News Round-Up: Musk Plans Alternative for Biased Wikipedia, UK Steers towards “Digital Eastern Bloc,” and Amazon Forests Thrive on Rising CO₂
Every week, the editorial team of Freedom Research compiles a round-up of news that caught our eye, or what felt like under-reported aspects of news deserving more attention.
Over the past week, the following topics attracted our attention:
Instead of Biased Wikipedia: Elon Musk Creates Grokipedia
South Korean Study: COVID-19 Vaccines May Increase Cancer Risk
Is the UK Heading Toward a “Digital Eastern Bloc”?
Amazon’s Push for AI-Powered Surveillance in U.S. Law Enforcement
Amazonian Forests Thrive on Rising CO₂, Boosting Larger Trees
Instead of Biased Wikipedia: Elon Musk Creates Grokipedia
Elon Musk announced on his social media platform X that he is developing Grokipedia, a competitor to Wikipedia that aims to be less biased and more accurate. He stated, “We are building Grokipedia @xAI. Will be a massive improvement over Wikipedia. Frankly, it is a necessary step towards the xAI goal of understanding the Universe.” Musk has long criticized Wikipedia, once jokingly offering a billion dollars to rename it “Dickipedia,” claiming its biased content influences Google search results and AI.
Grokipedia is Musk’s response to Wikipedia’s bias. Supported by xAI and powered by the Grok AI model, the new platform will strive to be a neutral, dynamic knowledge base. Unlike Wikipedia’s community-edited model, Grokipedia will use AI to verify facts, curate, and update articles, according to Grokipedia’s team. Musk emphasized that Grokipedia will be open-source, freely accessible, and promote a broader exchange of information, consistent with his commitment to free speech (see also here, here, here), as seen in his 2022 Twitter acquisition (see also here) and xAI’s 2025 stock-swap merger with X.
Beyond competing with Wikipedia, Grokipedia supports xAI’s mission to accelerate scientific discovery in physics, biology, and cosmology by providing a reliable and less biased knowledge base, also important in training AI systems.
Supporters envision Grokipedia evolving dynamically, minimizing human bias through algorithmic oversight, offering AI-generated summaries, visuals, and predictive insights. This could transform how people access knowledge in an AI-driven world, especially amid concerns about misinformation.
Currently in early development, xAI is recruiting staff for Grokipedia, suggesting a collaborative approach, rather than a closed experiment. However, matching Wikipedia’s scale, ensuring accuracy and building trust will pose significant challenges.
Many, including Musk, have criticized Wikipedia’s bias. Venture capitalist David Sacks has called it “hopelessly biased,” noting that “an army of left-wing activists maintain the bios and fight reasonable corrections. Magnifying the problem, Wikipedia often appears first in Google search results, and now it’s a trusted source for AI model training. This is a huge problem.”
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger echoed the same, stating that the platform, originally an unbiased knowledge repository, has become a propaganda tool. He highlighted that the portal has a so-called blacklist which includes major conservative publications such as Fox News and The New York Post, while liberal publications and organizations such as CNN and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation are allowed to flourish. Sanger noted on X, “Did you know that 85% of the most influential accounts on Wikipedia—the “Power 62”—are anonymous? We simply don’t know who they are. It’s a fact.”
South Korean Study: COVID-19 Vaccines May Increase Cancer Risk
A South Korean study, based on health records of over 8 million people, suggests that COVID-19 vaccination may increase the risk of several cancers, including those of lung, breast and prostate, within one year of administering.
Researchers conducted a large-scale retrospective study to assess cancer incidences within one year post-vaccination, as reported by The Daily Mail. They analyzed health records of over 8 million individuals from 2021 to 2023, dividing participants into vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Cancer diagnoses were compared to vaccination status to evaluate risks for specific cancers.
The study found: “In terms of vaccine type, cDNA vaccines were associated with the increased risks of thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers; mRNA vaccines were linked to the increased risks of thyroid, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers; and heterologous vaccination was related to the increased risks of thyroid and breast cancers.” Vaccinated men showed greater susceptibility to stomach and lung cancer, while vaccinated women were more prone to thyroid and colorectal cancer. By age, those under 65 were more susceptible to thyroid and breast cancer, while those 75 and older were more vulnerable to prostate cancer. Booster doses were most strongly associated with increased risks of stomach and pancreatic cancer.
