How long can people pretend censorship is not becoming more abundant? How can democracy exist with an abundance of subjective censorship? There was an entire ticketing portal for government agents to request take downs of content for subjective reasoning. How is that not censorship?
I guess I can join in decrying the decline of 100% free speech in the abstract, but does that mean I shouldn’t be critical of whether an article’s evidence supports the claims it’s making?
I welcome critical points of view but the fact remains that few are allowed to even see posts like this, much less discuss them with logic. The root comment here dismisses the article without any argument. How is a ticketing portal between government and social media companies for post take downs on subjective matters not evidence of censorship? Why is our government subsidizing moderation?
The burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. So I didn't think I really needed any more argument than "the article's argument is insufficient for me to believe their claims". I wasn't trying to make any more general point about censorship or social media.
I don't have a problem in general with a ticketing system for the government to request specific kinds of moderation. There do exist valid carve-outs of free speech, and I see no reason why government and industry couldn't collaborate on that. If it were used to censor political speech, then yes, I would have a problem with that. But I haven't seen evidence of that.
> In 2020, CISA officials and personnel from EIP were often on emails together, and CISA’s personnel had access to EIP’s tickets through an internal messaging system, Jira, which EIP used to flag and report social media posts to Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms.
Here is a more detailed article with links to many of the documents, but I am unsure of the trustworthiness or biases of this source. It is hard to find mainstream coverage or discussion on this topic.
