#censorship-and-funding

#censorship-and-funding

Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they'll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike. That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of reach of any government official to destroy.

Around 2013 in Taiwan's context, when Facebook started to take over the digital ecosystem in Taiwan, many local independent bulletin boards that had been formed for sexual minorities were shut down because they had no income from advertisements, and people were pushed into mainstream platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Meta, whatever, Twitter now X where sexual expression was usually reported or flagged.

Recent revelations from news agency Reuters that the US is "developing an online portal that will enable people in Europe and elsewhere to see content banned by their governments including hate speech and terrorist propaganda," as a method to counter what it sees as excessive censorship in other parts of the world is troubling to the EU. Even if the plans appear to have been delayed and detail is thin, the US position is clear.

Every society recognises that words and images, in certain contexts, do harm and that incitement to commit crime can be a criminal act. There is a spectrum of tolerance and enforcement. Repression of free speech is a symptom of tyranny, but all governments regulate it to some degree. The threshold for intervention is lower when children are involved. That is why the idea of banning under-16s from social media, already operational in Australia, is catching on elsewhere.

Managed by the US state department and the US Agency for Global Media, the programme broadly called Internet Freedom funds small groups all over the world, from Iran to China to the Philippines, who built grassroots technologies to evade internet controls imposed by governments. It has dispensed well over $500m (370m) in the past decade, according to an analysis by the Guardian, including $94m in 2024.

For years, we've been subjected to an endless parade of hyperventilating claims about the Biden administration's supposed "censorship industrial complex." We were told, over and over again, that the government was weaponizing its power to silence conservative speech. The evidence for this? Some angry emails from White House staffers that Facebook ignored. That was basically it. The Supreme Court looked at it and said there was no standing because there was no evidence of coercion.

"It's hard to interpret this as anything other than an attempt to squash the freedom of the press," one critic said.