Censorship Inc.: Private Control of Public Discourse

As investigative journalists are conspicuously erased from social media, one must decide whether to give up on the future or risk everything in order to expose the network of organizations intent on manipulating public opinion and stifling dissent.

Where Free Speech Goes to Die

Once upon a time, in the shining City on the Hill, a silent Shadow ever so slowly emerged — at first strangling all mirth as it gradually engulfed every edifice and every corner — until at last it boldly threatened to extinguish even the People. It did not ride in resplendent on a pale horse to reap them outright; instead, like a virus it seeped through their screens, a toxic leak latching onto the ever- suggestible and unsuspecting host-minds of their most ardent keyboard warriors. Eventually, historians gave it a name: Cancel Culture.

Imagine being the underdog in a neighborhood boxing ring, challenging a global bully who's come to your town to seize control of the schools and the hospitals ... and the banks. In the red corner, you have government agencies, armed with their regulatory hammers and fiscal carrots. In the blue corner, the tech giants and their army of algorithms stand ready to shadowban your free speech into oblivion. The green corner features academic institutions and NGOs — high priestesses of the postmodern orthodoxy — chanting their incantations of “safety” and “order” while sharpening the knives of censorship.

The stakes are high in this twisted circus ... and your opponent?

The more observant among you already recognize the Censorship Industrial Complex, a three-headed hydra spewing control, compliance, and conformity. This unholy trinity of government, corporate, and academic power is Hell Bent for Leather on curating your thoughts and conversations. The rest of you merely sense, involuntarily, that something is lost, never to return.

Could the near future possibly get any more dire?

Before you rush to answer that we can't get any farther up Shit Creek, don't forget the yellow corner. Your family and, worse, your family's family, wields the most insidious weapons of all. As always, the weaker members of a society en masse attacking its stronger members is a leading indicator that it will not survive, and that its population is in mortal peril. The historical precedents of families actively betraying each other in tense times are unsettling, to put it mildly. Such is the domestic vector of how civil rights lead to civil wars and, worse, to cultural revolutions.

Government Agencies: The Surveillance State’s Puppet Masters

Like Erin Brockovich stepping into a town long poisoned by hidden contaminants, picture yourself waking from the American Dream only to find yourself desperate, depressed and clueless. As you ween yourself of the poisons of your private life, you come to find that the true source of the malaise is a pervasive web of public power pushing not only your most sensitive buttons, but others', too.

Amid the mental fog, government agencies cloak their surveillance operations in the guise of national security and public safety — precisely in order to ensure the opposite, for without a crisis their mandate is obsolete. Thus, by manufacturing evergreen crises, they hope to position themselves as the sole solution bringers. However, the only thing shrinking faster than their ability to monopolize mass media is their actual influence on events.

Although webs are a legitimately messy waste of time, your most precious resource, the actual threat is their maker. Below is an utterly incomplete list of relevant government agencies. For a longer list, you have only to pull on any of these sticky strands and your curiosity will propagate outward to alert the others to your presence ... and possibly even acquaint you with the Spider.

Begin your descent with:

Department of Homeland Security (DHS): This creature was hatched in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, as if in anticipation of the 2020s. Since 2018, its newest wing, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has been tasked with understanding, managing, and reducing risks to essential systems. In 2021, CISA assumed control of the .gov top-level domain (TLD) from the General Services Administration, allowing the agency to manage the approval of .gov domains and operate the TLD Domain Name System nameservers. In this era of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, CISA also partners with social media companies to develop and promote accurate, "authoritative" information, particularly during elections.

National Science Foundation (NSF): NSF investments have given the world Doppler radar, bar codes, the modern Internet, web browsers, MRI, laser eye surgery, DNA analysis and synthetic biology. Many new technologies, like generative artificial intelligence and wearable sensors, present both risks and opportunities for cybersecurity. The NSF supports the full range of critical and emerging technologies, including the key focal areas of the "CHIPS and Science Act of 2022." However, cybersecurity requires more than merely strengthening infrastructure. Thus, in order to rapidly transform NSF-funded research done across the U.S. into impactful products, services and solutions, the agency created its first new directorate this century — Technology, Innovation and Partnerships.

