Censorship Industrial Complex

In this Op-Ed, Michael Shellenberger writes about a new private-public partnership our "betters" in DC have undertaken for our "own good". Thanks to the willing complicity of Silicon Valley, they've formed a shady agreement with tech platforms to actively censor people and try to sneakily circumvent the 1st Amendment freedoms we all take for granted for the good of government control.

He's calling it the Censorship-Industrial Complex recalling Eisenhower's remarks about the Military Industrial Complex, something not many here are big fans of. Shellenberger and Taibbi both testified this week on Capitol Hill about their experiences and findings with the Twitter Files. And the democrats predictably beclowned themselves over that.

For example, Rep, Sylvia Garcia seemed have no idea who Bari Weiss is and had to be informed, and then she went to make some awkward phrasing about Weiss, Shellenberger and Taibbi being in a threesome. There were also democrat concerns about Chrissy Teigen's freedom of speech as a display of whataboutism which seems to be the best they could come up with in the face of the balance of evidence about censoring COVID, Hunter Biden, vaccines, climate change, and more.

This is what we're facing:

But government officials have now been caught repeatedly 1) demanding censorship by social-media platforms of disfavored users and content, 2) often while threatening the legal basis for the companies’ existence, Section 230 and 3) financing others to do the same on their behalf.

“If government officials are directing or facilitating such censorship,” notes George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, “it raises serious First Amendment questions. It is axiomatic that the government cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly.”

I know we've had the Section 230 discussion time and again. It's the provision of the communications code that internet platforms generally operate under. It's the one that lets them say they are open use and they provide the platform for clients to use as they see fit to put content on. Then, they behave like publishers - editing the content through censoring. It's a topic we have gone around and around on. Generally, most reasonable people have little issue with the idea that private developers should have control over the content on their platform, but the sticky wicket is when the content control seems to have an agenda. Certain things are aggressively policed where other things are allowed that would seem to also need policing under the rules being applied.

The Twitter Files showed that suspicions were totally correct. The censorship and policing were, in fact, agenda driven.

Even worse, they showed that this was government backed and government prodded. So the government was policing political speech in a way the 1st Amendment does not allow for via backdoor means. Using intel agencies working with NGOs who then worked with the tech platforms, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes via threat of Section 230, the government was censoring speech not favorable to its own preferred agenda.

And indeed the US government has been funding others to “do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly.”

The brains of the complex reside in four organizations — the Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab and Graphika, with murky ties to the Department of Defense, the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

They appear to be working with multiple US government agencies to institutionalize censorship research and advocacy within dozens of other universities and think tanks.

They're building up the censorship apparatus all around us. And they aren't talking about it. They're just doing it, and we're being taxed to pay for it.

They also run influence campaigns via "fact-checking" operations, and if their opponents engage in the same thing? Well, they just call that "disinformation". It's like a running domestic cyberwar right underneath your nose where your brain is the battlefield. What will they make you believe? Although they don't really care that much about you (unless it's time to make you pull a lever) ... they're really after journalists and social-media execs. This is where we learn that valid hypotheses become "conspiracy theories" (go us) and the more you self-censor the more accurate your reporting will be. I feel sorry for Shellenberger after I read all this, and I just basically paraphrased an entire paragraph of his OP-ED here because this has been our lives now for how long?

It's creepy when you think about it.

In 2020, two influential organizations (the Aspen Institute and Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center) sought to undermine the ethic set in 1974 by The Washington Post and New York Times when the two papers published classified Pentagon documents, even though they were stolen.

The censors frequently justify their demands as preventing real-world harm, but have defined “harm” so broadly that they have justified Facebook censoring accurate information about COVID vaccines, for example, to prevent “vaccine hesitancy.”

And, increasingly, the censors say their goal is to restrict information that “delegitimizes” governmental, national-security and industrial organizations — a mandate so sweeping that it could easily be used to censor criticism of elected leaders.

We live in a world of safteyism, not freedom or liberty. If these people feel you are "harming" someone or something, then who cares about your liberty. But that shouldn't shock anyone. Look at the mindset of some posters here who think that if you express an opinion that makes them feel bad, no matter your intent in expressing it, even if it's just to open a discussion, then you should be silenced - enter censorship.

Now, look at the last paragraph. What happens when you think stability of government is more important than anything else? Sometimes, government needs to be taken down. Should the governments of Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hugo Chavez, Stalin, Hitler ... there are others throughout history of course, should they have been held stable above all? There comes a time when the people need to be allowed to speak out even if it threatens stability and delegitimizes the government and its institutions, and that is a right preserved in our Founding documents and reserved to the people.

