WATCH: Babylon Bee CEO Explains Why Experts Should NEVER Be Censors

The CEO of a popular satire site summed up exactly why no expert should ever have the ability to determine what free speech is allowed. Private experts, Big Tech employees and government officials alike have all appointed themselves arbiters of what speech should be censored and what speech will be allowed. This anti-constitutional attitude is also totally out of touch with a basic fact, one which The Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon highlighted as a “knock-down argument” against censorship: experts can be wrong. Because of this fact, “dissent must not only be allowed, but encouraged,” Dillon posted on X (formerly Twitter) on April 17. Dillon included a clip of his 2023 testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee besides his written comment. “Whenever we learn that censorship has blocked something true (like the Hunter Biden laptop story), we always hear the same excuse: ‘We censored it based on what we knew at the time,’” he wrote. But, according to Dillon, “This is not a defense of censorship. In fact, it's a knock-down argument against it.” Media Research Center poll data previously illustrated that censorship of the Hunter Biden scandal swayed the 2020 presidential election in then-candidate Joe Biden’s favor. Related: ‘A Knock-Down Argument’: Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon Calls Out Hypocritical COVID-19 Censorship Dillon explained further, “If knowledge changes over time, then the last thing we should ever do is pretend it doesn't by preemptively shutting down the debate.” He concluded, “If it's even possible that the ‘experts’ and authorities are wrong — and we know they often are — then dissent must not only be allowed, but encouraged.” The X post also included a clip of Dillon, responding to a question about censors’ objectivity during the 2023 congressional hearing.  In it, Dillon referred to censors’ supposed credibility as a “pretty good joke” and added, “In the whole fact-checking apparatus … there’s unbelievable hubris in the whole project. You know, this idea, especially when we’re talking about medical information too, I often hear people going back say, ‘Well, it was based on what we knew at the time.’” Again, Dillon emphasized, this simply highlights that one’s knowledge can alter over time. He then stated the “knock-down argument” against censorship which he also wrote in his post. Indeed, America has a First Amendment to protect free speech and open debate. You May Also Like: WATCH: Babylon Bee CEO Calls Censorship ‘The Issue for Our Time’ The Babylon Bee is a member of the Free Speech Alliance. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Bias Revealed? Guess Where the Trump Jurors Get Their News From

Five Trump jurors reportedly get their news from a tech giant notorious for its leftist bias. Fox News released information April 17 on the seven jurors chosen for former President Donald Trump’s supposed “hush money” criminal trial in New York. Answers provided by the jurors reveal five of them receive their news from Google News, which media ratings firm AllSides describes as “lean left.” Two of the jurors also find news on TikTok, the communist Chinese government-tied app currently under scrutiny as a national security risk. While Fox noted that the jurors were asked questions about their opinion of Trump, they do not seem to have been screened for other types of bias. AllSides, based on independent review and community feedback, rates Google News “lean left” and explains that 63 percent of the tech giant’s news feed sources are leftist. AllSides has apparently not rated TikTok’s news bias, but the app, which is owned by Chinese ByteDance, is certainly concerning from a national security standpoint. The U.S. House recently advanced legislation to force TikTok’s separation from ByteDance. This came not long before a Fortune interview of former employees revealed disturbingly close China ties from TikTok. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent ByteDance. MRC Free Speech America rated TikTok one of the top Big Tech censors of 2023. Google might not have direct CCP ties, but its anti-freedom, biased record raises concerns. MRC Free Speech America did a series of bombshell studies exposing Google search results bias in favor of Democrats and against Republicans before the 2022 and 2024 elections. President Joe Biden was among the Democrat candidates favored, while Trump’s website was consistently suppressed. Most recently, a comprehensive MRC study exposed a whopping 41 times Google interfered in U.S. elections since 2008. Such blatant bias against Trump and other Republicans and Democrats reinforces the argument that Google News is biased and unreliable. It is therefore concerning that five jurors in Trump’s trial source their news from Google. Soros-tied Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg revived the charges against Trump of alleged “hush money” payments to a porn star despite evidence against the alleged crimes. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Google at 650-253-0000 and demand it be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Color Me Shocked? Ex-TikTok Employees Blow Whistle on Chinese Access to App

A group of former TikTok employees is sounding the alarm on the company’s disturbing ties to the communist Chinese government. Fortune interviewed 11 former employees, some of whom stated that TikTok does have close operational ties with its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. Furthermore, the employees admitted that ByteDance’s “independence from China was largely cosmetic” and the China-based company received vast amounts of data. These revelations highlight the national security risks creating a firestorm of controversy around the popular TikTok app. “The allegations … create more fodder for critics who fear the Chinese government could use TikTok as a sort of Trojan Horse to spy on Americans by sifting through the huge amounts of digital data that it collects,” Fortune explained. The House of Representatives recently voted to advance legislation that would force ByteDance to sell TikTok if the latter is to operate in the United States. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent ByteDance. Former TikTok senior data scientist Evan Turner told Fortune that he always answered to a Chinese ByteDance executive despite an alleged alteration in his chain of command. Turner was also required to email detailed data about twice a month on “hundreds of thousands of U.S. users to ByteDance workers in Beijing.” As he told Fortune, “I literally worked on a project that gave U.S. data to China.” Anton Dahbura, executive director of Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute, told Fortune the data — including IP addresses, names and geographic location — could be “very damaging” in the wrong hands.  Patrick Spaulding Ryan, TikTok’s lead technical program manager for security engineering until 2022, added another piece of concerning information. Ryan said that some of TikTok’s internal software was monitored and maintained by China-based ByteDance teams. Fortune added that it was impossible to assure prospective customers that U.S. data for the shared internal messaging system Lark was safe and secure. While TikTok executives are attempting to convince American users and politicians that the app is independent of China and not subject to CCP spying and data mining, the new information raises questions. Multiple former employees even admitted to being pressured by the company to downplay TikTok-ByteDance ties, either to the public or to fellow employees. But if what these employees say is true, TikTok truly is a national security risk. Conservatives are under attack. Contact TikTok via email at communitymanager@tiktok.com and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment and provide transparency. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

FrontPage Magazine Doubles Down Against Big Tech Giants: ‘We Won’t Censor Ourselves’

