Biden Is Trying to Impose Online Censorship by Proxy
The administration’s public pressure campaign against COVID-19 "misinformation" cannot be reconciled with its avowed respect for freedom of expression.
The administration’s public pressure campaign against COVID-19 "misinformation" cannot be reconciled with its avowed respect for freedom of expression.
Also, regulation is (still) not the answer to online misinformation.
The existence of politically biased websites is not a crisis.
Speech is protected by the First Amendment even when it discourages vaccination.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki wants the social media site to ban 12 specific anti-vaccine accounts.
Demonstrators are making themselves heard via Facebook, Signal, and other platforms. Is that enough to overthrow an authoritarian regime?
The controversial author on her acclaimed and condemned book, being deplatformed, and the future of free expression in an increasingly polarized marketplace of ideas
The rationales for doing so are weak, and would create a dangerous slippery slope, if accepted.
It will fail, and fail badly.
Efforts against violence are turning into restrictions on ideas.
Plus: How Trump lost in 2020, Amazon seeks recusal of FTC chair, and more...
Plus: Retaliatory action in Syria, developments with the delta variant, Clarence Thomas on marijuana, and more...
Taken together, these six measures would have a major impact on the way we shop, chat, and otherwise go about our business online.
In many professional arenas, Wu's swings and misses would have consequences. In Wu's case, it landed him an advisory role in the Biden administration.
Our coverage of biohackers working on a DIY vaccine last year was solid reporting on an important subject. If YouTube insists on banning journalism like this, what's next?
People fret about online echo chambers, but offline echo chambers can be just as strong—or stronger.
"I chose to be that guy who didn't issue the apology," says Daniel Elder. "Things went from there and it wasn't good."
The law would make a federal case out of every aggrieved internet user and compel companies to host messages they do not wish to platform.
Jones has been accused of fabricating her COVID-19 cover-up claims. Now she says she's running for Congress.
I don't know the correct level of content moderation by Facebook, Twitter, Google, or Amazon, and neither do you.
How reactionary politicians are using monopoly concerns as cover to pursue pre-existing political agendas
A new article's authors thanked Twitter for calling out their problematic microaggressions.
The creator of ultra-woke poet Titania McGrath makes the case against cancel culture.
Plus: Prosecutors are big lobbyists for new crime bills, Biden floats compromise on corporate taxes, and more...
The creator of Titania McGrath on cancel culture, government overreach, and younger generations' willingness to censor
“The Act is so rife with fundamental infirmities that it appears to have been enacted without any regard for the Constitution,” the lawsuit reads.
We expect British royals to favor muzzling commoners, but too many lawmakers feel the same way.
Calling a classmate a racist slur on Snapchat is offensive. It’s also protected speech.
It's a working model for non-state governance in cyberspace that is vastly preferable to government control of social media.
A member of the board (and a Cato Institute vice president) defends the controversial decision to kick the former president off the social media platform.
Facebook can't kill, jail, or tax you. It can only stop you from posting on Facebook.
"It's very obvious that nobody involved in [the bill] consulted a First Amendment lawyer," says TechFreedom's Berin Szóka.
"At the time of Mr. Trump's posts, there was a clear, immediate risk of harm."
Plus: The challenges of free speech on Twitter, the case against baseball bailouts, and more...
From "power poses" to the self-esteem movement to implicit bias tests, we want to believe one small tweak will solve our problems, says Jesse Singal.
"The notion that a school can discipline a student for that kind of...non-harassing expression is contrary to our First Amendment tradition."
A moot case about Trump blocking tweets leads to concerns that tech companies have too much control over speech.
Civil liberties advocates warn that the legislation threatens activism, journalism, and satire.
What about the federal government's own health experts?
Even minor tweaks to the law could shore up Mark Zuckerberg's dominance.
Plus: Atlanta shooter blames "sex addiction," Maryland wants new occupational licensing requirements, and more...
"We don't need to use a faulty model and apply it to the very real terrorism problem that we have at home," says terrorism expert Max Abrahms.
The whole thing is arguably voided by Section 230.
Plus: Problems with the PRO Act, what libertarian feminism isn't, and more...
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10