The Censorship-Industrial Complex: How Top Biden White House Officials Coercing Big Tech to Censor Americans, True Information, and Critics of the Biden Administration
you tube has censored all not of man you tube’s channels and team members for facts they lied about
Censorship-Industrial-Complex-WH-Report_Appendix.pdf
Biden-WH-Censorship-Report-final.pdf
Understanding the Practices of Global Censorship through Accurate, End-to-End MeasurementsUnderstanding the Practices of Global Censorship through Accurate, End-to-End Measurements – sigmetrics22.pdf
@YouTube @JoeBiden @GavinNewsom #gavinnewsom
The Censorship-Industrial Complex: How Top Biden White House Officials Coercing Big Tech to Censor Americans, True Information, and Critics of the Biden Administration** **Interim Staff Report of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, U.S. House of Representatives, May 1, 2024** **EXECUTIVE SUMMARY** On April 18, 2021, Sir Nick Clegg, President of Global Affairs at Meta, recounted a tense conversation with Andy Slavitt, a Senior Advisor to President Biden. Clegg expressed the gravity of the situation, stating, “Just got off [an] hour long call…
[H]e was outraged – not too strong of a word to describe his reaction – that we did not remove this post… removing content like that would represent a significant incursion into traditional boundaries of free expression in the US.” Slavitt’s concern stemmed from a post that compared COVID vaccines to asbestos poisoning, suggesting it undermined public confidence in vaccination efforts. This interim report details a months-long campaign by the Biden White House aimed at pressuring major tech companies—most notably Meta (Facebook), Alphabet (YouTube), and Amazon—to censor content online, including books, videos, and posts. By the end of 2021, these companies had made significant changes to their content moderation policies in direct response to pressures from the Biden administration. While the White House’s pressure campaign succeeded in many respects, its repercussions were detrimental. By suppressing free speech and distorting public debate in the digital public square, important ideas and policies were not allowed to be rigorously tested on their merits.
Instead, this censorship facilitated a series of public health measures that many have criticized as harmful, including prolonged school closures and vaccine mandates that compelled workers to take a newly developed vaccine or face job loss. The ongoing investigations, which include litigation and the revelations from the Twitter Files following Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform, have shed light on the behind-the-scenes efforts by the Biden administration to censor political dissent and disfavored viewpoints. For instance, on just the third day of the Biden administration, the White House reached out to Twitter (now X) personnel to demand the removal of a tweet by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., along with additional requests to monitor similar content.
The most critical evidence in understanding the Biden administration’s tactics has come from internal communications within the companies facing governmental pressure. The Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government issued dozens of subpoenas to gather tens of thousands of documents, revealing extensive interactions between the Biden administration and these tech firms. Companies such as Meta, Amazon, and YouTube consistently responded to perceived threats or pressures from the government, leading to policy changes aimed at limiting constitutionally protected speech. For example, Meta representatives expressed concern about needing to align with governmental expectations to maintain favorable business relations, stating that their compliance was driven by the need to address other critical issues, such as data flows with the administration.
On the corporate side, Amazon modified its policies regarding books critical of vaccines due to direct criticism from the Biden administration. Employees noted that their expedited policy changes were driven by pressures from the White House, illustrating the coercive atmosphere created by the administration. In a similar fashion, YouTube felt compelled to alter its misinformation policies regarding COVID-19, with executives indicating that appeasing the administration was essential for future collaborations. This interplay raises alarms for anyone vested in the preservation of free speech and highlights a troubling precedent of governmental influence over private platforms. These concerns transcend political boundaries; individuals across the political spectrum recognize the potential dangers of any administration wielding such power over public discourse. Amidst ongoing Supreme Court deliberations like **Murthy v. Missouri** and **Vullo v. NRA**, which examine cases of government censorship through indirect means, the challenges of defining lawful versus unlawful governmental communications become apparent.
While the government should rightly be able to flag illegal activities, blatant coercive tactics demanding censorship threaten the foundation of free speech protected under the First Amendment. The degree of secrecy surrounding these communications poses significant hurdles in ensuring accountability. The American public’s right to express themselves free from governmental oversight should not depend on sporadic disclosures or high-profile whistleblowers. An institutional commitment to transparency is required, necessitating that government officials document any requests for censorship from tech companies. This would not only cultivate accountability but also uphold the rights of individuals who find their speech unjustly curtailed. In conclusion, the revelations detailed in both the Committee’s report and the evolving narratives surrounding tech censorship underscore a pressing reality: Americans from diverse backgrounds and political affiliations must remain vigilant in safeguarding their rights to free expression.
The necessity of transparency in governmental communications with private corporations is imperative to ensure that democracy and the values it embodies endure unscathed from the pressures of censorship.
*References:* – House Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. (2024). *The Censorship-Industrial Complex: How Top Biden White House Officials Coerced Big Tech to Censor Americans, True Information, and Critics of the Biden Administration*. – Missouri v. Biden, 3:22-cv-01213 (W.D. La. Jan. 11, 2023). – “COVID-19: The Great Reset” by Klaus Schwab. – Ongoing Supreme Court Cases: Murthy v. Missouri, Vullo v. NRA.