One outlet is accusing Big Tech, especially Facebook, of silencing the truth about radical Islamic terrorism. Daniel Greenfield, a journalism fellow for FrontPage Magazine’s David Horowitz Freedom Center, announced on April 15, “[W]e won’t censor ourselves for Big Tech cash.” He noted that Google, Twitter and Facebook (owned by Meta) have all censored individuals connected with the outlet, with Facebook being the latest culprit. Most recently, Greenfield wrote, Google AdSense demonetized FrontPage and Facebook disabled the account of FrontPage Editor Jamie Glazov for discussing Islamic terrorism. Google continues to censor the magazine financially for a previous report about a San Bernardino terrorist attack, which FrontPage refuses to remove. More recently, Greenfield explained, Facebook disabled Glazov’s account over an interview headlined  “Oct. 7 Coming to the USA?” Facebook reportedly asserted that the interview, which discussed accused terrorists crossing into America through the open southern border, violated “community standards” and threatened “the security of people on Facebook.” Greenfield referred to a 2023 decision from Meta’s Oversight Board that the term “shaheed” or martyr, used by Muslims to refer to jihadis killed while engaging in terrorism, was protected by freedom of expression. In fact, according to Greenfield, pro-terrorist groups and jihadis have used Facebook without censorship over the years. He cited a 2021 report from Israel-based newspaper Israel Hayom on Facebook refusing to address terrorism-inciting content. Previous to that, in 2016, terror victims sued Facebook, accusing it of complicity in inciting terrorism, Greenfield added. More recently, one Israeli family found out about their grandmother’s death on Oct. 7, 2023, after Hamas posted a video of her gruesome death to Facebook. “Telling the story of the barbarous Hamas atrocities of Oct 7 got Jamie Glazov banned, but one of the little told stories of that day is how Islamic terrorists had used Facebook to taunt and terrorize the families of their victims,” Greenfield insisted. Greenfield wrote that he has been suspended by Facebook and Twitter. Individuals including Glazov, David Horowitz, JihadWatch’s Robert Spencer, and FrontPage contributor Raymond Ibrahim have all been censored for discussing Islamic radicalism, Greenfield reported. PayPal, Twitter, Google and Facebook censored the anti-terrorism content, despite hosting pro-terrorist content from others. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at (650) 308-7300 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “misinformation” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

‘Coincidence of Coincidences’: DHS Deployed State Dept. to Censorship Group Day of Hunter Biden Bombshell

A watchdog group obtained internal records showing federal agencies collaborating with private partners to crush online free speech before the 2020 election. Protect the Public’s Trust, a government watchdog, obtained never-before-seen emails that expose the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advising the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) on censorship collusion with Big Tech companies. Notably, one email came the same day as a bombshell New York Post report on Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop. MRC Free Speech America has reviewed the emails, which were initially reported by the Washington Examiner. The researchers of the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) had worked with DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) before the 2020 election and DHS recommended them to another major federal agency for censorship purposes. Both EIP and CISA representatives have tried to “downplay” their partnership and anti-free speech work amidst GOP Congressional scrutiny, the Examiner explained. However, the newly discovered emails appear to suggest a close working relationship. Protect the Public’s Trust Director Michael Chamberlain raised the alarm about the implications of such emails in an exclusive interview with MRC Free Speech America. “The more people dig into the Censorship Industrial Complex, the more federal agencies’ denials, disavowals, and defenses crumble. Agencies and offices that claim to never have been involved have left fingerprints all over the records we find.” EIP involved GEC, the University of Washington and the Stanford Internet Observatory. The new documentation comes soon after a 60 Minutes segment featured University of Washington researcher Kate Starbird claiming government and private entities had not colluded to pressure Big Tech into censoring content. The emails directly contradict Starbird’s claims. In his remarks to MRC, Chamberlain added, “Called out, they proclaim their efforts never focused on the speech of American citizens, yet there is overlap and evidence of close coordination between agencies involved in domestic matters and those involved in foreign policy, even helping each other make contacts and connections.”  In the unearthed emails, GEC reached out to EIP. “Our colleagues at the Department of Homeland Security/CISA recommended we talk to you about your current efforts to protect the 2020 elections from foreign interference,” then-GEC academic Adela Levis reportedly wrote in Oct. 2020. “There may be some synergies there with the work we’re doing. Warm regards, Adela.” The reply specifically highlighted Starbird’s leadership and government agencies’ anti-free speech “efforts.” GEC ended by being involved in the process of flagging content for social media to censor, the Washington Examiner reported. “EIP Team, I want to send my sincerest thanks for allowing me to participate in the Election Integrity Partnership as an analyst with the GEC,” enthused State Department employee William Beebe in December 2020. The same day GEC started working toward election interfering censorship, the New York Post story “Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad” was published, the Examiner reported. MRC poll data previously illustrated that censorship of Hunter Biden scandals swayed the 2020 election in Joe Biden’s favor. Emphasizing the election interference, Chamberlain told MRC: “Coincidence of coincidences, a State Department agency attempted to connect on the very day the Hunter Biden laptop story broke, one of the most egregious examples of a story being improperly dismissed and censored as ‘foreign disinformation.’” MRC Free Speech America Assistant Editor Luis Cornelio contributed to this report. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

ENOUGH: Jordan Increases Pressure on Gov’t-Big Tech Collusion

The House Judiciary Committee is aiming to uncover potentially more dystopian free speech violations from two major government agencies in coordination with five Big Tech companies. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) sent letters to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray regarding government pressure to crush free speech, according to an April 9 press release. Jordan also issued letters to the CEOs of Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Meta (which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp) and Alphabet (owner of Google and YouTube). “The Judiciary Committee is conducting oversight of how and to what extent the Executive Branch has coerced or colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor lawful speech,” the House Judiciary wrote. This comes as the House Judiciary Committee is also summoning three former Biden White House officials to testify on alleged government efforts to censor free speech. These officials are former White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, former COVID-19 Coordinator Andy Slavitt and former COVID-19 Digital Director Clarke Humphrey, according to the New York Post. Jordan’s Committee is taking action on the FBI-tech coordination since the Supreme Court stayed a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals injunction against government censorship activities. An FBI spokesperson confirmed on March 20 that the agency’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) is again communicating with tech companies, per the press release. Jordan is now warning the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI that “all documents and communications relating to ongoing discussions between the FBI and each Big Tech company fall within the scope of the Committee's [previous] subpoenas.” The records requested include potential communications between each tech company, the FBI San Francisco Field Office, and FITF, particularly regarding “alleged foreign influence or election integrity.”  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Make It Make Sense: Online Censors Demand Trust Despite Stifling Free Speech

