Foreign investors disappear from US Treasury auctions, as China borrows at the lowest rates ever
China's "overcapacity" was always deliberate: US experts stunned by Chinese AI, declare race is over
The "Rise and Fall of China's Belt and Road" was another Establishment Washington myth.
China just revealed the worldâs tiniest spy drone â shaped like a mosquito and only 0.6cm long. 
This is an interesting video to look at from a media-literacy perspective.
Notable details:
- AI generated assets,
- All images of the device look different
- When one of the images is reverse image searched this American thing pops up
RoboBee comes in for a landing
Well, it's generated by some AI slop shop:-
I wonder what the original video looks like:-
"The bionic microdrone was showcased on Chinaâs state-run military broadcaster, CCTV-7, on June 20."
1 Like
Damn another MSM sourceâŚ.I pulled the link from Telegram
Do you believe that the video that you posted is a better source?
Can you explain why and is there something wrong with my analysis of it above?
How is it relevant that you âpulled the linkâ from Telegram, please?
Yours is obviously the original sourse.
I am not questioning it.
I assumed that by doing so the source wasnât originally MSM.
No: "The bionic microdrone was showcased on Chinaâs state-run military broadcaster, CCTV-7, on June 20."
Here's someone's comments on it, even someone from the Illumi.. I mean CFR comments on it:-
I suspect this is a screenshot from the original CCTV-7 report:
Ok, understood. Well, Telegram isnât an antidote to mainstream media, itâs becoming a parallel mainstream of its own. Instead of centralized corporations, you get swarms of anonymous channels, bot-driven amplification, and AI-fabricated âreports.â Itâs not freer truth, itâs just a different ecosystem of gatekeepers and propagandists.
The report you came across was made by something like a kind of content mill, synthetic media channel, AI content farm...
1 Like
Had the machine do some analysis:
click here to expand to read about the process if interested
I went to Google Gemini (ChatGPT, Grok, Perplexity etc works too) and did some metaprompting:
(Metaprompting means asking an AI how to create or improve the prompt itself, instead of jumping straight to the task. Youâre not just giving instructionsâyouâre designing the instructions with the AIâs help, so the output gets sharper, more relevant, and more powerful.)
I entered:-
create a promtp for deep researching this: China unveils mosquito-sized microdrone for battlefield reconnaissance... The bionic microdrone was showcased on Chinaâs state-run military broadcaster, CCTV-7, on June 20."...
original reporting, claims... analysis by experts.. feasibility, capabilities, theorietic limits, current tech, batteries etc, camera sizes, range of radio signal etc, AI capabilities vs size/weight... also interpolate into the future, what might, should be possible in 2, 5, 10 years
which gave me this prompt:-
This detailed prompt is designed to generate a comprehensive and multi-faceted analysis of the Chinese mosquito-sized microdrone, covering its present reality, technological limits, expert opinion, and future trajectory.
Prompt for Deep Research & Analysis: China's Mosquito-Sized Microdrone
Core Topic: In-depth technical, strategic, and future-oriented analysis of the mosquito-sized bionic microdrone unveiled by China's National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) on CCTV-7 on June 20.
I. Foundational Reporting & Verified Claims (The "What is Known")
- Original Source Analysis: Transcribe or detail key claims made during the CCTV-7 broadcast (June 20) by NUDT researchers (e.g., Liang Hexiang). What exactly did they claim about its function, design, and suitability for "information reconnaissance and special missions on the battlefield"?
- Physical Specifications: Detail the confirmed/reported size (approx. 1-2 cm long), weight (approx. 0.3 grams), wing type (leaf-shaped/dual/quad-winged), and wing-beat frequency (up to 500 times per second).
- Current Operational Status: Clarify its current phaseâis it a lab prototype, a proof-of-concept, or an operational field unit? Document evidence for its current control mechanism (e.g., smartphone control in a lab setting).
II. Technical Feasibility, Capabilities, and Current Limits (The "How It Works & How Far It Goes")
- Miniaturization Challenge: Analyze the engineering marvel of integrating all components into a sub-gram, centimeter-sized form factor (power system, sensors, control circuits, propulsion).
- Power/Battery Technology: Research the current state-of-the-art for lithium batteries or alternative power sources at this scale. Critically estimate and justify the likely maximum flight time and operational time for the current prototype (e.g., 1-3 minutes) based on physics and known energy density limits.
- Sensor and Camera Limits: Detail the realistic size and capability of the integrated ultra-compact cameras, microphones, and sensors. What is the maximum usable resolution or effective range for data collection given the size constraints?
- Radio Signal Range & Control: Analyze the theoretical and practical limitations of radio communication (RF, Bluetooth-type) for a device of this size and power. What is the expected maximum reliable control/data transmission range, and how is it affected by obstacles (walls, foliage, urban environments)?
