American Censorship Intensifies in the Information War

Some reflections after being cancelled / banned by YouTube

Reports from around the world reveal that the US is intensifying its censorship regime. The US has seized the online domain of Iranian media, banned Russian media, allocated billions of dollars to smear China in international media, forcing TikTok to either be sold or banned, pressured censorship on Al Jazeera, banned Africa Stream, and is pressuring countries around the world to conform to the US censorship regime.

While some larger countries such as India have been able to resist pressure from the US, smaller countries are seemingly bowing to the mounting pressure to follow orders in the intensifying information war. The government-funded “non-governmental organisations” (NGOs) established under the Regan doctrine to manipulate civil society on behalf of the intelligence community are doing their part to censor dissent, and digital platforms are under immense pressure to censor on behalf of the US government. A recent report by the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee exposed how the Biden White House coerces Big Tech companies such as Facebook, Google and Amazon to censor content.[1] Mark Zuckerberg expressed regret that Facebook bowed to pressure from the US government to censor correct information, although he appears to be paying lip service to free speech as censorship has been normalised and continues unabated.  

A few weeks ago, I was warned that Google’s YouTube had begun to delete large accounts that take a critical view of the wars of the US and NATO. I was able to diversify away from YouTube before they finally came for me. The cancellation made me think of Orwell’s thoughtcrime: I received an automated email from YouTube informing me that their AI had detected “hate speech” and my account had therefore been deleted. No examples, no evidence and no warning. I complained as it seemed too absurd to censor an academic based on such a bizarre and unsubstantiated accusation, yet I only received another automated rejection.

As a professor of political science, I used my channel to interview some of the world’s leading academics, economists, military leaders, politicians, ambassadors and even a president. The purpose of my channel was to have open discussions with important voices that the media largely ignores as their arguments do not fit the narratives sold to the public. Anyone who watched my programs knows I have never uttered anything that could be interpreted as hate. But control is always sold as compassion.

How did we get to this point? How did the US abandon freedom of speech as one of its most sacred principles and a cornerstone of its liberal identity?

Incrementalism: Normalising Censorship and Cancellation

The normalisation of censorship was achieved through incrementalism to minimise opposition as the frog was slowly boiled. Incrementalism or salami tactics entail making many smaller steps to minimise public scrutiny and resistance.

The first stage towards normalising censorship and cancellation is to set a precedent with a seemingly minor and justified case, which can be framed as protecting the public rather than being an act of oppression. The initial censorship must be supported by reasonable moral or security concerns to achieve consent from the public, and the target should be a despised fringe actor. In the beginning, the government will not involve itself directly and limits itself to cautiously expressing understanding for the censorship and cancellation. Even the word censorship is avoided and replaced with “content moderation” and “de-platforming”. Vague concepts such as “hate speech” and “propaganda” are used to justify censorship as they cannot be clearly defined. The vagueness of these concepts allows for incrementally expanding the range of speech that is criminalised and to apply censorship selectively. Support from the intelligence agencies and media is imperative to convince the public that free speech is a privilege and not a right. Gradually, censorship is normalised among the public and the need to justify it goes away.

The surprise election victory of Donald Trump in 2016 and the focus on fake news created a panic that made the public more receptive to censorship. The de-platforming and cancellation of Alex Jones in 2018 was the initial step in the normalisation of removing people from the new public square. There was a strong moral case for censorship as Alex Jones accused the grieving parents of the children murdered at Sandy Hook for being paid actors. This was one of the most despicable ways possible to exercise free speech, thus a perfect case to introduce censorship and cancellation. The public could be convinced it was an exception to the principle of free speech, rather than setting a precedent to be aggressively expanded.

Incrementalism was evident as the “de-platforming” of Alex Jones as a fringe character was considered controversial, yet by January 2021 Twitter could de-platform the sitting president of the United States. The Washington Post published a blacklist of 200 websites accused of being “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda”, a list that included publications such as Antiwar.com, Wikileaks and the Ron Paul Institute.[2] The blacklist largely defined Russian propaganda as criticism of mainstream media, NATO, the EU, Obama, Clinton, Merkel and other establishment figures. Google used the blacklists to alter its algorithms and YouTube demonetised several of the sites. This was also a warning shot to other journalists and news sites: engage in self-censorship or be censored. The digital platforms are under less and less pressure to justify their censorship, and the suspicion has shifted to the people opposing censorship who must now explain themselves.

The Ministry of Truth: Who Defines Legal Speech?

The First Amendment in the US protects free speech against censorship, but it does not protect against corporate censorship. The US government thus imposes its censorship through third parties, yet the government’s involvement in censorship incrementally becomes more overt as the criminalisation of dissent and speech is normalised.

US propaganda was more effective than Soviet propaganda during the Cold War as the US could use third parties in the private industry to enhance source credibility, which is imperative for political propaganda and censorship. Facebook established a partnership with the Atlantic Council to “fight disinformation”, a think tank financed by the arms industry and the US government. Facebook also had a partnership with the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) to counter “disinformation”, which are both financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The Reagan administration established NED to manipulate civil society, a “non-governmental organisation” financed by the government and staffed with people linked to the intelligence community. The objective of the Reagan doctrine was to enable the CIA to “hide in plain sight” as covert operations could be overt if done under the guise of defending democracy and human rights.[3] Facebook also partnered with several large media companies such as the New York Times, CNN and News Corp to control and restrict the content of their rising rivals.