State Department: As it strives to appear as the global peacemaker, the State Department pours resources into tools designed to stifle dissent abroad while promoting democracy with the same doublethink that Ms. Brockovich encountered from corporate lawyers spinning toxic sludge into harmless silt. Unless it plans to bribe you or otherwise undermine your sovereignty, the Sunday morning talk- show circuit is as close as you will likely come to hearing from its mouthpieces, which would only be yet another waste of your precious time.

Department of Justice (DOJ) and Local Law Enforcement (DAs & Judges): The DOJ's increasing involvement in online discourse crafts legal arguments to suppress inconvenient truths under the guise of public safety. In fact, it's this very wing of the Beast that has recently turned "lawfare" into a household word. Local law enforcement agencies and judicial officers play pivotal parts in these censorship practices. Again, just as Erin Brockovich's experiences with local judges convinced her to see through the corporate smokescreen and smell the bullshit, if your luck is merely normal, then your turn to do likewise is coming, if it hasn't already.

The Faceblock/MeTube and LinkedOut/ChubStack Consortia: The "Mean Girls" of the Digital Playground

Social media companies today deploy oodles of algorithms buttressed by battalions of barely human moderators whose day-job it is to shadowban, de-platform and censor those pesky dissenting voices (including yours?) for the sake of "community" standards. Is this plot becoming a bit too familiar, or maybe even annoyingly predictable?

How much do you use and/or depend on the following:

Facebook, Twitter (now X), YouTube (i.e. Alphabet): These platforms are the modern-day gatekeepers of public discourse. Their opaque algorithms and human moderators enforce the ever-shifting community standards, conveniently aligned with "the Message". The less you pay to use these platforms, the more you are the product. The more you rely on them to monetize your voice, the less the words will be your own.

LinkedIn, Substack, et al.: LinkedIn is more than just a professional networking site; it’s a platform where discussions on controversial topics are closely monitored and moderated. The annoying echo of tightly controlled corporate communications reminiscent of "Erin Brockovich", "Michael Clayton" and/or "The Insider" is proof that you are in an echo chamber. Substack is arguably worse, since it lacks the pretense of professionalism that LinkedIn once had. What you come to find is a slew of writers promising the moon and stars behind a subscription paywall. Ask yourself: would you pay YouTube content creators monthly to watch more than the first two minutes of their videos? If not, then the Substack business model is little more than the one-way mirror in an interrogation room, where everything you say can and will be used against you.

Other, smaller tech firms, eager to prove their loyalty to the powerful, are also busy pumping their stock price by developing new tools to sniff out, and snuff out, anything that smells like dissent. Like Ms. Brockovich's foes, who hid behind corporate obfuscation and legalese, yours have a counter for every objection that you can think (or dare) to raise, and a louder voice, too. There is still a way to fight the good fight, but your tactics must adapt to a world that barely remembers the movie-version of her 20th century exploits, now more than a generation ago.

Universities and Think Tanks: Postmodern Praetorian Guards

Academia and think tanks have, for aeons, been the intellectual vanguards in the gradual war against freedom of speech. Nowadays, these ivory towers provide a patina of pedigree that almost make the Censorship Industrial Complex look respectable on those aged-out late-night comedy shows.

Stanford Internet Observatory: These digital hall monitors collaborate with social media giants to craft strategies for detecting and neutralizing "harmful" content, echoing the experts Ms. Brockovich exposed for their corporate-funded biases.

Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab: This think tank operates like a detective agency that dissects designated disinformation campaigns in the digital engagement space, including those related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Chinese expansion strategies, and regional disinformation in places like West Africa and Sudan. By building a network of forensic analysts known as #DigitalSherlocks, DFRLab tracks events in governance, technology, and security in order to create a new model of expertise adapted for real-world impact.

World Economic Forum (WEF): The WEF champions global initiatives to regulate online content, promoting policies that blur the lines between protecting public interest and imposing restrictive controls on speech.

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR): Dubbed the "Mothership", the CFR engages in extensive research and policy recommendations on managing information in the digital age, supporting efforts to combat the free flow of information.