The researchers hypothesized that vaccinated individuals had a 35% higher risk of thyroid cancer, 34% higher risk of stomach cancer, 53% higher risk of lung cancer, 68% higher risk of prostate cancer, 20% higher risk of breast cancer, and 28% higher risk of colorectal cancer one year post-vaccination. Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, the study authors believe that further research into the matter is necessary.
A potential link between COVID-19 vaccines and cancer has been brought up before by other studies as well. For example, Australian researchers and academics have raised concerns about mRNA vaccines containing excessive synthetic DNA residues, potentially linked to cancer and immune disorders. Several other studies have also addressed the links between excess mortality and vaccination (see also here) and a number of scientists and research institutions have already acknowledged a higher number of side effects than what was initially proclaimed (e.g. here, here).
However, thus far, claims linking vaccines to cancer have been consistently dismissed, and it has been extremely difficult to publish such studies or even research the topic (see also here, here, here, here). Therefore, the current “consensus” is that there is insufficient evidence that vaccines could trigger anything that would lead to cancer. This is true also this time, as the South Korean research has been met with significant criticism. Many have quickly dismissed the study, calling it superficially alarming and its conclusions exaggerated. For example, Cancer Research UK found that there is insufficient evidence of a link between vaccines and cancer, and mRNA technology is still being researched with the intention of using it in cancer prevention. According to Dr. Benjamin Mazer, assistant professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins University, no carcinogen can cause cancer so quickly, as the accumulation of mutations, cell proliferation, and diagnosis takes time. Therefore, according to Dr. Mazer, this is merely a study on better cancer diagnosis, and according to him, there has been no increase in the number of cases amongst the six types of cancer that could be suggest a correlation with the vaccine.
Is the UK Heading Toward a “Digital Eastern Bloc”?
The UK communications regulator, The Office of Communications (Ofcom), is pushing for tighter internet control through proposed amendments to the Online Safety Act. Detailed in a 309-page consultation document, these measures target livestreams and podcasts, which Ofcom deems “medium to high risk” for harms like terrorism and hate speech, according to The Spectator. While the stated goal is to enhance online safety, critics warn that these plans could severely restrict free speech and transform the UK’s digital landscape into a heavily censored “digital Eastern Bloc.”
Ofcom considers livestreams—encompassing podcasts, online meetings, and educational courses—particularly risky due to real-time human interactions. The proposed measures go well beyond protecting children from online predators, targeting all services at “medium or high risk” of various harms. Operators would face costly compliance requirements, as the reporting systems would cost £19,000–£68,000 (€22,800–€81,600) to implement and £17,000 (€20,400) annually to maintain, being supported by trained staff and specialized software. Platforms with over 700,000 monthly users must scan for illegal content, with annual costs ranging from £9,000 to £260,000 (€10,800–€312,000). Additionally, livestreams may be monitored by paid moderators, and recommender systems could be required to flag potentially risky content, which might suppress legitimate news or discussions. Ofcom also hints at future measures, such as identity verification, and references the BritCard as mandatory digital ID as a potential enforcement tool.
Critics argue that Ofcom’s proposals could dismantle online communities and stifle open debate. Livestreams, vital for modern freedom of association, may become unviable for smaller platforms, forcing them to shut down or avoid the UK market. This could entrench the dominance of large tech companies, reducing digital diversity. The UK’s freedom of speech is already under strain, with the Online Safety Act prompting an 1,800% surge in VPN sign-ups (reported by Proton) as users seek workarounds. Offshore platforms are also gaining traction, with some, like US-based 4chan and Kiwi Farms, challenging Ofcom’s claim of global jurisdiction in court. Critics warn that these measures could exacerbate censorship, limiting access to information, and produce a chilling effect on free expression. Ofcom acknowledges potential infringements on freedom of expression, association, and privacy but deems them “proportionate” to mitigated harm.