We live in dangerous times, my friends.

a reply to: ketsuko

The leftist authoritarian bureaucrats are terrified of the truth, so they want to stifle it.
Truth, facts and logic to the left are like sunlight and holy water to vampires.


"Don't join the book burners... Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Information is the currency of democracy.” –Thomas Jefferson

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” — Benjamin Franklin


“When you censor me, you are not proving me a liar. You're telling the world that you fear what I might say.”
― George R.R. Martin

a reply to: ketsuko

Excellent OP!!!

Thanks to the willing complicity of Silicon Valley...

I think it's safe -- wise even -- to presume that it was intended complicity from the start. It was always the plan.

I think they originally underestimated the American people and never saw the explosion of independent citizen journalists and reporters coming. I think they really believed that all us little people are stupid and they could feed us all nonsense without challenge. LOL -- we showed them!!!

I think this level of censorship wasn't initially part of the plan, but became necessary to stop the independent citizen journalists and reporters. And just keeps growing as more and more citizens find their voice.

And I think Obama's Smith-Mundt Modernization Act which legalized and codified domestic propaganda was part of all this. If they can legally lie to us about the truth, then they can lie to us about untruths. At its root, it's all just government sponsored propaganda.

And funny you mention the Aspen Institute. I've been thinking in particular of a certain titled and entitled member... and why the hell a foreign prince (who refuses to give up his title) is given such a position to tell Americans what we can and cannot know or share. I've got a big problem with that.

Again, great OP!

a reply to: ketsuko

A by-product, of sorts, of the technology explosion that allowed everyone to publish their own thoughts.

That was simply too much competition for the preferred narratives, and so, the powerful seek means to squash those other streams of thought.

Cheers

a reply to: ketsuko

Well said, ket.

They are also working on the "means" of manipulation via CBDC and Digi ID.

We have the power, if we decide we have the power.

That scares the beejeepers out of them.

The government has most likely been doing this for far longer than we know

You don't have to burn books when you can just make Shure they never get published

It's not really propaganda if the person writing it is no longer a government employee

The next one will be computer generated content with social media if they can't get away with censoring they will just overwhelm the truth with bots yes this is already done but it will be on a much larger scale to drown out the truth

a reply to: markovian

There is also the idea of digital licensing and digital copies.

Look at what they tried with Roald Dahl's books. People who owned them digitally had their copies backdoor edited without being asked. I believe it was reversed this time because of outcry, but the idea that it just happened without anyone being asked is something I've been leary of for a while. It's entirely predictable.

And how long before that news story you read yesterday or two days ago is just a bit different than you thought you recalled when you go back to check your recollections?

Or how long before you go back to check anything you thought you recalled and that "fact" is something else?

How many kids are there who aren't being taught to master knowledge for themselves, only to Google it? So they look up the same fact over and over without ever learning it? So what happens when they look up 2+2 and today it's 4 but tomorrow it's actually 5? How many will know any different?

Well said mate truly thank you for the well thought out synopsis of the Op-Ed.

People are standing up and speaking out , the problem is the well organized opposition to any and all Free-Thinkers . In this modern Society mate reaching in to your own mind and forming your own opinion from your own moral authority makes you an out-cast .

To be ostracized from the group is a terrible feeling and that is the main weapon of Modern Society , you are bullied into submission . Most are brain washed in College and High School honestly I can't have a conversion with a young person from this current generation .

I don't like to call anyone stupid but young people coming up today are genuinely 'Stupid' , The Internet and Modern Education have successfully created the Stupidest generation I've ever seen.

originally posted by: ketsuko

Thanks to the willing complicity of Silicon Valley..

Great thread mate although would say rather than the US Gov being 'complicit' with Silicon Valley they are simply one in the same.

Also thought some very pertinent points were made here about the Twatter files.

a reply to: karl 12

The problem is with large, bureaucratic power structures in general.

The larger they are with the more ability to take and hold power, the more they are going to attract the wrong sort of people. This is the one thing people refuse to see about government structures that demand total control - the apology almost always boils down to a version of "the wrong people were in charge". They simply don't understand that they will never, ever find and get the "right" people in power. The "right" people for what they want never seek power and will always be ousted if they do somehow get there.

