In a stunning act of partisan censorship, Twitter last week blocked an explosive investigative piece by The New York Post, initially citing a policy that was not actually violated. The article in question was critical on Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, which alleged he engaged in influence peddling with Ukraine of which his father may have received a kickback from.
The New York Post is the fourth largest paper in the United States and while it is slightly conservative leaning, is generally considered a mainline newspaper and one who doesn’t deal in conspiracy theories and unsourced reporting. Yet, the immediate big-tech reaction to a highly impactful article against Joe Biden was to immediately suppress it.
Conversely, many anonymously sourced articles alleging actions by Trump are not censored and are freely posted on this medium. The bombshell report on Trump’s taxes was widely publicized on social media platforms and unlike this Hunter Biden article, the evidence supposedly behind it was not made available for 3rd party validation. We were supposed to take the word of the publication that reported it that the content could be trusted. This is clearly a one-way street and an obvious double standard.
The argument can be made that Twitter is its own company and can set the policies for its goods and services however it wants. If the consumer doesn’t like what it is getting, it can just leave the platform. Ultimately, I believe this is what the outcome will be as meaningful competitors emerge. However, what if your electricity provider said you were not allowed to have a Trump sign in your yard or they would turn off your service? They are also their own company, why can’t they do the same?
As internet-based forms of communication have expanded into the fabric of society, it places undue power in the hands of those who control the flow of information. Decisions have been made to shut down platform content access of groups are not violent in nature, but espouse viewpoints that are out of the mainstream. It is effectively having the impact of suppressing free speech.
As of posting of this, The New York Post still has its twitter account locked until they of their own free will remove the article from their feed (even though it is still blocked).
When I compare our internet freedoms with those in communist nations, I am beginning to see the differences narrow. We may not have government suppressing online speech directly here in the US but when you look at the outcome, is it meaningfully different?
Leave A Comment