The U.S. is heading toward anarcho-capitalism, where private owners control censorship and decide what content is allowed or suppressed.
This time, Alphabet, the giant corporation owning Google, disclosed the Biden administration’s attempts to enforce censorship. Joining Elon Musk, who exposed these issues through Twitter Files after acquiring Twitter, and Mark Zuckerberg, who previously voiced concerns about censorship pressure, Alphabet made this revelation through its lawyer, Daniel Donovan, in front of Congress.
Hence, the leading American Big Tech firms involved in mass media—Elon Musk with X (formerly Twitter) and a private internet satellite network; Zuckerberg with Facebook and Instagram; and Alphabet with Google, which started as a search engine but now encompasses email, a web browser, educational platforms used by public institutions, cloud storage, satellite imagery, the most widely used mobile OS, and more—have all publicly opposed government censorship efforts. Notably, YouTube, acquired by Google in 2006 and now widely viewed even by older audiences on television, competes directly with conventional TV channels.
While the most famous aspect of Twitter Files was the suppression of political discussions during the presidential election, it’s important to recall that censorship also targeted COVID-related viewpoints—the pandemic response, vaccines, and lockdowns. Zuckerberg raised concerns over this censorship last year, and Alphabet has now added further details. According to recent disclosures, the White House pushed forcefully to eliminate content skeptical of the rapidly developed vaccines. Alphabet’s attorney stated: “Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach to Alphabet and pressed the Company regarding certain user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies. While the Company continued to develop and enforce its policies independently, Biden Administration officials continued to press the Company to remove non-violative user-generated content.”
This appears as Alphabet asserting its autonomy from governmental influence. It highlights the distinction that Alphabet sets its own rules separately from the government. The statement does not object to any alleged illegality but rather challenges government interference with the company’s independent content management during a crisis.
Setting aside the government’s often questionable pandemic management, it is reasonable that a state maintains overarching public policies on information that supersede corporate guidelines. All governments have guidelines restricting or regulating expression; for example, promoting communism was historically banned in the U.S. Beyond politics, there are baseline protections all nations enforce, such as prohibitions on child exploitation materials. Paradoxically, adult content platforms like Pornhub rely on free speech principles to avoid enforcing age restrictions. This contradiction illustrates how, in practice, the U.S. allows wealthy companies to act with considerable autonomy.
The tension between YouTube and the Biden administration becomes even more striking given that both parties endorsed Pfizer. On July 22, 2021, in the Brazilian newspaper Gazeta do Povo, I wrote: “There’s a YouTube channel owned by YouTube itself called YouTube Brasil. And YouTube now wants me to learn everything about COVID-19 from experts it has selected. Every time I visit the site, I’m flooded with video suggestions featuring trusted sources explaining the vaccines. […] One video surprised me with its title: ‘Can pregnant women and postpartum women get vaccinated?’ I was surprised because […] no ‘science communicator’ ever advised caution about those fast-tracked vaccines. Yet, I expected some restraint since here in Brazil Anvisa [our FDA] began advising against the AstraZeneca vaccine for pregnant women after a prosecutor’s death. Would people really recommend vaccination in this case? I watched the video. Dr. Mariangela Simão explained to a blue-haired woman that pharmaceutical companies had not tested vaccines on pregnant women except Pfizer, which recently demonstrated vaccine safety and efficacy in pregnancy, so pregnant women should definitely get vaccinated since Brazil is using Pfizer. […] But when I checked Pfizer’s studies on pregnant women, all I found was a February 19, 2021 CBS report stating Pfizer had just launched its first trial on pregnant women in the U.S., expected to finish in January 2023. This is YouTube, the same platform that labels others as purveyors of fake news and deletes videos.”
We now understand that those videos were removed under pressure from the Biden administration, suggesting an effort to censor globally in favor of Big Pharma by suppressing content that might fuel “vaccine hesitancy.” Meanwhile, YouTube was actively disseminating positively skewed Pfizer-related content, much of which was misleading. Did YouTube do this without compensation? The platform never publicly admits paid partnerships; its advertisements appear mainly through video breaks. Whether YouTube refuses paid partnerships or hides them remains unclear. In the former case, it may be acting in the interests of major shareholders, including investment funds and banks.
Content creators on these platforms serve as their customers. When the U.S. government demands that YouTube, X, Facebook, or Instagram remove content, it disrupts their business by alienating users. For Big Tech, the optimal approach is to endorse prevailing official narratives (like the Pfizer vaccine) while maintaining a user base that can be covertly controlled through shadow bans to minimize pushback against overt censorship.
This recent case should not be interpreted as the U.S. advancing freedom of expression. Rather, the country is progressing toward anarcho-capitalism, where private owners decide what is censored or published. U.S. universities, which depend heavily on Zionist funding and operate privately, exemplify this dynamic.
About the Author