- Propulsion and Flight Dynamics: Evaluate the efficiency and stability of the flapping-wing (biomimetic) propulsion system, especially against real-world environmental factors like wind and rain, which are often cited as major constraints.
III. Expert Analysis and Strategic Implications (The "What It Means")
- Expert Consensus: Gather and synthesize analyses from non-Chinese micro-robotics experts, defense analysts, and security professionals regarding the true military utility of the current prototype. Is it a paradigm shift, or primarily a major scientific milestone?
- Vulnerabilities & Countermeasures: What are the theoretical and practical vulnerabilities of a drone this size (e.g., fragility, signal jamming, environmental sensitivity, lack of sophisticated GPS)? What new counter-surveillance or detection methods would be required (acoustic sensors, specialized radar, visual/AI detection)?
- AI Integration & Autonomy: Detail the realistic AI capabilities that can be integrated given the severe size/weight constraints of the computing unit (e.g., simple stabilization, obstacle avoidance, basic target identification). What level of autonomy is possible with the current technology?
- Ethical and Security Implications: Research the potential use of insect-sized microdrones beyond conventional reconnaissance, such as for the delivery of biological agents or highly localized, stealthy assassination/disruption missions (e.g., referencing concepts like DARPA's HI-MEMS or Slaughterbots).
IV. Interpolation into the Future (The "What If")
- 2-Year Outlook: Based on projected incremental advances in battery density, micro-sensors, and material science, what should be technically feasible for the mosquito-drone's next generation (e.g., slight increase in flight time/range, improved wind tolerance, better optics)?
- 5-Year Outlook: Extrapolate the impact of potential breakthroughs (e.g., solid-state micro-batteries, highly-optimized AI chips). What new capabilities might be possible? Consider the feasibility of coordinated swarm operations or enhanced autonomy (e.g., navigation without external GPS).
- 10-Year Outlook: Imagine a scenario where the major current constraints (power, range, sensor-payload) are largely overcome. What capabilities might or should such a platform possess? Consider its role in the future of warfare, counter-terrorism, and domestic surveillance, and the complete disruption of current defense strategies against UAVs.
which I copy pasted back into Google Gemini and enabled Deep research which gave the report
Here you can read the report: The NUDT Mosquito-Sized Microdrone: Technical Assessment, Strategic Implications, and Future Trajectory
I beg to differ on this, itâs far freer than any other platform I have observed Twitter included. Now I know that doesnât fit in with your Russians = Bad Commies viewpoint, but it happens to be true.
Would you for instance consider YT the same as Bitchute in terms of censorship??
I misspoke a bit. Indeed it avoids YouTube/Twitter's corporate censorship. However, Telegram's "freedom" is compromised by architectural weaknesses and proven state coercion.
Oh, what are they then?
It's a good comparison. Bitchute and Telegram are quite similar.
Here's a report I put together about Telegram:-
I haven't had the time to go through it yet. It's made with ChatGPT+Grok (deep research) and then melded togehter with Google NotebookML.
Here's a tutorial on Google NotebookML
Below are some outputs. You can also visit this link and chat with this notebook for more
The Telegram Illusion: 4 Hard Truths Revealed After the Founder's Arrest
Introduction
For years, Telegram has cultivated a powerful image as a bastion of free speech and a secure, private messenger, a reputation that has attracted over 900 million users worldwide. It's often seen as the uncompromising alternative to mainstream platforms, a digital space beyond the reach of governments and corporations. However, the dramatic August 2024 arrest of its founder, Pavel Durov, in France served as a powerful catalyst, pulling back the curtain on the platform's long-held claims. This post distills the most surprising and impactful takeaways from recent analyses, revealing a reality about Telegram's vulnerability, privacy, and control that is far different from its public persona.
1. A Single Arrest Proved State Pressure WorksâDramatically
The August 2024 arrest of Pavel Durov in France on multiple charges, including complicity in drug trafficking and child exploitation, marked a fundamental shift in Telegram's relationship with state authorities. For years, the platform had maintained a posture of minimal cooperation. This single event proved that the right kind of pressure could force a complete reversal.
The "before and after" data is stark. Prior to the arrest, Telegram's cooperation with government data requests was negligible. Immediately after, compliance surged.
Following the founder's arrest, Telegram's compliance with French data requests skyrocketed by 6,400%.
This increase saw accepted requests in France jump from just 4 involving 17 users in Q1 2024 to 668 requests involving 1,425 users in Q1 2025. A similar spike occurred with the United States, where Telegram provided data for 2,253 users in response to 900 requests in 2024, compared to a total of only 108 users in all years prior.
This is significant because it validates a new and highly effective strategy for influencing the platform. Russia's attempt to ban Telegram between 2018 and 2020 by technically blocking millions of IP addresses failed. France's strategyâtargeting the single point of leadershipâsucceeded in compelling platform-wide policy changes. France's success has established an effective new playbook for governments: target the leader, not the technology.