Big Tech censors work to violate Americans’ constitutional rights and then turn around and demand implicit trust from those same Americans. This was evident from two recent events. Soon after Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi warned Americans to pay attention to the “mass censorship” occurring online thanks to public and private partners, a “disinformation” expert called on Americans to believe only “trusted” and pre-approved sources for election-related content.  Yet the very sources considered trustworthy by legacy media and social media platforms are the sources complicit in the suppression of free speech, particularly around elections. Indeed, Big Tech fact checks operate as a form of censorship, penalizing content to promote certain “trusted” viewpoints and outlets. For instance, during an April 2 panel for investigative media group Spotlight PA, Beth Schwanke, the executive director of the Pitt Disinformation Lab, recommended trusting biased, legacy media over free speech online debate.  “One thing everyone can do to make sure they are seeing accurate information is to use trusted sources,” Schwanke pontificated, according to a transcript by Reclaim the Net. “So in elections that means using the Department of State, that means using your county elections office, it means using media organizations that follow, that adhere, to professional journalism standards like … your local NPR affiliate.” She further scoffed, “And it doesn’t mean you know, ‘doing your own research’ and just asking questions and sharing, you know, posts from — I don’t know, in my case, it’s Uncle Joe, right?”  Yet, undercutting her claims, both government agencies and media outlets have supported or actively facilitated censorship, sometimes of accurate information. This is the Censorship Industrial Complex uncovered by the Twitter Files, created by government and Big Tech and defended by legacy media. Hence, Taibbi had a warning on March 25 at RealClearPolitics’ Samizdat Prize award ceremony.  Taibbi specifically cited the 2020 censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, censorship which swayed the presidential election for Democrat Joe Biden, according to a Media Research Center poll. While researching the Twitter Files, “we did find within days a whole galaxy of things that said, ‘Flagged by FBI,’ ‘Flagged by DHS,’ ‘Flagged by HHS,’ ‘Flagged By Treasury,’” Taibbi stated. The government was coordinating censorship of certain content with Twitter. “We realized there was this huge operation that spanned the entire federal government to pressure not just Twitter, but two dozen at least internet companies to suppress different kinds of information,” Taibbi added.  Certain journalists’ accounts were even flagged for censorship. “[We] were all caught up in this story of mass censorship that until very recently was hidden. This has to be out in the open more, people need to know more about it,” Taibbi insisted. Indeed, Big Tech platforms have fact-checking partners, often biased third-party censors or legacy media outlets. Meta-owned Facebook and Instagram and Google-owned YouTube all made MRC Free Speech America’s worst censorship of March list for preposterous fact checks.  The platforms impose labels that greatly reduce interaction with content based on the fact checks. X (formerly Twitter) Community Notes is somewhat different in approving users that can choose to fact check content, but the company still imposes demonetization and other penalties on posts that receive the Notes.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Soros-Funded Fact-Checkers: Who Cares About Free Speech, Our ‘Facts’ Are What Matter

A fact-checking network funded by leftist billionaire George Soros is trying to shift emphasis from free speech to pre-approved “facts.” Leftist Poynter Institute and its International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) only mentioned free speech once in its 2023-2024 Impact Report — and such a mention was only to highlight an individual’s award. Rather, Poynter emphasized “Facts on the global stage,” setting itself up as an arbiter of truth online. Poynter openly boasted about its work to suppress speech on social media platforms. Significantly, this report comes after Poynter Institute received $492,000 in grants from Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) between 2016 and 2019. Poynter only mentioned “freedom of expression” when it highlighted the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Filipina journalist Maria Ressa for defending free speech. Tellingly, Ressa now trains fact-checkers, which is the work Poynter aimed to highlight. Ressa’s news organization Rappler was a beneficiary of Poynter funds, as was USA Today, among others. “In 2023, Poynter’s IFCN awarded $1.875 million in grants to 55 different news organizations through IFCN’s GlobalFact Check Fund,” the group announced. “Poynter will award up to $4 million in additional grants in 2024.” In the report, Poynter highlighted its fact-checking work for Big Tech companies on its PolitiFact website. “PolitiFact checks claims on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok,” Poynter announced. “In 2023, we initiated fact-checking for native Spanish speakers and will launch a Spanish-language website in 2024.”  Poynter then bragged about its partners Stanford University (a U.S. government censorship proxy) Meta and Google-owned YouTube “to level a playing field full of misinformation.” As widely reported by MRC, misinformation is a common leftist catchphrase to justify censorship of free speech. In the same report, IFCN Director Angie Drobnic Holan raised the alarm that “[m]isinformation is on the march” and that “fact-checkers and other journalists face attack and harassment simply for doing their jobs.” Ignoring the fact that anti-free speech actions are a major factor in reducing trust in media, Holan then claimed, “We are on the side of truth. We are on the side of information integrity.” An example undermining Holan’s claims of objectivity is a 2020 article and Facebook fact-check still available on the Poynter-owned PolitiFact website. The article pushed the claim that “Russian operatives used a series of ‘active measures’ to hack campaigns, spread disinformation and sow discord in an effort to sway the election in favor of President Donald Trump.” PolitiFact cited and linked to the since-discredited Mueller Report, which actually found no evidence of “Russia collusion” with Trump. As former reporter and ex-Lake Elsinore Mayor Thomas Buckley noted in an April 5 Brownstone Institute piece, Poynter is anti-free speech and is not objective. “To the contrary, ‘fact-based expression’ demands both self and external censorship, a political, social, and cultural censorship that will drown out and drone on,” he wrote. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Worst of March: Big Tech Companies Renew Censorship-Heavy Ways

