First off, I cannot recommend highly enough this recent episode of the Scott Horton Show. Scott talks to Matt Taibbi about the recent court order (released on July 4, 2023) that prevented the Feds from asking social media websites to censor you.
…For about four hours. See, the moment a judge rules against government censorship, the government sends him a letter requesting a stay. And of course, there’s always another asshole. That stay was granted just ten days later, and, as far as I can tell, remains in force.
That’s right. The Federal Government says it has the right to demand social media websites censor information they find inconvenient. Not false, not inflammatory, not criminal. Inconvenient. That’s what “malinformation” is: true but inconvenient information.
Forgive me for being cynical, but I don’t think the state should have a narrative, let alone have the ability–no, the gall–to demand social media protect its narrative.
On a personal note, this kind of nonsense is one of the reasons I went full anarchist a long time ago. The legal and moral justifications for the existence of the coercive state, even stated in the most restrictive terms possible, always lead to monsters finding loopholes or gradually twisting the meaning of words until they have all the power they want. Maybe it takes a little while, but when they finally grasp your life in their hands, they’ll tell you that you gave them this power. So that’s one reason (among many) why I don’t, and why you shouldn’t either.