A global censorship regime operated under the flag of “combating disinformation” will never work, as there has been and will continue to be significant collateral damage to censoring speech that is true, or open to interpretation and discussion.

Ex-Meta staffers sell trust and safety tech during Israel-Hamas war (cnbc.com)

The censorship regimes of the social media companies, the Stanford Internet Observatory, the CDC, the FDA, NIH and so on, demonstrated what happens when censorship – aka disinformation control – runs off the rails.

The more electronic communications we use and rely upon, the more the censorship regimes will seek to control discourse.

They operate on the basis that everything has a clear, unambiguous and nonobjective “truth” and that “experts” have the right and the option to censor what information you have access to.

And that they can use AI-based software to correctly understand and interpret content posted online – and automatically detect and flag double wrong think speech:

“Basically, anytime you comment or you post on our platform, it goes through it,” Bardin said regarding the trust and safety software. “It looks at it from an AI perspective to understand what it is and to rank it in terms of harm, pornography, violence, etc.”

A possible way to address this is to put censorship in the hands of the end user.

Let me choose which option I wish to use:

– No censorship, let me see everything

– Let me select a 3rd party “disinformation service” to filter my news feed

– Let me choose to use the social media platform’s default censor service

– Let me select crowd sourced information tags, of the type used on Twitter, to alert me to possible misinformation.

What ever you do, let the user have ultimate control – not biased organizations that they are God and can discern objective truth about each and every statement published online.

The news media, which not long ago, actively promoted free expression under the First Amendment, today advocates for controlling the speech of others, which they see as competitors. They also arrogantly view themselves as the arbiters of truth, even though they make many errors and frequently select their story topics, sources, quotes, and how they edit those stories, to present propaganda messaging intended to persuade you to adopt their agenda.