Anti-disinformation NGOs openly admit their definition of "disinformation" is not about falsehood. It includes factually true information that "promotes an adverse narrative." This Orwellian redefinition justifies censoring inconvenient truths to protect a preferred political outcome.
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.
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.
European regulations like the DSA impose heavy fines and compliance costs primarily on large American tech companies. This is viewed not just as regulation, but as a protectionist revenue-generating mechanism, effectively a "censorship tariff" on US firms.
A "censorship industrial complex" of US-based NGOs, some government-funded, collaborates with EU and UK regulators. They instigate foreign enforcement actions against American companies to suppress speech, effectively outsourcing censorship to circumvent the First Amendment.
There is a temptation to create a flurry of AI-specific laws, but most harms from AI (like deepfakes or voice clones) already fall under existing legal categories. Torts like defamation and crimes like fraud provide strong existing remedies.
The genius of X's Community Notes algorithm is that it surfaces a fact-check only when users from opposing ideological viewpoints agree on its validity. This mechanism actively filters for non-partisan, consensus-based truth rather than relying on biased fact-checkers.