Online Censorship: The Cure is Worse than the Disease
Fake news remains a significant problem in 2025. And emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, are making it far worse.
But censoring online content to combat fake news is equally problematic. Regardless of your position on the political spectrum, censorship continues to be an issue that threatens everyone.
The Challenge of Fake News
From a legal perspective, it’s clear that the government can’t force the media to filter out fake news. After all, the First Amendment reads, in part:
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
The First Amendment and Private Companies
But private companies are free to censor anyone they want. That’s how iTunes, Facebook, Spotify, and YouTube justified removing audio and video content produced by online provocateur and right-wing activist Alex Jones from their platforms in 2018.
It’s hard to deny that Jones posted fake news. Perhaps his most infamous claim is that the 2012 school shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, in which 20 children were murdered, never happened. Or as Jones put it:
Sandy Hook is synthetic, completely fake, with actors, in my view, manufactured.
Facebook’s Actions in 2018 and the Slippery Slope of Censorship
But as big a problem as fake news is, online censorship isn’t the answer. Like it or not, booting Alex Jones off social media puts us as a society on a dangerous slippery slope. And we are sliding down that slope now.
In late 2018, within weeks of kicking off Jones, Facebook removed hundreds of pages of smaller left-wing, libertarian, and anti-war media outlets. Four of the more prominent organizations affected are Cop Block, the Free Thought Project, the Anti-Media, and Press for Truth.
Alex Jones was kicked off social media for alleged hate speech in his audio and video. But, these organizations do not fit the hate speech mold.
In a press release at the time, Facebook said it had removed “559 pages and 251 accounts that have consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior.” It also claimed the organizations were “working to mislead others about who they are and what they are doing.” And that they tricked “people into thinking that they were forums for legitimate political debate.”
These statements don’t add up. The four organizations I mentioned all listed contact info on their Facebook feeds. Indeed, until they were removed, they even had a “verified by Facebook” certification.
The Role of the Atlantic Council in Facebook’s Decisions
What’s the real reason why Facebook decided to silence these online publishers? Like any company, Facebook wants to maximize profits. So, perhaps these organizations threatened its revenue stream.
So, let’s follow the money.
One clue emerged in late 2018, when Facebook announced it had identified 30 Facebook accounts and 85 Instagram accounts that it believed “may be engaged in coordinated inauthentic behavior.” A few days later, Facebook published an update. It said its takedown had been in coordination with “the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Lab.”
The Atlantic Council is a virulently anti-Russian neo-conservative think tank. Its “Honor Roll of Contributors” includes the United Arab Emirates and multinational giants like Chevron, Raytheon, HSBC, and even the US Air Force Academy.
One well-known name with close ties to the Atlantic Council is Jamie Fly, former counselor for Foreign and National Security Affairs to Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) In early 2019, Fly said in an interview he was working with the Atlantic Council to help it purge the internet of fake news. Facebook’s actions, he said, were “just the beginning.”
Why Censorship is a Problem for Everyone
The issue of censorship has only intensified, especially with advances in AI being used to automate moderation on social media.
It’s logical that multinationals and governments might want to silence those who threaten the status quo. For instance, if enough people read anti-war alternative media, they might vote for candidates who oppose foreign intervention in Syria and Iran. Among other consequences, that could lead to lower profits for defense contractors like Raytheon.
But Facebook and other social media platforms are private companies. Can’t they censor anyone they want?
Maybe… but maybe not.
If an arm of the Atlantic Council is making censorship decisions for Facebook, that muddies the waters. The Atlantic Council is funded in large part by governments – including the US government. Some First Amendment advocates believe that connection limits Facebook’s right to censor anyone it wants.
By working with the Atlantic Council, Facebook is essentially working with the governments that provide funding to the organization. And the US government is not allowed to engage in censorship.
It will be interesting to see if this practice is allowed to continue or if it will be struck down in the courts.