March closed with Resurrection Day (Easter or Pascha), the Christian celebration of Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead and renewal. Yet the most obvious thing Big Tech companies have renewed this past month are their censorship-heavy ways. From communist Chinese government-tied TikTok’s censorship of contraceptive-critical content to Google-owned YouTube terminating a therapy group channel for criticizing homosexuality, Big Tech went to bat for the woke, sexual and anti-pro-life ideology of the left in March. Facebook, Instagram and YouTube also “fact checked” content without any clear or defensible justification. Below are the worst examples of Big Tech censorship from this past month. 1) Communist Chinese government-tied TikTok censored content exposing side effects associated with contraceptives. The Washington Post released a report attempting to discredit women discussing the well-known side effects listed on the sizable warning label that comes with oral contraceptives. The Post bragged that it pressured TikTok to censor five videos after its inquiries about alleged “misinformation,” including videos by The Daily Wire commentator Brett Cooper, who hosts The Comments Section, and TikTok influencer Nicole Bendayan. The Post identified one censored video as being a clip from Cooper’s May 2023 appearance on the Iced Coffee Hour podcast, during which Cooper highlighted contraception’s worrying impact on weight gain, fertility, regular hormone function and romantic attraction.  Absurdly, while lashing out at “conservative[s]” for warning about the potential side effects of birth control, The Post neglected to mention its own reporting on oral contraceptive pill users’ increased risk for cervical cancer in 1977. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also documented substantial evidence of serious side effects from taking hormonal “birth control.” But no mention of that information either from The Post. The clip of Cooper garnered “219,000 ‘likes’ before TikTok removed it following The Post’s inquiry,” according to The Post. The TikTok video links now bring up the message, “Video currently unavailable.” A TikTok spokesperson claimed to The Post that the videos had “inaccurate, misleading or false content that may cause significant harm to individuals or society.”  It is key to note that the anti-American Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, and has reason to suppress and censor certain helpful American or CCP-related content. 2) Facebook fact checks paid ad for college course on globalist “Great Reset” movement. Hillsdale College ran a paid Facebook advertisement on the Meta platform to promote a free video class. "Are you aware of the idea of an economic reset? We discussed this at a recent CCA event and packaged the conversations into a free online video series so you can learn more about this economic reset and its effect on America today,” the ad read. Facebook imposed a “False Information” label, which appears either over or under the image. The label links to a warning: “False information. Independent fact-checkers say this information has no basis in fact. You can choose whether to see it.” Facebook bases this label on a Lead Stories fact check titled “‘The Great Reset’ Is NOT A Secret Plan Masterminded By Global Elites To Limit Freedoms And Push Radical Policies.” Hillsdale explains the Communist China-like “goal of the Great Reset.” The fact check merely cites the goals of the globalist World Economic Forum, originator of the Great Reset project, none of which refute Hillsdale's interpretation. 3) Google-owned YouTube accuses therapy group channel of “hate speech” against homosexuals. YouTube terminated the new channel for a therapy group critical of homosexuality. YouTube previously deleted the group’s channel in 2022 based on a hit piece from the same leftist group that again attacked the late Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s Reintegrative Therapy Association for alleged “conversion therapy.” The Daily Signal reported that Nicolosi’s son, who was in charge of the channel, received multiple communications from YouTube regarding a video in which the book “The Sissy Boy Syndrome: The Development of Homosexuality” was referenced. YouTube removed the video, claiming so-called “hate speech,” and another video the following day. YouTube initially admitted March 10 to the younger Nicolosi that the content did not violate the platform’s rules, but nevertheless, the next day, YouTube terminated the channel altogether. YouTube alleged “severe or repeated violations of [its] hate speech policy” and refused to alter its position after an appeal. 4) YouTube bafflingly fact checks news podcast. YouTube imposed a fact-checking label on Cumulus News Talk's March 14, 2024 video episode of the Rich Valdes America at Night Podcast. YouTube imposed a label on the video — “William Jacobson, Joseph Vazquez, & Nicole McCaw” — that linked to the “The Great Replacement” Wikipedia entry. The note’s summary pontificated, “The Great Replacement, also known as replacement theory or great replacement theory, is a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory espoused by French author Renaud Camus.” Vazquez stated that Valdes only mentioned the Great Replacement to say a leftist organization had accused him of promoting the theory.  5) Meta’s Instagram pushes fact checks of royal family photo. UK Princess of Wales Kate Middleton posted a photo of herself and her three children on the official Instagram page for “Prince and Princess of Wales” for UK's Mother's Day. Instagram imposed an interstitial on the photo, saying, “Altered photo/video. The same altered photo was reviewed by independent fact-checkers in another post.” The “See Why” link asserted that “Independent fact-checkers say the photo or image has been edited in a way that could mislead people, but not because it was shown out of context.” Middleton did state that she had attempted amateur photo-editing on the picture, though Instagram’s assertion that this “could mislead people” is not explained. According to Facebook, Instagram's sister-site, users fail to click through similar fact-check interstitials 95 percent of the time. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Is There a Global Assault on Free Speech? Latest Twitter Files Suggest So

A new installment of the Twitter Files has revealed a government campaign in Brazil to coordinate political censorship with Big Tech. Journalist Michael Shellenberger deplored the “sweeping crackdown on free speech” occurring in Brazil, particularly against supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro. The Twitter Files identify Alexandre de Moraes, head of Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court (TSE) and member of its Supreme Court (STF), as the alleged prime culprit in a congressional and judicial effort to crush political opponents’ speech, Shellenberger reported.  “De Moraes has thrown people in jail without trial for things they posted on social media,” Shellenberger revealed on the Twitter Files, also co-written by Brazilian journalists Eli Vieira and David Agape. “He has demanded the removal of users from social media platforms. And he has required the censorship of specific posts, without giving users any right of appeal or even the right to see the evidence presented against them.” According to Shellenberger, the Brazilian government had requested users’ data from major social media companies including Google, Facebook, Uber, WhatsApp and Instagram. He noted that these companies provided registration data and phone numbers without court orders and legal justification for such requests. Twitter’s Brazilian legal counsel Rafael Batista consistently tried to fight court orders for private information, Shellenberger explained. Unfortunately, compliance from other tech companies, particularly Google, in providing information to the government undermined Twitter’s stand. In response to these disturbing findings, Dan Schneider, the MRC Vice President for Free Speech, did not hold back, saying: “Brazil’s Supreme Court is authoritarian and a serial abuser of individual rights. Americans have a hard time understanding this since the Brazilian government is structured so differently, but it is no surprise that its Supreme Court is again silencing conservatives and trying to lock up those who criticize it.” Expanding on his response, Schneider added: “That Google would help support such an authoritarian monster is also not a surprise. Google has a long history of cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party while simultaneously refusing to work with our own Defense Department.”  While Twitter did push back against a criminal investigation and various suits, it did acknowledge censorship of an “extreme right” individual for COVID-19 content, per Shellenberger.  When Jair Bolsonaro supporters began criticizing TSE and STF, the government entities behind the alleged free speech assault, the courts aimed to have the users demonetized and suppressed online. Jair Bolsonaro and his son Carlos Bolsonaro were among the targets.  Shellenberger quoted Twitter’s Head of Legal Diego de Lima Gualda, “There is a strong political component with this investigation and the court is trying to put pressure for compliance.” The government not only sought to obtain information but also pushed to reduce interaction with specific content and “certain types of trending hashtags.” Twitter argued the latter was illegal. By November 2021, however, an appeals court demanded global Twitter removal of “specific URLs related to the plaintiff.” Shellenberger posted that even Brazil’s Federal Police (FBI equivalent) were involved in the TSE investigation by March 2022.  “On March 30, 2022, the day after de Moraes took office as president of the TSE, the TSE mandated Twitter to, within a week and under the threat of a daily fine of 50,000 BRL (US$ 10,000), supply data on the monthly trend statistics for the hashtags,” Shellenberger explained. IP addresses and subscription information were also requested ahead of the 2022 election. Even congressional members were targeted. Brazilian attorney Hugo Freitas told Shellenberger the pre-election pressure from TSE was “clearly abusive.” Despite this, Twitter eventually complied with de Moraes’ censorship requests. The government continues to escalate its efforts even now with proposed “Fake News” censorship legislation, Shellenberger added. “TSE’s censorship is an attack on the democratic process,” he concluded. “Elections can remain free and fair only if the public is able to debate and question election laws, systems, and results. If there ever is electoral fraud in Brazil, nobody will be allowed to talk about it, if de Moraes gets his way.” MRC Assistant Editor for Business and Free Speech America Luis Cornelio contributed to this report. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Taibbi’s Warning to NBC: Here’s Evidence Uncovering the Censorship Industrial Complex

