Censorship

A dramatic escalation has happened in the information war between the US and Europe. Ofcom, the British media regulator that fancies itself as a global censor, has made a move. Ofcom sent a formal demand to Gab – an American social media platform with no legal presence in Britain – threatening it with ruinous fines unless it complied with the UK’s Online Safety Act. Gab’s reply to Ofcom was not polite. It was cold, clinical and lethal. Through its lawyers, Gab told Ofcom – with legal precision and unmistakable clarity – to get lost. This isn’t some polite regulatory disagreement.

A reporter has been restricted from posting on Elon Musk’s X for thirty days due to an article she wrote which The Spectator published over the weekend. The story itself has also been censored on X — you cannot post it on the site — with the reason given that it is “potentially harmful.” Here’s what happened. For months, there has been a social-media rumor that Elon Musk was operating an “alt account” under the pseudonym “Adrian Dittmann.” A number of users on the site were circulating it to make fun of Musk. Some media outlets — Newsweek, the New Republic, the Daily Mail — wrote up stories covering the rumor. None sought to examine its veracity.  Jacqueline Sweet, a contributor to The Spectator, began investigating the claims in late December.

For the illiberal left, it’s not enough that you submit to their cultural revolution. You must also underwrite it. This happens not only at the state level, with issues such as abortion and public-school curricula, but at the private level as well. A good recent example includes efforts by certain Wikipedia editors to censor mentions of a journalism award handed out recently to the journalist behind the so-called Twitter Files. Wikipedia: glad-handing for donations on the front end, while certain “master editors” censor factual events on the back end! On November 1, journalist Matt Taibbi received a journalism award for his efforts to uncover the incestuous relationship between Big Tech and censorious federal apparatchiks.

On July 4, our Independence Day, Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction ordering the federal government to immediately cease contact with social media companies, which it had been urging to censor protected free speech. Evidence unearthed in the Missouri v. Biden case, in which we are co-plaintiffs, has revealed a vast federal enterprise dictating to social media companies who and what to censor. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Surgeon General’s office, the National Institutes of Health, the FBI, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the White House itself were all closely involved.

Elon Musk, the owner of X — once known as Twitter, may she rest in peace — is making Americans an offer that they must refuse. When he purchased the social media platform last year for a whopping $44 billion, he led us to believe he was doing it in order to save free speech, an ideal in regard to which he said was an absolutist. Today, what he is actually offering instead is a censorship regime slightly more friendly to the right than his predecessor. It’s a recipe for disaster. Back during the bad old Twitter days of Jack Dorsey, most of us had a fairly consistent idea of how the site should moderate its content.