Amazon’s Push for AI-Powered Surveillance in U.S. Law Enforcement
Amazon is aggressively promoting Amazon Web Services (AWS) AI-driven surveillance tools to the U.S. law enforcement, tapping into an $11 billion police technology market, according to Forbes.
For instance, AWS demonstrated a drone-based AI prototype to the San Diego Sheriff’s Department that detects weapons and objects in real time, relaying location data to police. Although the Sheriff’s Department declined this prototype, AWS has still secured a foothold through partnerships. The department chose Nomad Media as its service provider, which uses AWS’s cloud infrastructure, and object detection is supported by Rekognition —Amazon’s AI-powered image and video analysis tool.
Since mid-2023, AWS—led by a former Washington state police officer— has targeted new customers among U.S. law enforcement agencies like the San Diego Sheriff’s Department and King County, Washington. Amazon’s strategy includes networking at conferences and events, such as the 2024 Justice and Public Safety Innovation Day in Irvine, California, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Denver in October 2025. There, AWS promotes its own and partners’ solutions, including: vehicle tracking ($7.5 or €6.9 billion market, Flock Safety); database-connecting AI (Flock Safety); real-time crime center applications ($1.5 or €1.38 billion market, C3 AI, Revier Technologies); weapon detection ($80 or €73.6 million market, ZeroEyes); AI for police report generation (Abel AI, Mark43); systems for identifying and tracking individuals in videos or social media. These tools operate on AWS’s cloud, and AWS assists partners in securing grants, such as Riverside County’s access to California’s $242 million (€222.64 million) retail theft fund.
Privacy advocates, including the ACLU, raise concerns about Amazon’s law enforcement ties. Rekognition has faced criticism for misidentifying non-white faces, and Amazon’s partnership with Axon enables police access to Ring camera footage. A 2020 sales ban on Rekognition was lifted in 2024 for the U.S. Department of Justice, fueling further controversy over potential authoritarian overreach.
Despite these concerns, law enforcement agencies value AWS’s role in delivering innovative technologies. While the San Diego Sheriff’s Department abandoned the drone prototype, AWS’s collaboration with C3 AI on Project Sherlock— an $11 million initiative to consolidate and analyze surveillance data across departments, involving the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office and 15 other agencies—has been praised, but also placed under scrutiny, as some San Mateo officials estimate that three years and $11 million later, they haven’t seen any benefits.
Amazonian Forests Thrive on Rising CO₂, Boosting Larger Trees
In a joint study by the Amazon Forest Inventory Network (RAINFOR), researchers analyzed changes in tree size structure in mature Amazonian forests over three decades (1971–2015) and found clear evidence of increase in tree size and basal area, with no significant evidence that climate change has led to a decline in the number or size of larger trees.
The researchers used data from 188 long-term monitoring plots in the Amazon basin, including data from lowland tropical moist terra firme forests in South America. The monitoring plots, averaging 1.2 ha in size, were monitored for an average of 13 years, with censuses conducted between 1971 and 2015. The researchers studied trends in tree size, basal area (BA), and stem frequency. The aim of the study was to understand the effects of increasing CO₂ levels, nitrogen deposition, and climate stressors.
The researchers concluded that clear and pervasive structural changes are taking place in the Amazon forests, with an increase in tree size across all size classes, particularly for larger canopy trees, which is likely to be due to CO₂ fertilization. These results support a combination of the “winners-take-all” hypothesis, according to which large trees benefit disproportionately from resources, and the “carbon-limited benefit” hypothesis, according to which understory trees also benefit from reduced light suppression. The lack of decline in the abundance or size of large trees suggests that resource-driven growth has outweighed climate-related mortality risk. This indicates that CO₂ fertilization has enhanced resource availability for trees, and the authors found no evidence that climate change has reduced the number or size of larger trees.
The study highlights the Amazon’s continued role as a carbon sink, but warns that increasing climate stressors could threaten this dynamic in the future, emphasizing the critical role of large trees in the forest’s carbon balance.