Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

An activist coalition publicly targeted 'internet companies' for censorship but strategically defined the term to include banks and payment processors. This made their primary, often unstated, goal to cut off funding to their political opponents.

Related Insights

Going beyond content moderation, the 'Change the Terms' coalition explicitly demanded that Facebook shut down the fundraising activities of a political action committee (PAC) controlled by Donald Trump, a declared candidate for president, calling it a 'loophole' in his ban.

Major companies like Amazon and financial service providers have integrated the SPLC's 'extremist' list into their compliance pipelines. In some cases, this authority is delegated, meaning a listing by the SPLC can automatically kill a transaction or account application as cleanly as an official government sanction.

The SPLC's list was adopted by financial firms partly due to a coordinated pressure campaign within its core community: nonprofits and their funders. The message was clear: screen donations using the SPLC list or face social and financial consequences, effectively bootstrapping its data product into the financial supply chain.

To be effective rather than just morally 'right,' activism should target the 'jugular' of a system. This means focusing on a small number of companies with outsized economic influence and vulnerability, rather than a broad list of all complicit actors, to maximize impact.

When direct censorship is unconstitutional, governments pressure intermediaries like tech companies, banks, or funded NGOs to suppress speech. These risk-averse middlemen comply to stay in the government's good graces, effectively doing the state's dirty work.

The Canadian government freezing the bank accounts of citizens for making legal donations to the Freedom Convoy protestors established a modern precedent. It demonstrated how a Western government can use financial infrastructure to suppress political dissent without trial or due process, foreshadowing the potential risks of centralized digital currencies.

As the internet decimated Democratic strongholds like legacy media, 'wokeness' was deployed as an ideological weapon against Republicans, and the 'techlash' was used against the internet itself. These cultural movements were defensive reactions to economic disruption, not merely social trends.

Originally about solvency, the concept of "reputational risk" is being co-opted by ESG advocates. Financial institutions are pressured to sever ties with politically controversial clients to avoid this newly defined risk, leading to viewpoint-based debanking.

To effectively exert economic pressure, focus on the 'soft tissue' of the economy. A small disruption in the subscription revenue of major tech companies has a disproportionately large impact on their market capitalization and investor sentiment, making it a more potent lever for change than boycotting essential goods.

A coalition first secured companies' agreement to deplatform genuinely harmful actors like terrorists (the 'ante'). They then expanded demands to include controversial political figures (the 'raise'), framing non-compliance as a failure to uphold the original commitment.