Homebase.id

The Official Homebase Account

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@jorges @Seifert1969 @jonatanpallesen Homebase's Chat has a Signal UX but decentralized backend.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@jorges @Seifert1969 @jonatanpallesen Because it's too difficult for the average user. Plus young people don't email.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@callebtc We just released our peer to peer end to end encrypted app. Just you and your own data. No middle man.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

We just released our new chat app. Peer to peer, end to end encrypted. No middle man. Only you and your own data.

https://t.co/QNOvdFrrll

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Can’t trust WhatsApp

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

We're working on a new app. It'll be as awesome to use as Signal when we're done. And we'll release it on iOS, Android, Windows, Linux and Mac. Possibly a web WASM version also, either that or we keep our current.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

Homebase is built with the goal of extraordinary privacy and preventing mass surveillance.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

We're rewriting our Apps in Kotlin KMP for a native speed experience. React Native is too slow and we should never have tried. Kotlin Starter App will be ready January.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@Matt_Camenzuli Start using Homebase to stay out of mass surveillance and control programs. DM me if you want a trial. Promise we'll open up Q1 with a much improved app.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@battleforeurope Homebase is 💯 decentralized and can run on your kitchen table with just 10 watts of power with less than$200 hardware. That's how we can avoid EU mass surveillance.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@MarioBojic Homebase is exempt from the EU Chat Law.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

Despite the new US administration dismantling part of the censorship industrial complex, it's resurrected and working on global censorship. Homebase remains more relevant than ever

https://t.co/8bCuIB4xav

[Michael Shellenberger @shellenberger]

In the spring of 2022, former President Barack Obama gave a major policy addressat Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, where he laid out a sweeping proposal for government censorship of social media platforms through the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Six days later, President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had created a “Disinformation Governance Board” to serve as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth with the clear goal of controlling the information Americans could access online.

At the heart of Obama’s vision for Internet censorship was legislation that would have authorized the US government’s National Science Foundation to authorize and fund supposedly independent NGOs to censor the Internet. The DHS and Stanford Internet Observatory, which was part of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, pioneered this censorship-by-proxy strategy as a way to get around the First Amendment in 2020 with posts raising concerns about the 2020 elections and in 2021 with “narratives” expressing concern about the Covid vaccine.

The 2024 election of President Donald Trump significantly reduced the threat of Obama, DHS, and NSF censoring the American people. Trump defunded much of the Censorship Industrial Complex. The Platform Accountability Act is going nowhere in Congress. Elon Musk fired most of the censorship staff at Twitter and has allowed a significantly wider range of speech on the platform. And even before Trump’s election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt stopped funding the Stanford Internet Observatory after Public, Racket News, and House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan exposed its central role in the DHS censorship-by-proxy scheme.

But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. Facebook complied with Biden administration demands to censor because it needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. And the Brazilian government forced Elon Musk to continue censoring the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets.

And Public has discovered that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, which is led by Obama’s former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is at the heart of a new, secretive, and possibly illegal censorship initiative that appears even more ambitious than the one Obama proposed in 2022.

On September 24, the Cyber Policy Center hosted a secret dinner between its leaders and top censorship officials from Europe, UK, Brazil, California and Australia. The meeting was titled “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.” Frank McCourt, the same person behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, financed the gathering through his “Project Liberty Institute,” (PLI), toward which he gave $500 million to “strengthen democracy” and “foster responsible technology.”

Public emailed all 21 participants and organizers and only heard from four, PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union, which declined to comment because, even though Public gave it over 24 hours, a spokesperson said, “We would need several days.”

The UK government said, “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.”

A spokesperson for PLI said it “has made unrestricted gifts to several academic research programs, including Stanford University” and that “PLI does not receive funding from governments, intergovernmental organizations, or large technology companies.”