Between the ones who are simply out to use their positions to enable their own sloth and greed and the ones who genuinely want to control everyone else, large power structures are a menace to society. And it doesn't honestly matter whether we are talking government or corporate or even religious. If it can take and enforce its will, then it will be full of bad folks and corrupt.

In this case, we see government working with corporate.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: karl 12

The problem is with large, bureaucratic power structures in general.

The larger they are with the more ability to take and hold power, the more they are going to attract the wrong sort of people. This is the one thing people refuse to see about government structures that demand total control - the apology almost always boils down to a version of "the wrong people were in charge". They simply don't understand that they will never, ever find and get the "right" people in power. The "right" people for what they want never seek power and will always be ousted if they do somehow get there.

Between the ones who are simply out to use their positions to enable their own sloth and greed and the ones who genuinely want to control everyone else, large power structures are a menace to society. And it doesn't honestly matter whether we are talking government or corporate or even religious. If it can take and enforce its will, then it will be full of bad folks and corrupt.

In this case, we see government working with corporate.

Was gonna do a thread about this video, I don't know how anybody can watch this and not see the serious problems and who is behind it

a reply to: ketsuko

Another thought that just occurred to me too:

In the past, people would challenge for evidence of a story in the mainstream sources? This explains why you may or may not see evidence of certain things in the mainstream sources. It isn't that the story doesn't exist or may not be important; it could simply be that it's being suppressed.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I know we've had the Section 230 discussion time and again. It's the provision of the communications code that internet platforms generally operate under. It's the one that lets them say they are open use and they provide the platform for clients to use as they see fit to put content on. Then, they behave like publishers - editing the content through censoring. It's a topic we have gone around and around on. Generally, most reasonable people have little issue with the idea that private developers should have control over the content on their platform,

Ummm... no. In order for a company to enjoy Section 230 protection, they explicitly can not act as a publisher by moderating content. They must act strictly as a platform, and remain 100% agnostic with regard to the content, with the sole exception of removing illegal content (child porn, direct threats of or incitement of violence, etc.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I feel like they can lay down rules at the outset, but you have to be crystal clear.

For example, if you want an open platform for craft brewers, then that's acceptable. You have every right to disallow someone who is not a craft brewer and wants to use your platform for content unrelated to that. But you can't pick and choose craft brewers or disallow discussions on stouts as opposed to IPAs because you dislike one or the other.

a reply to: ketsuko

It is long past time for the law to do its job. Thats what it gets paid for.

a reply to: ketsuko

Spot on Kets.


Not holding my breath for anything to be done about it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tanstaafl

I feel like they can lay down rules at the outset, but you have to be crystal clear.

For example, if you want an open platform for craft brewers, then that's acceptable. You have every right to disallow someone who is not a craft brewer and wants to use your platform for content unrelated to that. But you can't pick and choose craft brewers or disallow discussions on stouts as opposed to IPAs because you dislike one or the other.

Well, of course, Section 230 only deals in whether or not the platform is engaged in censoring/restricting the content. If they are, then they are not acting as a neutral platform, they are acting as a Publisher, and become liable for all of the content that is on there, because they are actively censoring it. They can do it, they just lose Section 230 protection.

But as long as they don't censor the content - beyond removing content that is strictly illegal as I described before - then they are fine.

Section 230 is a good thing, without it, the internet would never have become what it was before big tech started massively censoring things they just didn't agree with or like. I'm not saying it couldn't be improved, I think it definitely could be, but haven't given it much thought.

a reply to: ketsuko

The crazy thing about the whole thing is that it is so unnecessary.

Folk want to know what is going on. If the truth is told all it takes is for them to put out another lie. Dox the truth teller, or just paint them as a liar or just plain crazy. Label them as a phobe of some variety, or with some kind of “ fill - the- blank” syndrome.

People just want something to talk about, get angry about, get offended about, and feel right about.

They are safe because we are good at talking about stuff, but we are really lousy about doing anything. They have the game rigged. It is working brilliantly, why fix what is not broke.

So whatever it is about, it is not what they say it is about.

Maybe the crap is already on its way to the fan, and they are just getting a head-start.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I think it's just because a little control isn't enough control. They are pushing for all the control. It's so much easier than having to play games.

Right, as if we need more "complexs"

Military industrial complex
Intelligence industrial complex
Bio pharmaceutical industrial complex

..now censorship industrial complex

All these complexs do is kill an insane number of people and generate insane profits for the elites.