Crushing dissent: How elites in government and Big Tech collude to turn America’s censorship apparatus on its own people

World Magazine ^ | March 1, 2025 | Emma Freire

[Retain Mike]

After the Cold War, terrorism became the most pressing threat to national security. And social media became a major part of the battle. Benz told me in an interview that, during the war on terror, the U.S. military developed artificial intelligence tools to combat ISIS recruiters. AI reviewed ¬terrorists’ social media posts to determine “what kind of words they use, the dialect, the key words, the slang, the prefixes, the suffixes, sentiment analysis” and then restrict their online reach. However, in 2017, Benz was shocked to learn that a similar tool was being offered for sale to the private sector. It’s one thing for this technology to be used for counterterrorism purposes. “It’s a whole other thing when you have essentially this military technology that’s now being sold to or sometimes forced on the platforms to use against political parties,” Benz said.

This new emphasis began in 2016, when national security leaders and other elites on both sides of the Atlantic believed Brexit and Trump’s first election victory could destroy the “rules-based international order.” That catch-phrase refers to the system of international rules and structures many believe secured global peace and prosperity after World War II. They saw populism not as just another political viewpoint competing for votes but as an existential threat to civilization.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry articulated this in September during a World Economic Forum panel. “I think the dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing and growing. … The referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn’t a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree,” he said. “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just hammer [misinformation] out of existence.”

[Retain Mike]

Mark Twain said , If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.

So, you must read the paper to find out whether something has occurred, but then you could depend on the editor to write an interpretation that conformed to his agenda. There was not any pretense of objectivity. If someone came to him with a different interpretation, then they were asked to leave. If they wanted to print a handbill, then access to his printing press was denied.

Such has been the situation in this country since the first printing press was set up. Freedom of the Press meant that, if they could find a printing press, they could print whatever they wanted regardless of how absurd or inflammatory it might have been. However, that person may have to defend what was said or written against a charge of libel, but with truth as a defense.

I think this long article does a good job of describing 21st century ways in which the same objectives are achieved, while claiming objectivity. A writer named Michael Snellenberger calls this the “censorship-industrial complex”.

[takebackaustin]

typo, Schellenberger

[takebackaustin]

Oops Shellenberger !

[Flash Bazbeaux]

Shellenberger

[Tell It Right]

I’m so old I remember when the Dims celebrated the “Arab spring” and glorified the free speech of the internet allowing for voices of descent.

[Retain Mike]

It looks like We are both wrong. In the article they write Shellenberger

[aspasia]

Former Secretary of State John Kerry articulated this in September during a World Economic Forum panel. “I think the dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing and growing. … The referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn’t a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree,” he said. “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just hammer [misinformation] out of existence.”

Oh yeah, if only the Bolsheviks had AI!