Independent journalist Matt Taibbi has taken on deniers of government-private partnerships against free speech in a recent Twitter Files report. Taibbi issued the new report in response to NBC News smears accusing Taibbi, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk of shutting down vital government “disinformation” efforts with a “conspiracy theory.” Despite NBC News’s claims, Taibbi provided alleged documentation which showed clear and defined partnerships between federal agencies and private entities to coordinate censorship with social media platforms. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) were among those federal agencies. On March 27, Taibbi wrote in his Racket News piece, “Three separate investigations took over a year to nail down the case that government agencies were improperly censoring by proxy. Forced by courts to stop, they're desperately trying for a reboot.” His expose comes soon after a CBS News’s 60 Minutes segment tried to argue that private entities did not collude with the government to censor speech. The segment included comments from government censorship proxy Kate Starbird. Taibbi posted screenshots on X to support his case. These included evidence of the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), with which Starbird was involved, flagging content seemingly on behalf of the government for social media to censor. A message to DHS/CISA employee Brian Scully (the sender was unspecified) expressed regret “you won’t be joining us at Twitter.” This makes sense in light of earlier 2020 emails, one of which, from Twitter’s legal executive Stacia Cardille, declared “DHS want [sic] to establish a centralized portal for reporting disinformation.” Scully, who was cited as having ties to multiple federal agencies, was apparently a key player on the subject, which specifically aimed to undermine election-related information. The FBI was also implicated in many ways, per Taibbi, including through an email from agent Elvis Chan telling then-trust and safety head at Twitter Yoel Roth to set a date to share certain information. Roth promised, “We’ll discuss and get back to you.” In another message Taibbi shared, Roth voiced reservations about sharing information that he deemed more appropriate for a congressional investigation than an FBI request. Roth also protested the proposed DHS portal as “high-risk.” A congressional finding, Taibbi did not say from where, showed that DHS was involved with the portal behind the scenes. There was also an FBI letter to Twitter demanding information on metrics and how the platform “limit[ed] the scope of your analysis of the domestic, scam, foreign state, official propaganda, and white supremacist actors.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Google Censors Magazine for Daring to Publish Anti-Islamic Terror Content

Front Page Magazine says tech giant Google was censoring the outlet for reporting on Islamic terrorism. Daniel Greenfield, journalism fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, revealed in the organization’s flagship publication how Google AdSense was unusually explanatory when rejecting the Center’s application for the ad program. The Big Tech company reportedly cited a Front Page article discussing a terrorist attack and the radical Islamic beliefs of the perpetrators as objectionable. Google’s rejection of the application, wrote Greenfield, “told us what we could do to make our way into the good graces of the company that dominates online search and advertising, controlling what much of the country and the world sees.”  Specifically, Greenfield continued, “[a]ll we had to do was stop talking about Islamic terrorism.”  Google first accused Front Page, and especially Horowitz, of generally writing and hosting “dangerous or derogatory content.” Google referenced the 2021 piece, “Remember The San Bernardino Fourteen” by author Lloyd Billingsley. The piece provided details about a devastating and deadly 2015 terror attack in California, but also argued that the terrorists’ radical Islamic beliefs were a key factor. The article also criticized Kamala Harris, then California attorney general, for claiming the attack was not to be blamed on Islam, joined by terrorist-linked organization CAIR.  Greenfield rebuked Google for effectively defending radical Islamists: “Google would rather that you not remember the 14 victims or the Islamic terrorists who killed them.” Instead, wrote Greenfield, Google “has told us that we ‘must fix’ this and numberless other articles that it objects to. But what would it like us to ‘fix’ here? What else except the truth about Islamic terrorism[?]” “Billingsley’s article laid out the complicity of other family members of the Muslim terrorists in the attack, and the silence of Biden and Kamala about Islamic terrorism, and closed by urging, ‘remember the 14 innocents murdered by Islamic terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik on December 2, 2015, in San Bernardino, California, USA.,’” Greenfield wrote. Apparently, such framing was verboten for Google.  Google not only accused the San Bernardino Fourteen piece of being “derogatory” and “dangerous” but also containing “unreliable and harmful claims.” But Greenfield pointed out Google and other tech companies have a sordid history of foolish censorship, such as when Martin Luther King Jr.’s  “Letter From Birmingham Jail” was allegedly and ludicrously suppressed for containing the “n word.”  Running cover for radical Islamists and others considered protected groups by leftists appears to be par for the course for Google. MRC Free Speech America caught Google covering for jihadis as well, including its Gemini AI originally downplaying evidence of Hamas-inflicted rape. In a previous Supreme Court case, Gonzalez v. Google, Google argued that it could not be held liable for its YouTube algorithms promoting content from jihadis because of Section 230 immunity, yet Google appears to be actively covering for jihadis. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Google at 650-253-0000 and demand it be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Law Prof Warns SCOTUS Decision in Key Case Could Be Undoing of Free Speech Online

One legal expert is telling Americans that abridgment, not coercion, is the standard in a landmark free speech rights case. Philip Hamburger, a Columbia University legal scholar and CEO of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, took on what he argued is an incorrect standard for a landmark case. As the free speech case, Murthy v. Missouri, is before the U.S. Supreme Court, George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin argued for Reason Magazine that government “coercion” is the standard in determining constitutional violations. Hamburger, however, who represents most of the case’s individual plaintiffs, explained in a piece in Reason that the standard is abridgment, and the government does not have the power to violate Americans’ free speech, even if provable coercion is not involved. The “First Amendment bars government from ‘abridging’ the freedom of speech, and thus bars reducing that freedom,” Hamburger explained. He also noted that the amendment bars the federal government from “prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. Thus, abridgment and prohibition are distinct and separate standards. Indeed, Hamburger argued, “freedom of speech is violated by a mere reducing of that freedom, whether or not through coercion.” Some verbs in the Constitution are “generic,” but the First Amendment language is not, he wrote. Hamburger also cited past scholarship on abridgment language about freedom of speech. The specificity seems deliberate and important. Therefore, if the government and Big Tech did collude to reduce free speech, that is a constitutional violation, even without specific coercion, according to Hamburger. Hamburger also expressed concern about the apparent lack of understanding of this distinction in the Murthy v. Missouri case. “The Supreme Court's overemphasis on coercion has invited censorship,” he wrote, arguing that this emphasis “leaves government confident that it can suppress speech simply by working not too coercively through private parties.” Yes, much of the online censorship involves “cooperation” between the government and Big Tech companies, and thus the danger of focusing only on coercion. Even looking at previous Supreme Court cases, Hamburger added, “consensual arrangements can violate the First Amendment.” This is especially significant, the professor noted, because “there's also a longstanding constitutional principle that government cannot use private parties to do its dirty work.” Hamburger further stated that any government “policy of any sort to suppress lawful speech — whether because it is false or offensive — is forbidden” by the First Amendment. And he concluded,  “The coercion-consent measure of free speech is utterly mistaken. It is wrong about coercion, it is wrong about consent, and it practically invites government censorship. So, if the Supreme Court takes such an approach in Murthy v. Missouri, the case will stand out as one of the most abysmal First Amendment decisions in the nation's history.” Somin had argued that the Supreme Court should focus on coercion and that government “persuasion” to censor does not necessarily violate the First Amendment. Murthy v. Missouri oral arguments were heard at the Supreme Court March 18. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Yet More Gov’t-Big Tech Collusion? New Report on YouTube Raises Disturbing Questions

