For the third time in less than five months, Congress has summoned tech CEOs, with the explicit intent to coerce them to censor more content.
In their zeal to control online speech, House Dems are getting closer to the constitutional line, if they have not already crossed it.
In 2018, the ACLU defended the NRA when it sued Cuomo and NY State for something similar: implicitly threatening businesses with punishment if they kept doing business with the group.
This is what ACLU's @benwizner told me about these latest efforts with Dems & Silicon Valley:
Increasingly, Dems and their corporate media allies are realizing they can seize power over social media platforms.
The First Amendment is implicated by these coercive actions as much as if Congress enacted laws explicitly mandating censorship of their political opponents.
The power to control the flow of information and the boundaries of permissible speech is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. It is a power as intoxicating as it is menacing.
Remember: the last time Congress summed social media CEOs to be interrogated, Sen. @EdMarkey left no doubt about what the demand of Democrats is when doing this: we want you to censor more (and obviously, the content they want censored is from their political adversaries):
I wrote over the weekend about how Congress has summoned social media CEOs for the third time in 5 months, with the stated goal to pressure them to censor more.
Now House Dems are doing the same thing to cable execs. They want their critics silenced:
The only thing more stunning than watching the US Government forcibly close a speech, information and community social media platform that 170 million of its citizens voluntarily chose to use is seeing that it's Trump, almost alone in DC, fighting to keep it open:
If you think that TikTok was banned was due to fears of China, then you haven't been paying attention. That was the original impetus for it (including under Trump), but everyone involved says the reason it got enough votes was fear of Israel criticism:
A Globo e autoridades brasileiras alegaram que a descrição de Zuckerberg das ordens "secretas" de censura do Brasil eram "sem provas".
Isso é desinformação. Há provas esmagadoras para isso. Em abril, a @Folha publicou um Editorial condenando a censura de Moraes e seu sigilo:
Enquanto a Globo defendeu repetidamente Moraes e suas ordens secretas de censura — da mesma forma que defendeu tudo o que Sergio Moro fez — a Folha, em 2024, condenou repetidamente o esquema de Moraes como perigoso, antidemocrático e inconstitucional:
Left-liberal Twitch streamers and YouTube shows knew that to attract a pre-election audience (money), they had to tell their viewers Kamala was *clearly* winning.
So they randomly anointed a random Twitter user, @Ettingermentumv, into a data guru, who assured them all of it.
For months -- including just a couple weeks before the election -- this fraudulent partisan data guru kept saying the polls were wrong, the polling experts were wrong, the secret numbers he saw made clear that Kamala wasn't just ahead but ahead by a good distance.
This is as much a problem with partisan independent media as partisan corporate shows: they have to validate their viewers' desire to believe things even if untrue.
So after all the profit and Substack subscriptions were sold by this fraud, he wrote his "I-was-wrong" confession:
The belief that Joe Rogan and those like him are just an updated Fox News -- a non-stop messaging of right-wing ideology -- is beyond stupid.
Those podcasts grew organically: in part because they're not ideological or partisan. They're normal conversations: how humans speak.
Depicting Rogan as a far-right ideologue is something only those who never heard his show would say. AOC separated from Bernie's campaign after Bernie touted Rogan's endorsement.
He is a vehement defender of same-sex marriage. He believes in full freedom for adults' personal lives. He frequently argues that corporate power is suffocating the lives of ordinary people, etc. etc.
The most consequential - yet overlooked - Trump era change is many debates are no longer shaped by old left/right divisions, but instead by who loves, respects, and is loyal to institutions of authority (Dems) and who believes they're fundamentally corrupted (Trump supporters).
Today's NYT column by @ezraklein notes obvious exceptions (abortion, gun control), yet argues the key difference between Kamala and Trump voters is how much one likes US ruling institutions.
Hence, Dems love CIA, FBI, DHS, corporate media. Even views of corporate power changed.
@ezraklein Think about key debates. Which is right or left?
- Trust in large media corporations.
- Opposition to BigTech/state internet censorship.
- Opposition to funding endless wars (Ukraine).
- Eagerness to remain tied to NATO and EU-based institutions.