2. Your "Private" Chats Aren't Actually Private by Default
A core myth fueling Telegram's popularity is that it offers superior privacy to competitors. The reality is that, unlike Signal and WhatsApp, Telegram does not provide end-to-end encryption (E2EE) for the vast majority of conversations. The platform operates on a two-tier system that prioritizes features over default security.
- Cloud Chats: These are the default for all group chats, channels, and standard one-on-one conversations. They use client-server encryption, which means Telegram stores the encryption keys on its servers. The company has acknowledged it possesses the technical ability to access and decrypt the content of these messages.
- Secret Chats: These are the only truly end-to-end encrypted conversations on the platform, where only the sender and recipient can read the messages. However, they must be manually enabled by the user, are limited to one-on-one chats only, and are not available on all clients, such as the web version. They represent a "tiny fraction" of total platform usage.
This architectural choice has profound implications. By not making robust E2EE the default, Telegram's design prioritizes convenience and features like seamless multi-device cloud sync over the comprehensive privacy that many of its users mistakenly believe they have. Furthermore, Telegram's custom-built encryption protocol, MTProto, has faced sustained criticism from cryptographic researchers for its vulnerabilities, setting it apart from the more vetted, industry-standard Signal Protocol used by competitors.
3. The Entire Empire is Controlled by One Man
Telegram's governance structure is highly unusual for a major technology company and is a key source of its vulnerability. Founder Pavel Durov maintains over 95% ownership and holds sole decision-making authority. The company operates without a formal board of directors, concentrating all power and control in a single individual.
While this structure allows for rapid, unilateral decisions, it also creates a critical "single point of failure." This is precisely the vulnerability that the French legal strategy exploited so effectively. By targeting the one person with ultimate authority, the state was able to compel policy changes across the entire platform. Such a feat would be far more difficult with a decentralized organization or a traditional corporation with a board and shareholders. Even Durov's multiple citizenshipsâin Russia, the UAE, France, and St. Kitts and Nevisâprovided limited protection against this determined, personal legal pressure. The platform's reliance on bond sales to institutional investors like BlackRock and Citadel creates an additional vector for financial leverage, making this centralized structure vulnerable to more than just legal threats.
4. It's a Major Hub for AI-Powered Influence Operations
Beyond issues of individual privacy, Telegram has become a host for large-scale, coordinated influence operations. Research from organizations like OpenMinds and the Atlantic Council's DFRLab has documented sophisticated, state-sponsored networks operating on the platform.
A prominent example is a pro-Russian network targeting Ukrainian populations in occupied territories. Its key characteristics include:
- Scale: The network was found to consist of over 3,634 automated accounts.
- Sophistication: The bots utilize generative AI to create contextually relevant and convincing responses, making them harder to identify than simple spam bots.
- Target: The operation is specifically designed to spread pro-Russian propaganda and narratives in occupied areas of Ukraine.
- Activity: The level of activity is massive, with individual accounts observed posting as many as 1,391 comments across 65 channels in a single day.
This is not simply spam; it is a documented, high-tech information operation. The platform's open API and large public channels have turned what is branded as a "free speech" platform into a fertile battleground for state-sponsored propaganda.
Conclusion
The gap between Telegram's brand and its operational reality is significant and consequential. Recent events have confirmed that the platform is not immune to state pressure, its chats are not private by default, its centralized control is a critical vulnerability, and it serves as a key vector for sophisticated influence operations. As governments refine their strategies to pressure platform leaders, the core question for users remains: Is Telegram's version of 'freedom' worth the price of its vulnerabilities?
Private, Encrypted Publishing Systems
These systems prioritize anonymity, decentralization, and encryption to enable censorship-resistant sharing of information (e.g., blogs, forums, files) without relying on centralized servers like traditional web platforms.
-
Hyphanet (formerly Freenet): A peer-to-peer (P2P) darknet where users store and retrieve encrypted data fragments across the network. It's designed for anonymous publishing of websites or files, with content addressed by keys rather than URLsâideal for long-term, uncensorable storage.
-
Tor: An overlay network using "onion routing" to bounce traffic through volunteer relays for anonymous browsing and hosting hidden services (.onion sites). It supports publishing via hidden wikis or forums, focusing on real-time access.
-
Bitchat: A Bluetooth-based mesh networking app (launched July 2025 by Jack Dorsey) for offline, end-to-end encrypted group chats and file sharing. It works without internet or servers, using device-to-device relaysâsuited for local, resilient publishing in protests or blackouts.
-
Others:
- I2P (Invisible Internet Project): A garlic-routed P2P overlay like Tor but optimized for internal services (e.g., anonymous torrents, eepsites), emphasizing encrypted tunnels for publishing.
