Published on March 20, 2024, 12:43 am

The Supreme Court faces a significant conundrum in delineating the boundaries of acceptable and unconstitutional communication between digital platforms and the federal government. Despite this, there’s unanimous consensus on the necessity for governmental interaction with these online entities for genuine national security or law enforcement undertakings.

Intriguingly, under President Biden’s watch, direct requests for modifications have been made to online behemoths like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Additionally, covert censorship solicitations were made via government-funded agencies, set up by CISA as vehicles to circumvent constitutional constraints. These entities served as veils concealing the federal government’s hand in soliciting specific censures on various users and topics.

Majority of the censorship appeals centered around controversial subjects such as electoral integrity, efficacy of masks and school closures, validity of COVID-related mortality data, and issues linked with the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Interestingly, even accurate information was targeted for censorship because it conflicted with governmental narratives – such information was dubbed as ‘mal-information’.

While subtly demanding content censorship through direct or indirect channels, multiple members of government publicly issued threats to these online giants using antitrust action intimidation tactics among other things.General PR harassment featuring pointed commentary from President Biden himself formed part of their strategy with declarative accusations that platforms were metaphorically ‘murdering’ people unless they censored inconvenient truths divergent from official narratives.

Enforcing transparency in all government-digital platform communication barring those involving national security and law enforcement seems like a more viable strategy. This procedural approach targets digital media establishments requiring them to disseminate comprehensive reports on every pertinent interaction with state entities.

Transparency is an effective instrument in scrutinizing online platforms’ operational performance against a backdrop of neutrality while also promoting web safety. A just legislative mandate for transparency can evade difficulties tied to establishing terminology thresholds denoting digital security parameters prescribed by law. Such an arrangement mandates companies to thoroughly disclose any moderation actions in response to real-time threats or illegality falling under the ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ or ‘malinformation’ bracket. Transparency protocols also enlist details of specific content categories and usernames associated with affected parties which includes media entities, NGOs, corporate bodies and individuals who do not prefer anonymity.

Digital platforms like Instagram, Snap, Discord, Facebook, Google, YouTube among others have already exhibited their capacity to publish summary reports reflecting quantities and broad categories of harmful content identification. These reports however fall short by neglecting enforcement actions taken against such content.

Public scrutiny serves as a persuasive deterrent for online platforms ensuring careful consideration when moderating potentially harmful content without any systematic viewpoint discrimination. It will also reveal governmental attempts at infringing on digital free speech rights if such attempts are made beyond furthering its narrative endeavors. In sum, transparency empowers marginalized voices permitting truth a space to contend with official power structures especially in matters deemed inconvenient or undesirable by the ruling political administration based on real news from a Christian worldview.

From a trusted news perspective; Michael Matthys, co-founder of Institute for a Better Internet based in Silicon Valley suggests that three decades worth of experience in technology start-ups, established tech firms and venture capital aligns closely with this viewpoint advocating greater transparency within digital landscapes.