believes that such a currency would give the government too much control over people’s money and could potentially lead to financial tyranny.

Related: CBDC Catastrophe: Tech Failures Expose a Fragile, Dystopian Future

Trump’s views on CBDCs seem to be part of a broader narrative that he’s building around protecting individual freedoms and liberties. It’s a message that resonates with many in the cryptocurrency community, who see digital currencies as a way to decentralize power and reduce government control.

Trump has previously called CBDCs a “dangerous threat to freedom.”

Trump’s firm stance underscores the escalating discussions surrounding CBDCs, a significant matter among global governmental bodies. To date, only a few countries have officially adopted such currencies. However, the digital currency landscape continues to evolve, with China advancing the implementation of its digital yuan, India progressing towards a digital rupee, and the European Central Bank initiating a preparatory phase for a potential digital euro.

CBDCs represent a significant evolution in the architecture of money. These digital forms of fiat currency, issued and regulated by a country’s central bank, promise enhanced efficiency in transactions and greater financial inclusion. However, they also pose potential risks to civil liberties that merit careful consideration. Here are some of the primary concerns:

1. Privacy

CBDCs could fundamentally alter the landscape of financial privacy. Traditional cash transactions allow for anonymity. With CBDCs, even small transactions might be traceable and recordable by the central bank. This could lead to a scenario where governments have access to detailed records of every individual’s financial life, raising significant privacy concerns unless robust safeguards are implemented.

2. Surveillance

The transition to a fully digital currency could potentially give governments unprecedented capabilities to monitor and surveil citizen behaviors. In regimes with weaker protections for civil liberties, this could be exploited to track political dissent or suppress opposition. The potential for surveillance not only impacts privacy but also freedom of expression and association.

3. Financial Censorship

With the centralization of currency issuance and transaction management, a CBDC could make it easier for governments to implement financial sanctions against individuals or groups without due process. Accounts could be frozen or transactions blocked more efficiently, which could be used as a tool for political repression or social control.

4. Exclusion

Despite the potential for greater financial inclusion, the reliance on digital infrastructure might marginalize those without access to technology or reliable internet, such as rural populations or the economically disadvantaged. This could exacerbate existing inequalities and restrict access to essential services for those on the fringes of the digital economy.

5. Cybersecurity Risks

The concentration of financial data in a central digital system increases the risk of systemic failures due to cyberattacks. A successful attack could compromise the integrity of a nation’s entire financial system. Moreover, the implications of such attacks extend beyond economic damage to potentially crippling impacts on individual financial security and privacy.

6. Centralization of Power

CBDCs concentrate monetary control significantly. This centralization of financial power could reduce the checks and balances provided by a more distributed banking system, increasing the potential for abuse by those in power, particularly in undemocratic regimes.

7. Legal and Ethical Implications

The implementation of CBDCs raises several legal and ethical questions, including the scope of government intervention in personal finances, the rights of individuals under a digital currency system, and the balance between national security and personal freedoms.

The post Trump’s Commits To CBDC Ban appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Rumble, a prominent player in the video-sharing and cloud services arena, marked a significant milestone today by launching its new app on Xbox, thereby expanding its reach in digital content distribution. This latest addition enables Xbox users to enjoy a seamless streaming experience, featuring a rich array of live and on-demand content ranging from gaming and exclusive podcasts to live sports and political commentary.

The app, compatible with all Xbox devices starting from the third-generation models introduced in 2013, promises to enrich the user experience with its upcoming updates that will include outbound in-console streaming capabilities. This feature is eagerly anticipated as it will enhance how viewers interact with content directly from their consoles.

According to Chris Pavlovski, Founder and CEO of Rumble, “The launch of the Rumble app on Xbox is an exciting expansion of our video distribution capabilities, which further bolsters the independent creator economy while also providing an enhanced experience for our viewers.”

Rumble’s strategic expansion doesn’t stop at Xbox. The platform is already accessible on various devices including Apple TV, Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and smart TVs from LG and Samsung.

This multi-platform availability underscores Rumble’s commitment to providing unrestricted access to diverse video content, thus supporting an open and vibrant platform for creators to share their work without the fear of censorship. This approach not only supports the democratization of content creation but also ensures that viewers can enjoy a wide spectrum of viewpoints and entertainment at their convenience.

The launch of Rumble’s new app on Xbox is a significant boon for supporters of free speech for several reasons. Firstly, it broadens the platform’s accessibility, allowing more users to engage with a diverse array of content. This expansion is crucial in an era where many platforms are scrutinized for their content moderation policies that can sometimes verge into censorship. By providing a new avenue for content consumption on widely used gaming consoles, Rumble is championing the cause of digital freedom.

Rumble is known for its commitment to less restrictive content policies compared to other mainstream video-sharing platforms. This philosophy aligns with free speech principles by offering a space where creators can express themselves without the fear of undue restriction. The presence of Rumble on Xbox means that content that might be marginalized or oppressed elsewhere due to political or ideological reasons can find a welcoming home. For viewers, this translates into the ability to access unfiltered information and a variety of perspectives, which is the cornerstone of a healthy democratic society.

The post Rumble Expands Horizons with Xbox Integration appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The Biden administration’s campaign to influence social media content censorship is being challenged in court, with a key lawsuit, Kennedy et al. v. Biden, temporarily paused by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appellate court has returned the matter to a lower court to determine the legal standing of the plaintiffs, including Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and its chairman, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This decision follows a recent Supreme Court ruling in a related case, Murthy v. Missouri, where it was concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary standing.

In March 2023, Kennedy, CHD, and others initiated a class action lawsuit against President Joe Biden and various senior administration officials, accusing them of coercing major US social media platforms into silencing protected speech. This lawsuit parallels a separate case initiated in May 2022, Missouri v. Biden, which involves similar allegations by two states and five social media users against similar administration officials.

The Murthy v. Missouri litigation resulted in a preliminary injunction against the administration, prohibiting any attempts to censor online content. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, citing a lack of specific, targeted censorship actions directly affecting the plaintiffs, thus ruling out their standing. Despite this, the preliminary injunction in Kennedy v. Biden remains effective until further rulings, set off by the Supreme Court’s decision on the earlier Missouri case.

The plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden argue their standing is more substantiated, citing explicit instances where the administration allegedly pressured social media to censor content related to Kennedy and CHD.

For example, following Biden’s inauguration, a vaccine skeptic tweet by Kennedy was targeted by the White House Digital Director, and subsequent actions saw CHD’s content suppressed on major platforms like Facebook and Instagram.

The post Kennedy Lawsuit Against Biden Administration’s Censorship Demands Heads To Lower Court appeared first on Reclaim The Net.