Obviously, we must censor all online communication to only that which is approved by the government or CNBC: X, formerly Twitter, amplifies disinformation amid Israel-Hamas conflict (cnbc.com)

My high school government teacher explained the First Amendment to us – saying that if you censor speech, who gets to decide who gets to be the censor? The answer to speech you do not like is more speech, not censorship.

But today, our politicians and media experts insist that online platforms should only allow for government approved speech. What could possible go wrong?

In the past few years, massive amounts of disinformation about Covid crossed social media. A surprisingly large amount of disinformation was from government officials.

WHO said that Covid does not have airborne transmission.

NIH Anthony Fauci said medical masks do not work, and then a week later said that home made cloth masks, assembled by persons of unknown skill, using random designs and random materials, would work (we now know they didn’t).

The CDC and other officials said that vaccines would prevent Covid infections – that was manifestly untrue. After it was over, we now know that the Covid vaccines were just 17% effective at preventing infection.

By the time it was over, most everything said by officials proved not to be true.

But worse, the White House directed Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and other online platforms to censor anyone that questioned the government’s approved statements. Thus, even questioning what proved to be government sponsored disinformation was punishable by having one’s account terminated.

That’s what happens when we live under authoritarian forms of government.

Today, the media which has long boasted of the importance of the First Amendment, now advocates for free speech for the media, and curated and censored speech for everyone else. Hypocrites.

The reporter has a BA in history and should know better.