Zuckerberg aligned himself with the US government by defining fight against “disinformation” as fighting in the US information war against rival states. Zuckerberg penned an op-ed in 2018 arguing that protecting democracy required the “combined forces of the U.S. private and public sectors” to combat “bad actors” such as Russia, Iran and other states that Washington considers adversaries.[4]

By August 2024, Zuckerberg argued that he regretted bowing to the pressure to censor at the behest of the US government.[5] Zuckerberg admitted that during Covid, Facebook censored correct information, humour and satire. Zuckerberg also acknowledged censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020, which was direct election interference in favour of Joe Biden. In the middle of the US presidential election, the incriminating information on Hunter Biden’s laptop was leaked to the media. More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter published in Politico that claimed it was a Russian disinformation campaign.[6] Twitter and Facebook immediately censored the New York Post and prevented the story to be shared. The Washington Post insisted that the mere accusation of Russian interference justifies censorship: “we must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation – even if they probably aren’t”.[7] One year after Politico the censorship campaign, Politico confirmed the authenticity of the emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop.[8]

Controlling the Digital Public Square

As the American censorship regime intensifies, there is a growing demand for alternatives that must be restrained. Twitter and Facebook users responded to the growing censorship by migrating towards Parler as an alternative social media platform. In a spectacular coordinated attack, Apple and Google suspended the Parler app from their platforms, while Amazon expelled Parler from its servers. The entire social media site thus disappeared and control was restored.

Elon Musk then bought Twitter to restore free speech. Musk even readmitted Alex Jones on the platform to correct the original sin of America’s censorship regime, and to communicate that free speech is not limited to speech we agree with. The pressure began immediately with advertisers being pressured with withdraw from the platform. The EU’s Censorship Czar Thierry Breton (“digital enforcer”) warned Elon Musk against broadcasting a live interview with Donald Trump as the interview could have possible “hate speech” and “harmful content”.[9] The EU eventually walked back the “pre-crime” effort of censoring dangerous speech in an interview that had not yet happened. Yet, EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, calls for “pre-bunking” fake news. Debunking entails exposing false information, while “pre-bunking” entails more gatekeepers, smearing and censorship before the fake news appears. The inability to engge in censorship on this important digital platform has resulted in growing calls for the arrest of Elon Musk and the cancellation of Twitter/X.[10] A precedent exists already as France banned Rumble in November 2022, a popular free-speech platform and alternative to to the more authoritarian YouTube.

As all American digital platforms are vulnerable to censorship, the obvious answer seems to be to use foreign platforms. Telegram has become a key rival to the American platforms, and the platform was moved to Dubai after coming under pressure from the Russian government. However, it was eventually the French government that arrested the CEO Pavel Durov on a trip to Paris. It is not known if France was able to obtain backdoor access to the platform.

The US Tools to Control Speech Become More Overt and Aggressive

The Western formula for censorship relies on a concentration of communication power. In 1932, Aldous Huxley famously wrote:

“In the totalitarian East there is political censorship, and the media of mass communication are controlled by the State. In the democratic West there is economic censorship and the media of mass communication are controlled by members of the Power Elite. Censorship by rising costs and the concentration of communication power in the hands of a few big concerns is less objectionable than State ownership and government propaganda”.[11]

Narrative control could be exercised without disrupting the illusion of free speech during the American-British monopoly over the information space. As the government loses control over the information space, the tools to control speech become more overt and aggressive. As the US government demands ever-more control over digital media to censor and cancel, we should expect more efforts by the US government to protect us all from “propaganda” and “hate speech”.

---

[1] ‘Weaponization Committee Exposes the Biden White House Censorship Regime in New Report’, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, 1 May 2024. Weaponization Committee Exposes the Biden White House Censorship Regime in New Report | House Judiciary Committee Republicans

[2] M. Taibbi, ‘The ‘Washington Post’ ‘Blacklist’ Story Is Shameful and Disgusting’, RollingStone, 28 November 2016.

[3] D. Ignatius, ‘Innocence Abroad: The New World of Spyless Coups’, Washington Post, 22 September 1991.

[4] T. Gerken, ‘Zuckerberg regrets bowing to Biden 'pressure' over Covid’, BBC, 27 August 2024.

[5] M. Zuckerberg, ‘Protecting democracy is an arms race. Here’s how Facebook can help’, The Washington Times, 4 September 2018.

[6] N. Bertrand, ‘Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say’, Politico, 19 October 2020.

[7] T. Rid,’ Insisting that the Hunter Biden laptop is fake is a trap. So is insisting that it’s real’, The Washington Post, 24 October 2020.

[8] R. Lizza, R. Bade, T. Palmeri, and E. Daniels, ‘Politico Playbook: Double trouble for Biden’, Politico, 21 September 2021.

[9] S. Starcevic, ‘EU’s Breton warns Musk on hate speech ahead of Trump interview; receives profane response’, Politico, 12 August 2024.

[10] D. Mackinnon, ‘Could Elon Musk actually be arrested and X cancelled?’, The Hill, 24 August 2024.

[11] Huxley, A., 1932. Brave New World. Chatto & Windus, London, page 133.