It’s not just censorship. The federal government reportedly ordered Google to reveal which users were watching certain videos on its YouTube platform. The feds face a U.S. Supreme Court case for coordinating with Big Tech to violate Americans’ First Amendment free speech rights. But the government may also be violating Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights against “unreasonable searches” by demanding user data from Google-owned YouTube, according to a Forbes report published on March 22. Experts framed the orders as a free speech issue. “The left used to push for federal gun registries. They have now shifted their focus to the most dangerous weapon of all: speech. Because they can’t stand dissent or diversity of opinion, the left is trying to intimidate their opposition from speaking their minds or accessing news from right-of-center news outlets,” said MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider. “We’ve seen how the Biden administration has funded efforts to choke off private funding of conservative media outlets and how it has tried to direct students away from these sites. Now Biden is demanding access to user data. Given the government’s track record, we should be very skeptical.” The potential Fourth Amendment violations were revealed as Forbes originally reported that it accessed multiple orders related to a Kentucky case where law enforcement officials suspected YouTube user “elonmuskwhm” was selling bitcoin in exchange for cash, a potential money laundering crime. As unveiled by Forbes, the government not only investigated the suspected user but also demanded data on all individuals who viewed the user’s videos between Jan. 1 and Jan. 8, 2023. Videos posted by “Elonmuskwhm” garnered at least 30,000 views. Strikingly, Google was reportedly required to keep the requests secret until they were recently unsealed. “The court orders show the government telling Google to provide the names, addresses, telephone numbers and user activity for all Google account users who accessed the YouTube videos between January 1 and January 8, 2023,” according to Forbes. “The government also wanted the IP addresses of non-Google account owners who viewed the videos.” The data was allegedly “‘relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation,’” Forbes quoted the police as having said. The feds also demanded data on viewers of livestreams showing officers searching an area after a bomb threat. Forbes noted that privacy experts see the federal orders on YouTube as a constitutional violation, both of the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. Albert Fox-Cahn, executive director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, told Forbes, “This is the latest chapter in a disturbing trend where we see government agencies increasingly transforming search warrants into digital dragnets. It’s unconstitutional, it’s terrifying and it’s happening every day.” He added that users should not be surveilled secretively by the government because the YouTube algorithm suggested a video to them. John Davisson, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that “[w]hat we watch online can reveal deeply sensitive information about us—our politics, our passions, our religious beliefs, and much more.” He concluded, “It's fair to expect that law enforcement won't have access to that information without probable cause. This warrant turns that assumption on its head.” This is another piece of evidence showing potential federal government violations of constitutional rights. The Murthy v. Missouri case, currently before the Supreme Court, exposed the extent of alleged government collusion with Big Tech to crush free speech using a leftist bias.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Hawley Reveals ‘Real Truth’ Behind Biden’s Hypocrisy on TikTok Ban

One GOP senator argues that President Joe Biden could have banned the communist Chinese government-tied TikTok, but chose not to do so for personal reasons. The debate about banning TikTok continues to rage as legislation has gone to the Senate. Biden said he would sign the legislation, yet continues to use TikTok and have TikTok influencers helping his campaign. Indeed, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told 97.1 FM Talk’s The Marc Cox Morning Show Podcast that he doubts Biden will sign the legislation. “They think that their voters are on TikTok,” Hawley declared, referring to Democrats. “The real truth is Biden could have banned it,” Hawley said, as reported by Audacy, the publisher and parent company of 97.1 FM. “Trump tried to ban it when he was president. Biden has had years now to act. He hasn’t done it.” Biden is using the app for his Basement 2.0 campaign in 2024. “In fact, Biden is on TikTok, and the reason is the Democrats secretly love it,” Hawley added. On Thursday, MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider pointed out the same hypocrisy in an X post. “Joe Biden just posted his 92nd TikTok video after banning 4 million federal employees from using it,” Schneider wrote. Meanwhile, Hawley explained the security risks of allowing TikTok to operate in the U.S. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. A 2023 lawsuit alleged that a “backdoor” through ByteDance enabled the CCP to access U.S. user data. Hawley evidently believes that allegation. “Whatever the problem is, it’s a backdoor for spying by the Chinese Communist Party,” he exclaimed during the radio interview. A U.S. company should buy TikTok to mitigate the security risks, Hawley insisted. “ByteDance, the parent company, would either have to sell TikTok or else if they don’t sell it, then they’d have to shut it down. We can argue about, you know, the exact details of the bill and is it written precisely the correct way? But I think this is the right thing,” the senator added. Conservatives are under attack. Contact TikTok via email at communitymanager@tiktok.com and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment and provide transparency. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

TikTok Silences Women Warning Against Horrific Side Effects of ‘Birth Control’