- GNUnet: A modular framework for building P2P apps with strong privacy (e.g., file-sharing via GNU IceCat browser), using economic incentives to prevent spam and ensure secure content distribution.
- Briar: Similar to Bitchat, a mesh app for secure messaging and forums over Tor or Bluetooth, focused on activists with no metadata leakage.
Key Differences
| System | Core Tech | Use Case Focus | Accessibility | Speed/Usability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hyphanet | Distributed storage | Long-term archiving | Desktop-heavy | Slow (data fragmentation) |
| Tor | Onion routing | Web browsing/hidden sites | Browser/mobile | Moderate, but exit node risks |
| Bitchat | Bluetooth mesh | Offline local sharing | Mobile-only | Fast locally, limited range |
| I2P | Garlic routing | Internal dark services | Software install | Slower than Tor for external access |
| GNUnet | Modular P2P stack | Custom apps/file sharing | Developer-oriented | Variable, incentive-based |
| Briar | Tor/Bluetooth hybrid | Activist comms | Mobile | Good for offline, but battery drain |
Tor and I2P excel in global anonymity for web-like publishing, while Hyphanet/GNUnet prioritize unbreakable storage. Mesh apps like Bitchat/Briar shine for hyper-local, internet-free scenarios.
Problems and Implications
- Problems: Slow speeds and high latency (e.g., Hyphanet's fragmentation delays inserts); steep learning curves (installs, key management); limited adoption means small user bases vulnerable to sybil attacks or deanonymization. Legal risks aboundâTor/I2P are often flagged for illicit use, leading to surveillance. Mesh systems like Bitchat drain batteries and cap range (~100m hops), failing in sparse networks. A core issue is the uncensorable nature: since content can't be easily removed by central authorities, very illegal and terrible material (e.g., CSAM, terrorist recruitment, or hate propaganda) proliferates on hidden services or shared keys, tarnishing the ecosystem's reputation and inviting global bans (e.g., Tor blocked in China/Russia).
- Mitigations (Partial and Incomplete): Community-driven blocklists (e.g., Tor Project's curated .onion directories or Hyphanet's user-opted content filters) allow nodes to reject known bad keys/hosts, while voluntary reporting tools flag abuse to law enforcement. GNUnet uses token-based incentives to penalize spam, and Briar integrates device-level warnings. However, these are bypassed via new addresses, private channels, or non-participating nodesâenforcement relies on user cooperation, not mandates, so bad actors persist.
- Implications: They empower dissidents in censored regimes (e.g., Tor's role in Arab Spring) but attract abuse (dark markets), fueling crackdowns and ethical debates over "free speech vs. harm." Decentralization resists corporate/AI gatekeeping but fragments the web, complicating discovery. Privacy gains come at usability costs, potentially isolating users from mainstream info, while incomplete mitigations leave platforms liable for unremovable harms.
Hopes for Popularity
As Big Tech and AI consolidate the "walled garden" internetâalgorithmically curating feeds and throttling dissentâthese tools offer a lifeline for unfiltered publishing. If mesh apps like Bitchat gain traction via easy mobile integration (e.g., 1B+ downloads by 2030), they could bootstrap offline networks before full lockdowns. Broader adoption via incentives (GNUnet-style) or browser bundling (Tor in Firefox) might normalize them, preserving a human-driven web against AI "mush." Optimism lies in rising privacy awareness post-data scandalsâlet's hope they scale before it's too late, with better mitigations to curb the dark side.
Agreed.
Yeah but itâs not that simple. And Iâm reminded of something I find agreeable that I recently read in an interesting speech that Iâm currently analyzing
Todayâs world is an exceptionally complex, multifaceted system. To properly describe and comprehend it, simple laws of logic, cause-and-effect relationships, and the patterns arising from them are insufficient. What is needed here is a philosophy of complexity â something akin to quantum mechanics, which is wiser and, in some ways, more complex than classical physics.
Yet it is precisely due to this complexity of the world that the overall capacity for agreement, in my view, nevertheless tends to increase. After all, linear unilateral solutions are impossible, while nonlinear and multilateral solutions require very serious, professional, impartial, creative, and at times unconventional diplomacy.
Therefore, I am convinced that we will witness a kind of renaissance, a revival of high diplomatic art. Its essence lies in the ability to engage in dialogue and reach agreements â both with neighbours and like-minded partners, and â no less important but more challenging â with opponents.
BitChute btw began with WebTorrent, a browser-based peer-to-peer layer that was marketed as a kind of blockchain decentralization. It quickly collapsed under technical limits and browser restrictions, so they shifted to conventional hosting while keeping the old rhetoric.
Telegram followed a similar trajectory. It speaks the language of privacy and independence but operates as a tightly controlled network centered on its founder.
Both project the feeling of digital rebellion while functioning through ordinary centralization dressed up as freedom.