A CLOSER LOOK at the Censorship Industrial Complex and how it aims to control ALL SPEECH across the entire world
Through a public records request, the Functional Government Initiative (FGI) has obtained critical documents providing a much clearer picture of how the so-called Censorship Industrial Complex operates – and it ain’t pretty.
Before the Censorship Industrial Complex even existed, it was the military industrial complex that was waging war on its opposition, using bombers rather than the algorithms that the newfangled Censorship Industrial Complex uses.
“The players aren’t Raytheon and Boeing, but social media companies, tech startups, and universities and their institutes,” writes Real Clear Wire‘s Pete McGinnis about what the Censorship Industrial Complex is and entails.
“The foes to be dominated are American citizens whose opinions diverge from government narratives on issues ranging from COVID-19 responses to electoral fraud to transgenderism.”
A few months back when the Censorship Industrial Complex was first outed as a thing, its key players tried to claim that they were just private entities acting in accordance with their First Amendment rights, and all to protect “democracy.” It turns out, however, that they were really just “quasi-federal actors,” to quote McGinnis, in disguise.
The requested documents came from the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee of the U.S. Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Agency (CISA), the members of which met so often and worked so closely with their government handlers “that the federal liaison to the committee regularly offered members his personal cell phone and even reminded them to use the committee’s Slack channel,” McGinnis notes.
“Your average concerned citizen doesn’t have a Homeland Security bureaucrat on speed dial.”
What, exactly, were these people working on, you might be asking? They were constructing a subcommittee on “social listening” and “monitoring” that would be used to address the perceived threat of mis-, dis-, and mal-information online.
At its start, as we previously reported, CISA was supposed to be about responding to misinformation campaigns from foreign actors. Over time, it evolved into dealing with domestic “threats.”
(Related: Check out the top seven organizations behind the Censorship Industrial Complex.)
“Democracy,” in CISA’s context, means whatever the government claims is true (and false)
It sounds nice to state that the purpose of CISA is to protect “democracy” from bad actors both foreign and domestic, but in reality, what they mean is that they want to protect themselves and their agenda – they meaning those occupying high-level government positions.
Time and time again, it was discussed at CISA that American citizens need to be spied on and surveilled just as much as foreign actors when it comes to protecting the “homeland” against misinformation. This eventually spilled over into social media platforms, search engines, and of course “news” websites.
When the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) came along, it was suddenly a top priority to address “dangerously inaccurate health advice,” including from licensed doctors who happen to disagree with the government’s assessment of things.
Aside from a few hiccups, including the creation and deconstruction of fake president Brandon’s Disinformation Governance Board (DGB), which did not go over so well among the public, the Censorship Industrial Complex is still going strong, drawing in support from the private sector, academia, and of course governments.
Other allies include organizations with a “progressive civil rights” bent, which are being tasked with leading the charge against “misinformation” so as to veil the government itself as the true culprit behind this massive censorship operation.
“A government committee that seeks partisan allies, obfuscates its purpose, and can’t even be honest about the nature of its members’ participation is going to sort out online truth for Americans? Welcome to the Censorship Industrial Complex,” McGinnis concludes in an article about the subject.
Censorship is counterintuitive to the First Amendment. Learn more at Censorship.news.
Sources for this article include: