Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michael Magoon's avatar

While I agree with you that the term “censorship industrial complex” is more attention-grabbing than accurate, I think the concerns raised by anti-censorship writers are largely correct and extremely important. It is obviously a play on words of the term “military-industrial complex” often used by the Left. I don’t think the term “industrial” applies as it has nothing to do with manufacturing or hardware.

Remember that they are trying to do research in a low information environment where none of the parties involved want to be transparent. In such an environment, it is easy to get some details wrong. It is also quite likely that the writers are unearthing only a small portion of the censorship.

In terms of its impact on society, censorship by the federal government directly and censorship by private social media companies that may or may not be coordinating with the federal government is just as bad. I also think that it is pretty clear that the federal government is deliberately laundering censorship via non- profits. Also the same narrative is being propagated by traditional media companies.

It is pretty clear that there is voluntary cooperation between media, social media, the federal government and the Democratic Party to amplify some speech and throttle others.

It might be more accurately called a “public/private information management network.” Or you can just call it ideological group-think.

And, yes, the federal government should have nothing to do with it, and any involvement does violate the First Amendment as far as I am concerned.

And in general I think the reason why what you call the “establishment” is losing credibility is because of their own actions, not due to over-zealous rhetoric by their opponents. I too would rather reform institutions than destroy them, but you cannot reform something if you are not allowed to identify the problem first.

Expand full comment
Dan Maruschak's avatar

'The primary theory in this context is that the FBI and perhaps other government agencies deliberately lied about the laptop as a way of getting social media companies to censor it.'

Is this the primary theory? I thought the main allegation was that panic about "Russian interference" was being stoked and that led to hypervigilance and sloppy thinking and that led to the bad decisions around censoring the laptop story.

'and for what? To somewhat reduce exposure to a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop that is not particularly damaging to Joe Biden?'

I think this is, ironically, the thing that gives a ton of energy to the more sinister suspicions: in the minds of skeptics if "They" would go to such extreme lengths to try to suppress something that's merely mildly embarrassing it looks like a sign of something worse going on. If the response to the Post story had been "Yeah, Hunter Biden is probably a sleazy influence peddler, but the real problem is that this is pretty commonplace among the relatives of powerful politicians, and anyway it seems like Hunter's clients were getting ripped off because Joe mostly wasn't delivering on what Hunter was selling" it would have faded away. Instead it got spun as Russian Disinformation, at the lockstep way that became the conventional wisdom seemed like it had "all the hallmarks" of behind-the-scenes coordination.

I think the critics probably go too far, but it seems to me that you may also going a little far by demanding formal arrangements and active coordination. While it sounds sinister, the "Censorship Industrial Complex" seems to me like an intentional nod to the "Military Industrial Complex" that Eisenhower warned of -- not something conspiratorial, but rather an informal system of mutual backscratching that can develop its own internal momentum.

Regardless of the merits of the term, I am concerned there may be a too-cozy relationship between people in law enforcement and intelligence agencies (who would normally be bound by the First Amendment) and the "trust and safety" people at the social media companies, many of whom view the First Amendment as an annoying technicality that they are conveniently not bound by so they can "do the right thing" that their government colleagues aren't allowed to do. It isn't that Commissioner Gordon gives orders to Batman, it's that he tips Batman off to things he suspects but can't get a warrant to investigate -- in Batman stories that works out fine because both of them are good people mired in a somewhat corrupt system, but in general the constraints we put on law enforcement are there for a reason and it's not good if they end up disappearing in a blob of public/private-partnership coordination meetings. (And I think it would also be good if people at social media companies valued a culture of free expression on its own terms, not seeing it as legalistic thing that applies only to governments.)

Expand full comment
46 more comments...

No posts