Communist Chinese government-tied TikTok censored videos of women exposing the health risks of hormonal contraceptives after apparently receiving pressure from a leftist legacy media outlet. The Washington Post released a now-infamous report attempting to discredit women speaking out about many of the well-known side effects listed on the blanket-sized warning label that comes with oral contraceptives. In its report, The Post highlighted the fact that TikTok had censored some of the people it had reached out to for the piece, including The Daily Wire commentator Brett Cooper who hosts The Comments Section and TikTok influencer Nicole Bendayan. The newspaper took credit for the part it played in the removal of multiple videos. The Post identified one censored video as being a clip from Cooper’s May 2023 appearance on the Iced Coffee Hour podcast. In the censored video, Cooper highlighted contraception’s worrying impact on weight gain, fertility, regular hormone function and romantic attraction. The Post itself reported on the Pill users’ increased risk for cervical cancer in 1977, something it neglected to remind users of in its more recent reporting on the issue. The clip of Cooper garnered 219,000 likes “before TikTok removed it following The Post’s inquiry,” The Post reported. Links to the TikTok video now bring up the message, “Video currently unavailable” or “This page isn’t available.” The app does not provide any further explanation. Cooper posted on X (formerly Twitter) on March 24, “What’s ironic is that [The Post] reached out to me for a comment, and they asked WHY my video was removed and no longer available. Shocker... was because of them.” She included a screenshot of The Post’s admission about the censorship following a Post inquiry. The Post bragged that TikTok removed five videos critical of contraception after the leftist legacy outlet demanded to know how the app “prevents the spread of misinformation.” A TikTok spokesperson claimed to the Post that the videos had “inaccurate, misleading or false content that may cause significant harm to individuals or society.” TikTok did not respond to a request for comment from MRC Free Speech America at the time of publication. Another individual that TikTok censored was Nicole Bendayan, whose video explaining why she got off contraception went viral until censorship silenced it, according to The Post. TikTok has a track record of anti-American bias and censorship and is currently in danger of being banned due to congressional legislation. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. Censorship occurring after leftist media outlets or researchers put pressure on Big Tech appears to be a rising trend, something addressed in a recent "60 Minutes" segment. The Post’s whole piece aggressively defended contraception, bewailed the fact that some women are turning away from it, and blamed “right-wing” so=-called “misinformation” for that. “Search for ‘birth control’ on TikTok or Instagram and a cascade of misleading videos vilifying hormonal contraception appear,” The Post bemoaned. “Young women blaming their weight gain on the pill. Right-wing commentators claiming that some birth control can lead to infertility. Testimonials complaining of depression and anxiety.” Such evidence used to be mainstream. In fact, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) documents substantial evidence of serious side effects from taking hormonal “birth control”, including some of the very effects The Post scoffs at. The study published on NIH also listed serious potential long-term side effects from contraception including cancer, multiple sclerosis, weight gain and suicidal desires.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact TikTok via email at communitymanager@tiktok.com and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Rep. Jordan Challenges Leftist Disinformation Industry on 60 Minutes

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) called out biased “disinformation” researchers’ efforts to undermine Americans’ First Amendment rights. Jordan was having none of it when a charged 60 Minutes interview hostile CBS News co-host Lesley Stahl tried to get him to agree that the so-called "misinformation" and "disinformation" research industry is necessary. Jordan argued that the research has a “chilling impact on speech” by pressuring tech companies to censor speech that the left does not approve of. Even worse, some of these researchers coordinate with government to increase censorship on social media, per the House Judiciary Committee, which Jordan chairs. The “60 Minutes” segment featured both Jordan and Kate Starbird, the researcher whose Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) acted as a government surrogate to ensure election-influencing censorship in the 2020 and 2022 elections.  Starbird mourned that Facebook and Twitter only took action on about a third of flagged content, arguing for more censorship but Jordan highlighted that the nefarious work of researchers like Starbird nonetheless has a negative impact. “[W]hat they're doing is chilling First Amendment free speech rights,” he said. A 2023 Harvard survey found that so-called “misinformation” experts “leaned strongly toward the left of the political spectrum,” indicating heavy bias in the industry. Stahl attempted to defend the industry during her interview with Jordan. She seemingly made the argument that posts questioning the integrity of the 2020 election should be shut down because “[m]ost people don't question the result,” implying that a right to free speech is dependent on majority opinion. Jordan had a different suggestion: “I think you let the American people, respect the American people, their common sense, to figure out what's accurate, what isn't.” Stahl seemed most concerned about the First Amendment rights of the so-called misinformation researchers. She tried to argue that Congress's investigation of government coordinating with researchers and tech companies to censor Americans can "chill the research" and violate the researchers' free speech. Jordan later challenged Stahl. “So us pointing out, us doing our constitutional duty of oversight of the executive branch-- and somehow we're censoring? That makes no sense,” he said. Would-be censors are allowed to research what they choose, but when they coordinate with government to take down differing opinions, that is a different situation, Jordan noted. “They can do their research,” Jordan countered, “but they can't take it down” without violating another person’s right to free speech. Indeed, “when they're coordinating with government, that's a different animal,” he added. Stahl responded by again defending the censorship industry taking researchers like Starbird at their word without being critical of their motivations. “[Researchers] deny they're coordinating” with government, she said, despite extensive evidence from the free speech case Murthy v. Missouri and the Twitter Files.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

TikTok Unleashes Desperate ‘Youth Council’ Amid Ban Threats

Under pressure after the passage of bipartisan House legislation, toxic and anti-free speech TikTok has a strange new strategy: turn teenagers into decision-makers. TikTok has come under fire for its ties to the communist Chinese government, harmful algorithms for young users, bias and censorship. Amid the backlash, the app is attempting to assuage fears with various tactics, including a new “Youth Council” for teenagers to give input. But will any root problems be addressed? A March 25 press release from TikTok explained the Youth Council comprises 15 teens aged 15 to 18 from around the world. The council is reportedly prioritizing “teen well-being and inclusion.” Moreover, TikTok is redesigning both its Youth Portal feature, which provides resources, and advertising its parental controls, especially for concerned U.S. parents. The press release did not address the fact the Chinese government-tied app has been involved in bias and censorship for years. MRC Free Speech America ranked TikTok among the worst censors of 2023 for its boastful removal of hundreds of thousands of videos about the Israel-Hamas war. In February, TikTok continued this policy trend by establishing a team of thousands of “content moderators” (i.e., censors) to suppress free speech ahead of upcoming European Union elections. TikTok is also increasingly under fire for its security risks. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. A 2023 lawsuit alleged that a “backdoor” through ByteDance enabled the CCP to access U.S. user data. Bipartisan TikTok-banning legislation passed the House but has yet to pass the Senate. President Joe Biden voiced his willingness to sign the bill if it did pass. Besides the national security risks, there are also the mental health risks for the very teens TikTok claims to promote. By late 2023, evidence indicates that a few hours on TikTok turned up potentially harmful content for mental health in one out of two videos in automated accounts. The new TikTok release claimed a focus on addressing bullying and body image issues. Repeated mentions of U.S. parents and kids throughout the press release indicated TikTok’s endeavors to appease Americans amidst ban threats. TikTok quoted a 15-year-old American Youth Council member enthusing, “I found the first meeting to be super exciting and positive.” TikTok’s Youth Council does not address the app’s deepest dangers for Americans, however. Conservatives are under attack. Contact TikTok via email at communitymanager@tiktok.com and demand Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment and provide transparency. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

As 2024 Elections Loom, Biden Admin Worked with Anti-Free Speech ‘Digital Brownshirts’