But PLI’s own policy “blueprint” reveals that it is demanding a single total global censorship regime and intends to use the EU’s market power, known as the “Brussels effect,” to force big tech companies to comply. The blueprint calls for governments to “Recommit to a Single, Global Internet,” with “regulatory interoperability and oversight, to achieve a single unified market” and use the large size of the EU market to “drive bilateral and multilateral agendas to formally enshrine reciprocal guarantees.”

A spokesperson for the Australian government said, “Whilst in attendance at Stanford for the 2-day conference, some attendees, including trust and safety researchers, industry, civil society, and government representatives, were also invited to attend an informal evening roundtable event organised by Stanford University entitled, ‘Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.’ This roundtable did not involve any discussion of compliance coordination or regulatory information sharing.”

The Australian spokesperson claimed that “eSafety has no role in regulating hate speech or disinformation. eSafety has no remit or interest in regulating the affairs of other nations, nor does it have any role in diplomatic, trade or other government-to-government relations.”

But it also said, “As the internet is global and functions irrespective of national borders, by necessity eSafety collaborates with law enforcement, other government agencies, and non-government partners around the world, including in the United States.”

The leaked agenda’s stated purpose was to “discuss the state of compliance and enforcement” in order to “identify where data, research, and expertise can enable more effective compliance with and enforcement of existing policy.”

Much of the following two days of the public conference were focused on coordinating government censorship (“regulation”) of social media platforms, and the other nations that attended the meeting are all intensively involved in censoring their citizens and US tech companies.

And, the head of Australia’s eSafety, Julie Inman-Grant, who was a keynote speaker at Stanford’s foreign censorship meeting, is also the head of a global government censorship network that serves as forum, she told the World Economic Forum, “to help us coordinate, build capacity and do just that…. We use the tools that we have, and can be effective, but we know we’re going to be, go, much further, when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe.”

As such, the people who are demanding censorship are once again spreading disinformation about what they are doing.

All of this is happening in a context of global censorship intensifying. The UK government arrests 30 people per day for “offensive” social media posts, is attempting to censor 4Chan, which has no servers in the UK, and will mandate digital IDs for employment, which may give unprecedented control to politicians and bureaucrats to censor. The Brazilian government has, for year,s been censoring journalists and policymakers, incarcerating people for legal social media content, and threatening prosecution of journalists, including this author. And several European nations are censoring and arresting their citizens, preventing opposition political candidates from running for office, and preparing to implement digital IDs.

Why did Stanford Cyber Policy Center hold this meeting, what is its strategy for global censorship? Who leaked the agenda to Public and why? And what can be done to stop Stanford, Brazil, Australia, the EU and others from realizing their totalitarian censorial vision?

Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigatie journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@thorstenball On Homebase we have developed the YouAuth protocol which lets you login SSO fully decentralized and fully self sovereign.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@andyyen Real sovereignty comes through decentralization. That's exactly what Homebase has built. And it's exempt from the EU Chat law too.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@elonmusk Homebase is decentralized, no single point of failure, immune to the EU chat law. Privacy first and as good as it gets.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@JFQueralt @naomibrockwell We've been building privacy first for four years now, and it's surprisingly difficult. Everyone should do it.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@frihedsbrevet @_HomebaseId er undtaget fra EUs chat law fordi vi er open source, non profit, non-ad-funded, decentraliseret.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@signalapp @_HomebaseId is exempt from the EU chat law because we're open source, non profit, non-ad-funded, decentralized and peer to peer. We're ofc alarmed too.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@levelsio @vonderleyen You can also fight back by using @_HomebaseId. We're decentralized and true peer to peer. You can even host it on your kitchen table.

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@MikeBenzCyber @_HomebaseId is exempt from the EU Chat law because we're open source, non profit, non-ad-funded, fully decentralized and peer to peer. It can also backup all your X posts @MikeBenzCyber

[Homebase.id @_HomebaseId]

@tveskov @_HomebaseId is exempt from the EU chat law because we're open source, non profit, non-ad-funded, fully decentralized and peer to peer. Send a DM if you want to try it out