Universities: It is well-known by now, via Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and others, that universities are the ovens where the wedding cake of Manufactured Consent is baked. However, even most of the more informed worker bees around the water cooler are unaware of institutions like Syracuse University, or the New School. These hubs for interdisciplinary "research" into misinformation are quietly funded to develop tools for squashing dissent, which goes beyond mere "study" by any stretch.

NGOs: Virtue Signalers of the Social Justice War

In her namesake movie, Erin's moral compass drives her to fight against corporate Goliaths. In a sly reversal that has duped the mainstream, though, various NGOs today similarly justify a overtly matriarchal censorship agenda. They frame themselves as concerned mother hens, of course, and their cause as a noble crusade to protect society from its own harmful content. Your freedom is merely a line-item expense them.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): Traditionally a defender of free speech, the EFF now walks a tightrope, endorsing moderation efforts that easily tip into censorship, compromising with powerful interests against the need for public support.

Global Disinformation Index (GDI) and NewsGuard: These watchdogs label and blacklist "misinformation," guiding advertisers away from non-compliant media outlets, wielding economic power as a censor’s tool, applying financial pressure where needed.

Cyber Threat Intelligence League (CTIL): This group collaborates with government agencies to craft sophisticated moderation frameworks and algorithms, ensuring no "harmful" thought slips through the digital net.

Freedom House: International NGOs that advocate for democracy and political freedom, like their government counterpart the NED, necessarily support policies aligned with censorship, as always under the guise of combating misinformation. Freedom House is no exception, however its name itself is an instance of malinformation, making it worthy of consideration.

This list is incomplete, of course. To extend it, simply subject yourself to (ideally the end of) "informative" programs on public broadcasting (NPR, et. al.) and listen for for the list of donors. Civilians can hold these organizations accountable for their influence on public discourse and protect truly free speech only by insisting on it in practice themselves.

Punditry: The Image of Influence

Just as Erin Brockovich faced off against powerful individuals in her fight for justice, there are key figures today who shape and defend the Censorship Industrial Complex, wielding significant influence over public discourse.

Renee DiResta: A pivotal figure in content moderation debates, Ms. DiResta numbers among the coven of high priestesses of digital censorship, advocating for ever stricter controls over online content. Perfectly aligned with her private counterparts' consensus, she calls misinformation her foe and bridges the gap between academia and government, cementing her role as an influencer in the digital arena.

Rachel Maddow, The View, CNN, etc.: Media personalities and outlets like Rachel Maddow, The View, and CNN often play dual roles in this complex. They have so successfully replaced the Fourth Estate that nowadays many modern folks have never even heard of it. On one hand, they vehemently report on instances of censorship and free speech issues, while on the other, they support censorship efforts that align with their editorial stance even more vehemently. Thus, and not by any accident, they contribute to the suppression of dissenting viewpoints while effectively widening other cultural rifts (health, gender, etc.) in the process.

Iconoclasts: It is increasingly fair to think that targets for cancelation have more newsworthy content to report than most other sources, at least if you prefer to get your news from the frontline and not from analysts severed from events, or from pundits twice removed. Individuals as diverse as Andrew Napolitano and Tucker Carlson, or Bret Weinstein and James Corbett have consistently criticized the growing influence of the Censorship Industrial Complex. Their work and many others', in its various forms, continues to shed light on the dangers of conflating misinformation with legitimate dissent. Can you see what they have in common, despite their obvious differences and/or their influence on public discourse? It is the most reliable filter to critically engage with and to support those who risk it all to defend free speech.

Industrial Scale Tactics

The Censorship Industrial Complex employs an obscene variety of tactics to maintain its stranglehold on public discourse, blending technology and human oversight in a seamless and unseemly web of control.

1. ALGORITHMIC MODERATION: Social media platforms deploy sophisticated algorithms to automatically flag and remove content that violates their guidelines. These digital overseers scan for forbidden keywords and phrases, operating with the loveless, insect-like efficiency of a Kafkaesque patent clerk in an Orwellian nightmare.

2. HUMAN REVIEW: When algorithms aren’t enough, human moderators step in to assess flagged content. Not your average Rockwell soda slinger, this stultifying human touch adds a veneer of fairness to the narrative's' tight leash. The underlying agenda remains the same, and if you just shut up about it already, then we can all get back to work, OK?

4. PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: Programs like CISA foster maternally close collaboration between government agencies and private companies, creating a seamless interface for monitoring and controlling online discourse. These partnerships ensure that resources and expertise flow freely between the public and private sectors.

5. FUNDING & GRANTS: Government agencies bankroll research and development efforts, guiding a steady stream of innovations to enhance content moderation. This financial backing keeps the wheels of censorship turning smoothly, quietly, and in one direction. Most citizens lack basic financial literacy (i.e. what is money?), and are certainly not "allowed" to know that, thanks to trickle-up economics, they are funding their own suppression.

7. INFLUENCE PEDDLING: During the recent pandemic, for example, any content questioning the official narratives first on personal protective equipment (PPE) and later on vaccines was swiftly targeted for suppression. Organizations like CTIL used tools like Zetalytics to track and counteract skepticism, painting dissenters as threats to public health.

8. CANCEL CULTURE: Content critical of government actions, especially if it transcends mere complaint to express alternative political views, is singled out for suppression. These nefarious practices raise grave concerns about the government's basic mandate amid the erosion of democratic discourse, since dissent is fundamentally a risky act of service that should be protected.

By understanding these ways and means, you can develop strategies first to protect yourself (and your family) and then to challenge unjust censorship practices for the sake of those not yet able to do so for themselves.

The Matrix of Public and Political Pushback

The Censorship Industrial Complex has (finally!) sparked a fierce debate, drawing criticism and support from various quarters. Knowledge and direct action — advocating for transparency and accountability — are the thorny uphill pathway to freedom. Alternatively, you can elect to do the bare minimum, or nothing at all.

Free Speech: Critics argue that the complex’s activities pose a severe threat to free speech, a fundamental pillar of democracy. To suppress dissenting views undermines not only the principles of respectful discourse but, worse, the intellectual freedom necessary to ensure that the best ideas rise to the top in a meritocracy.

Political Manipulation: The growing and reasonable fear that content moderation is being used as a political tool to silence opposition and shape public opinion is only proven by the fact that "lawfare" is now in the mainstream vocabulary. The involvement of government entities in content moderation raises profound legal and ethical questions, particularly regarding the imbalance between the survival of the Deep State (another mainstream term that used to be esoteric), the threats to public safety and the all-important and all-but-forgotten individual rights.

1. Government Influence: In order to circumnavigate constitutional protections, government agencies blur the line between private action and state censorship. They exert soft pressure on private companies to censor unwanted content on their behalf, effectively bending the law without breaking it.

2. Legal Scrutiny: Revelations from sources like the "Twitter Files" have led to legal challenges and public outcry, highlighting the murky waters of government-influenced censorship. Meanwhile, recent headlines of presidents and/or their sons becoming felons further erode confidence in the wisdom of the judiciary or the reliability of it procedures.

3. Transparency: The growing demand for greater transparency in content moderation decisions, including the criteria used and the extent of government involvement, is met first with indifference, then with silence. What comes next is up to whomever takes up the cause.

4. Accountability: Ensuring fair and consistent content moderation requires robust accountability mechanisms, including but not limited to independent oversight and avenues for appeal. Do not expect any of this to be done for you, nor to exist in future generations if you do not secure it yourself.

Summation: The Cost of Silence

As we witness the systematic manipulation of public opinion, with its collateral erasure of dissenting voices, it's crucial to become critically aware and increasingly vigilant, and possibly even to upskill for mere survival. The complex web of government agencies, tech giants, academic institutions, and NGOs forms a formidable network that threatens to undermine the very foundations of freedom, and indeed civilization itself. Cancel culture, its most modern manifestation, discourages open dialogue and critical thinking. Instead, it fosters conformity and suppresses the diversity of thought essential for an informed citizenry.

Does that look like a future that you want for your grandchildren, or for theirs?

If not, than it's imperative that you, yes you, recognize this regime and advocate for transparency, accountability, and the protection of free speech, even if such actions imperil you personally. When the peril finds you, remember to take

another look at that yellow corner (family and in-laws), and check for weapons. If you participate in this digital society, then your awareness and engagement are paramount. Only you, not the State, can secure a more informed and resilient society, able to withstand the pressures of censorship and protect its fundamental freedoms, and only by becoming a member of one.

? adrian dyer, 2024