Harmeet Dhillon: Biden White House 'flags' Big Tech – here's why digital policing is so dangerous

Controlar la narrativa es poder. Authoritarian regimes know this well, y emplean despiadadamente el poder para controlar el discurso público y, en turno, la gente misma.

cubano authorities cut internet service, esta semana, to quell the spread of pro-freedom demonstrations across its cities. By executive fiat, India recently instituted internet regulations to suppress news about India’s farmers’ protests and COVID-19 public health failures – a decision that some are callingdigital authoritarianism.

Y en porcelana, Xi Jinping’s heavy-handed regulation of the internet has been most egregious censoring social media influencers, blocking foreign ideas from entering the country, and even imprisoning dissenting voices forfalse news.

If this sounds familiar, it is – throughout modern history, regimes seeking to quell citizen protest begin a repressive crackdown by silencing dissenters, journalists, even ordinary protestors – either through censoring the press or forbidding critical talk.

CRITICS SLAM THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER PSAKI REVEALS IT’S CONSULTING WITH FACEBOOK TO ‘FLAG MISINFORMATION

White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday made groundbreaking admissions revealing the Biden administration’s agenda of deciding what speech Americans are allowed to hear. Psaki admitted, “members of the [casa Blanca] senior staff” son “in regular touch with the social media platformsfor the purpose of addressing thisbig issue of misinformation.

She went on to admit that the White House hasincreased disinformation research and tracking” y eso “within the surgeon general’s office, we’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook” y “aumentar[En g] trusted content.

How exactly is our governmentboosting trusted contenton supposedly private social media networks? Who decides what content istrusted”? No answers from the White House. Nor from California’s government, which has been engaging in a similar censorship “aislamiento” with big tech in order to suppress dissent about the 2020 elección.

Más de Opinion

Whether it is a member of the White House’s senior staff, the secretary of state of California or anyone else carrying the weight of the government, the unholy collusion between “Gran tecnología” y “Big Governmentisn’t just another shameful example of the censorship we’re witnessing internationally – in America, it is blatantly unconstitutional.

The First Amendment’s free speech clause prohibits the government from abridging speech, especially on the basis of viewpoint, absent judicial scrutiny. The White House freely admits that it is pressuring Facebook to remove information it subjectively deems “desinformación” with respect to the coronavirus and vaccine.

CASA BLANCA, SURGEON GENERAL ‘FLAGGINGFACEBOOK POSTS FOR MODERATION, PSAKI SAYS

En otras palabras, Dr. Anthony Fauci is carrying a pocket veto on your speech. Don’t forget that at the same time, the big tech companies are facing increasing bipartisan calls for regulation, even antitrust breakup remedies. Against such a backdrop, when the White House comes calling, they are sure to stand at attention.

El mes pasado, the Center for American Liberty, where I serve as CEO and founder, filed a First Amendment lawsuit against Twitter, Su. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., and other California officials for their roles in censoring – and ultimately deplatforming – conservative commentator Rogan O’Handley, cuyo “thought crimewas calling for an audit of the 2020 elección. (Cuales, in light of the news this week arising from Fulton County, Georgia, and Maricopa County, Arizona, seems prophetic.)

If it walks like censorship and talks like censorship – and our government is involved at some level – it is censorship.

los comentarios están cerrados.