The power that comes with these combined roles is unprecedented. These corporations are economic monopolies like their predecessors. But they're also, in a very real sense, monopolies of the mind. Their censorship is even more pernicious than that of past regimes. Thought control is evolving with technology.
Evolving Threat
Nevertheless, some Democrats are calling for even sterner censorship measures, from pressuring tech companies to calling for Fox News' removal from cable outlets. It is a paradox of the present moment that most of these leaders would probably describe themselves as "liberal." Oxford Languages defines that word as follows:
1. ...willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
2. ...relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Almost nothing about this definition squares with these repressive proposals. (The exception is "free enterprise," which fits all too well.)
In a January 22 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was careful to append the adjective "violent" each time she used the word "extremism," as if to signal that extremist ideas alone are not being targeted. That caution is welcome, as was her reference to "our respect for constitutionally protected free speech and political activities." But Psaki's words still cause concern.
Psaki announced that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence would lead the "comprehensive threat assessment" effort. That's worrisome, to say the least. Under Clapper's direction, the same office spied on Americans and dishonestly placed some of the blame for the 2016 election on the left (including Black Lives Matter). (His old job is now held by Avril Haines, who has been dogged by criticism of her past work in illegal drone attacks and suppressing reports of CIA-led torture.)
Psaki also said the effort would "draw on the analysis from across the government and as appropriate, non-governmental organizations"which appears to signal the involvement of some of the same shadowy groups that have been employed by tech corporations for past censorship efforts.
Psaki then talks about the "building of an NSC capability to focus on countering domestic violent extremism," including "a policy review effort to determine how the government can share information better about this threat, support efforts to prevent radicalization, disrupt violent extremists networks, and more."
Psaki added that the "NSC convened process will focus on addressing evolving threats, radicalization, the role of social media, opportunities to improve information sharing, operational responses, and more."
Radical Roots
Phrases like "prevent radicalization" and "evolving threats" signal the true intent of such measures: to ramp up spying on groups and individuals that are considered potentially violent -- that is, that have done nothing violent yet. They are being spied on and censored for "pre-crime" (to borrow a term from "The Minority Report").
That logic has been used against left groups over and over, including adamantly nonviolent ones like Quakers peace groups. The left was also the primary target when the CIA and FBI violated the public's civil liberties in the 1960s. The kinds of people who conducted those actions are now being asked to lead Biden's efforts, despite their failure to show "respect for constitutionally protected free speech and political activities" in the past. (Some have even been lionized by the Democratic "resistance.")
Facebook's covert suppression of left-wing websites had already been revealed when Obama-era official Samantha Power, now nominated to head the Agency for International Development, wrote a Washington Post op-ed demanding that Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg "take far more drastic steps" to suppress speech she considers destructive.
As for "preventing radicalization"radicalism, at least the leftist kind, is an honorable American tradition. Biden's 2020 campaign called on once-radical ideas like feminism, unionism, and Black Lives Matter. Radicalism is the crucible of new ideas and constructive change. What new ideas of the future would be lost if they were indiscriminately "prevented"?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
