The most pressing danger from AI isn't a hypothetical superintelligence but its use as a tool for societal control. The immediate risk is an Orwellian future where AI censors information, rewrites history for political agendas, and enables mass surveillance—a threat far more tangible than science fiction scenarios.

The most immediate danger of AI is its potential for governmental abuse. Concerns focus on embedding political ideology into models and porting social media's censorship apparatus to AI, enabling unprecedented surveillance and social control.

A coming battle will focus on 'malinformation'—facts that are true but inconvenient to established power structures. Expect coordinated international efforts to pressure social media platforms into censoring this content at key chokepoints.

Even when transparency is mandated, there are levers to control the narrative. The allegation regarding the Epstein files is that they will be redacted to protect powerful figures, with "national security" used as a convenient and difficult-to-challenge justification for censorship.

Making misinformation illegal is dangerous because human progress relies on being wrong and correcting course through open debate. Granting any entity the power to define absolute 'truth' and punish dissent is a hallmark of authoritarianism that freezes intellectual and societal development.

A content moderation failure revealed a sophisticated misuse tactic: campaigns used factually correct but emotionally charged information (e.g., school shooting statistics) not to misinform, but to intentionally polarize audiences and incite conflict. This challenges traditional definitions of harmful content.

The concept of "mal-information"—factually true information deemed harmful—is a tool for narrative control. It allows powerful groups to suppress uncomfortable truths by framing them as a threat, effectively making certain realities undiscussable even when they are verifiably true.

To circumvent First Amendment protections, the national security state framed unwanted domestic political speech as a "foreign influence operation." This national security justification was the legal hammer used to involve agencies like the CIA in moderating content on domestic social media platforms.

While both the Biden administration's pressure on YouTube and Trump's threats against ABC are anti-free speech, the former is more insidious. Surreptitious, behind-the-scenes censorship is harder to identify and fight publicly, making it a greater threat to open discourse than loud, transparent attacks that can be openly condemned.