Newly released documents confirm that the Biden administration coordinated with a UK group to trample free speech. The Biden White House “partnered with” the UK- and US-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) as part of its strategy to combat alleged “domestic terrorism.” New emails obtained by America First Legal (AFL) expose the administration’s Orwellian project to crush online content with which it disagrees. It seems it was no coincidence that former White House press secretary Jen Psaki used a CCDH report, the “Disinformation Dozen,” to insist on increased COVID-19 censorship in July 2021. Biden’s “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” endorsed the anti-free speech Christchurch Call to Action and turned to research conducted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the CCDH, the initially UK-based group that is now also incorporated in America, AFL explained. CCDH calls itself a “not-for-profit” NGO that “works to stop the spread of online hate and disinformation.” Leftist British politician Imran Ahmed is the CEO. As a Labor Party staffer, Ahmed reportedly coordinated with leftist outlet The Guardian to accuse UK Conservative Party figure Grant Shapps falsely of editing his Tory rivals’ Wikipedia pages, according to Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi. After CCDH released the “Disinformation Dozen” report, the Biden White House used it to urge Big Tech companies, especially Facebook, to deplatform the highlighted COVID-19 vaccine critics.  The co-chair of the now-defunct Disinformation Governance Board (DGB), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under secretary Robert Silvers, also took an interest in the organization. Silvers messaged Eva Hartshorn-Sanders, who at the time was CCDH’s Head of Policy, to arrange a meeting to discuss the organization’s work, AFL noted. He was then invited to CCDH’s Global Summit by Hartshorn-Sanders, who has pushed anti-free speech legislation. But the Biden administration’s ties to CCDH do not end there. CCDH also met with Biden officials after the White House Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse debuted, per AFL. CCDH submitted recommendations to the task force on addressing “gender-based violence.” When the White House released a 2023 blueprint on “Online Harassment and Abuse,” Hartshorn-Sanders claimed credit for policy development. Twitter Files journalist Michael Shellenberger slammed the government censorship collusion revealed by AFL. He accused CCDH of “hyp[ing] hate” to “demand Facebook and other social media platforms to remove content and people they don't like.” He added, “For the government to decide what is extreme is a way of labeling someone as a potential terrorist threat.” Ultimately, Shellenberger argued, “There is no reliable connection between people's beliefs and violence. Attempting to stop violence by censoring speech is totalitarian and Orwellian. It effectively criminalizes speech and creates a whole new category of pre-crime.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

WARNING: Biden’s Feds Stepping Up Tech Collusion Before 2024 Election

Even as the U.S. Supreme Court hears a landmark case challenging Big Tech-government censorship collusion, Biden’s henchmen are wasting no time stepping up their dystopian actions before the 2024 election.  The Court heard oral arguments in the Murthy v. Missouri free speech case this week, which details how federal government entities pressured social media platforms to suppress speech.  But the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) cyber intelligence, and other intel agencies are undeterred. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency (NSA) are also among the agencies determined to interfere with this year’s election under the guise of cybersecurity, according to The Washington Times. “U.S. intelligence agencies are turning to cybersecurity companies like never before for help protecting various forms of infrastructure,” The Times announced. For example, The Times quoted NSA Cybersecurity Collaboration Center’s Morgan Adamski. “We started with one partner about four years ago. As of today, we have over a thousand different partners that we talk to 24/7 through 800 collaboration platforms at any given time,” Adamski bragged at a CrowdStrike summit. While Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) claims U.S. intelligence wasn’t privately coordinating with social media at least as of mid-January, per The Times, the feds are turning increasingly to cybersecurity companies to accomplish their tech interference. That cybersecurity work still involves social media. The senator reportedly mourned that collaboration on “misinformation and disinformation” had been reduced, using typical leftist catchphrases to justify censoring speech of which the left doesn’t approve. One project for a potential online diagnostic tool that failed due to lack of funds also aimed to target alleged misinformation and disinformation, however, The Times noted. The CIA, the FBI, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) are all meddling in the election, and NSA and U.S. Cyber Command have a special “election security” group to address foreign threats, The Times reported. The focus continues to be online information and debate, an effort to control free speech. The Deep State’s obsession with trying to infringe upon free speech online is very telling in light of the current Murthy litigation before the Supreme Court. Apparently, Biden’s administration isn’t waiting around for the Court to give them a favorable ruling. The complaint filed for Murthy v. Missouri cited MRC Free Speech America’s unique and exclusive CensorTrack.org research on how Big Tech censored to help Biden 646 times between March 2020 and 2022 alone. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Biden Admin Tries to Justify ‘Constant Pestering’ of Big Tech to Censor in New SCOTUS Case

An exchange between a U.S. Supreme Court justice and a U.S. Deputy Solicitor General unveiled the Biden administration's utter disregard for free speech.  Justice Samuel Alito challenged U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher, who argued the federal government’s case during oral arguments for the free speech case Murthy v. Missouri on Monday. While Fletcher seemed to argue that a person’s access to his First Amendment rights is partially dependent on circumstances, the justice had a different view.  Alito accused the federal government of using “constant pestering” to coerce Facebook and other Big Tech platforms to censor content, noting that such behavior would be considered unacceptable if targeted at print media. Ultimately, Alito argued, “the federal government has got Section 230 and antitrust in its pocket,” so “these big clubs” can help it treat Facebook et al. “like they’re subordinates.” Section 230 allows social media companies to be absolved from liability for what users post on their platforms. It can also be used, however, as a cudgel by government to pressure tech companies into censoring certain content.  Alito not only highlighted the issue of antitrust and Section 230, but also the fact that the federal government seemed to argue that states do not have First Amendment rights. When pressed on the matter, Fletcher acknowledged the free speech rights of state officials and claimed that state attorneys general should not litigate on behalf of their own citizens’ free speech rights, since in this particular case,  “[the U.S. government] think[s] that’s an end run around the limit on … standing.” When Alito challenged Fletcher as to whether print media is “on the same team as the federal government, partners,” as social media appeared to be, the U.S. Deputy Solicitor General made a disturbing argument. “So potentially in the context of an effort to get Americans vaccinated during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic,” he said. “There was a concern that Americans were getting their news about the vaccine from these platforms” and receiving “bad information.”  Fletcher argued that even the social media companies recognized their “responsibility” to provide what the government deemed accurate information, and insisted that government-media partnerships are not unusual or problematic, despite the Constitutional emphasis on a free press. He did not address the fact that social media is essentially the public town square now and even seemingly argued that government pressure to censor information and violate free speech rights is permissible in a health emergency. “The platforms [were] not being transparent about the scope of the problem,” Fletcher complained, trying to justify the “anger” government officials displayed toward tech executives whom they thought were not censoring enough. Alito suggested that the idea that government officials can “call [media] up and curse them out and say … why don’t we be partners” and hypothetically allow government to edit content beforehand is problematic. Yet that would seem to have been the attitude of the federal government and particularly the Biden administration when dealing with Big Tech companies. The complaint filed for Murthy v. Missouri cited MRC Free Speech America’s unique and exclusive CensorTrack.org research. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.