Social media is more of a government agency than a private industry

The Biden administration has pressured social media platforms to act as a government agency to silence critics of his reign. There is tangible proof of this in the case of former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson.

Berenson practiced journalism during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic by displaying skepticism about the effectiveness of lockdowns, mask mandates and mRNA vaccines. Berenson scoured the data and asked some tough questions on Twitter. The social media service permanently suspended him – then later reinstated his account following a legal settlement – ​​for his audacity.

On Friday, Berenson released internal communications that revealed Biden aides held meetings with Twitter staffers in which the staffers demanded Berenson’s account be deleted before Twitter finally did.

“They really wanted to know more about Alex Berenson,” one Twitter employee wrote to another to describe a recent meeting with Andy Slavitt, senior adviser to President Biden’s COVID response team. “Andy Slavitt suggested that they had seen data namely [visualization] it had shown him to be the epicenter of misinformation beaming down at the persuasive public.

Berenson plans to sue the administration and Slavitt for violating his right to free speech. The lawsuit will seek definitive information about the extent to which the government influenced a social media service to suppress a dissenting voice against the policy.

Alex Berenson is suing the White House for violating his free speech rights. /President Biden/ via Getty Images, Fox Business

Proponents of social media censorship have correctly argued that free speech rights do not apply to private companies, such as Twitter. Yet we have a presidential administration that uses its power to turn private platforms into “state actors,” which public citizens can sue for restriction First Amendment Rights.

These internal communications show a government using a third party to subvert the foundations of the First Amendment. The US government does not have the legal ability to censor the public on its own. So here is an administration trying to seize unconstitutional power by heavily weaponizing a communications platform beholden to a protection called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

This is not a development to be taken lightly. We joked in a July column about a type of Chinese-style social credit system that is creeping into American society. But we shouldn’t have laughed. Berenson’s leaked posts specifically show high-ranking US officials using secondary channels to crack down on the online use of a topic that challenges a repressive government decision.

The Biden government pursued an uncanny control of the public conversation from the start. Authors of misconceptions should not publish in Biden’s America.

Last summer, the press secretary at the time, Jen Psaki admitted that the White House had identified “problematic” posts that Facebook should censor because they contained what the White House considered “misinformation” about COVID-19. A month later, Facebook announced that it had removed more than 20 million pieces of COVID “misinformation,” including posts that doubted that mRNA vaccines had stopped the spread.

In other words, Facebook, the world’s most powerful social media platform, deleted posts that accurately claimed that coronavirus vaccines don’t work the way our leaders have communicated. But the White House backed off and the Facebook brands gave in to submission.

Facebook has acted as a government asset, a topic that Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro discussed with OutKick at the time:

“The fact that the media and Democrats are now pushing to control Facebook is ugly authoritarianism. We need to step back on this level because in some cases it is actually government sponsored action. We have the White House telling Facebook to take things down. Now you consider Facebook an agent of the government. This is a First Amendment matter.

The public should know the extent to which Big Tech has governed on behalf of the administration. The ramifications are significant.

The impact of Twitter and Co. has gone beyond declaring gender pronouns and personal satisfaction.

Social media services have established an ability to manipulate perceptions of reality through rigged algorithms, disproportionate promotion of political views, and likely a group of NPC bots amplifying messages. Anonymous employees do editorial decisions on which links to populate, bury and label.

And we now know through internal communications that Twitter employees have been in contact with government officials over the past year while monitoring posts containing messages about the vaccine, violent threats, hateful rhetoric. and the redefinition of the most basic words of the English language, such as “woman.”

Suffice it to say, government interference in conversation through social media is the greatest threat to free speech in modern American history.

Were members of the COVID response team on Twitter’s ear when it banned Dr Li-Meng Yan, a former researcher at the Hong Kong School of Public Health, and other verified accounts for to have published clues that the pandemic originated from a laboratory in Wuhan? Many of the same government officials who lobbied for the vaccination mandates tried to crush that idea, a conspiracy turned into a probability.

Did Twitter ban users in April for, as it puts it, climate change deniall, or to question Biden’s use of related executive action?

Previous columns to OutKick:

The story won’t be kind to this weird world

The media lie to us like we still believe them

A politically compromised Twitter now proposes to moderate content before the 2022 mid-terms within the framework of acivic integrity policy. The same staffers who punished skeptics of the Democratic Party’s response to the pandemic will decipher the misinformation from the facts about the following issues: abortion, inflation, crime and education.

Think of it as a preemptive strike on the idea marketplace.

Twitter won’t decide the fate of the House and Senate on its own, though it plans to have an impact. More 16 percent of voters say they would have voted differently in 2020 had Big Tech not taken down an accurate account of Hunter Biden’s laptop story. Twitter and Facebook, not Trump and Russia, colluded to interfere in a presidential election.

Technology platforms are now the most common form of messaging in the country. They are the de facto editors of the press, the arbiters of truth and propaganda. There is hardly a greater asset to wield for a regime that has appointed a disinformation czar.

The most realistic equivalent of an Orwellian society is one in which the government can intercept the publication of ideas contrary to its dominant narrative – the precise mission of the Biden administration when it pressured Twitter to get rid of a practicing journalist.

This is the White House communicating with a social media platform in the context not of a private company, but of an agent of Joe Biden’s government.