Facebook has admitted to blatant censorship and influencing public opinion in favor of a particular political party—the Democrats and their president.
YouTube and Google have admitted to political pressure
Alphabet, the parent company of other tech giants such as YouTube and Google, also made the same statement about improper censorship in an official letter. Alphabet sent an official letter to the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee admitting that the Biden administration had exerted pressure to censor content on YouTube. This affected not only verifiable misinformation, but also objective facts.
Alphabet states in the letter that “senior officials in the Biden administration, including representatives of the White House, pressured the company to suppress content related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the U.S. elections, even though it did not violate the terms of service in any way.”
The company further claims that the Biden administration repeatedly pressured it to remove information from the internet that was in no way inaccurate, i.e., neither misinformation nor disinformation.
In the letter, Alphabet specifically states “that representatives of the then-administration, including President Biden, created a political climate that sought to influence the actions of online companies to enforce their political views on misinformation.”
Simply put, the Biden administration wanted to dictate what misinformation is and what is not—strictly on the basis of a political decision. In doing so, it sought to influence and punish anyone who claimed otherwise.
Posts about COVID-19 were unlawfully deleted
In the letter, the company promises that YouTube has expanded the space for more comprehensive debate on COVID-19 and acknowledges that in 2023 it lifted many internal rules on COVID-19 content that suppressed debate on the topic.
As part of this censorship, posts and accounts were deleted from the online environment even though they did not constitute prohibited content – which the company also admitted. The company therefore deleted uncomfortable opinions even though they did not violate the law or its own internal regulations. It did so because of political pressure.
YouTube and Google are now offering these accounts the opportunity to return to the platform. In the Slovak Republic, Dr. Igor Bukovský's channel has been restored. Google officially informed him by email that his content did not violate community guidelines and subsequently restored his YouTube channel in full.
This channel had originally been deleted for allegedly spreading health misinformation. However, Bukovský is still suing the company for unjustified violation of his rights.
US President Donald Trump wins repeatedly in legal disputes against technology companies. YouTube has agreed to settle its dispute with Trump over the suspension of his account and pay him $24.5 million. Trump has also won against Meta and X (Twitter).
Alphabet also announced that since December 2024, it has been allowing discussions on various topics related to COVID-19 that were not previously possible. It pointed out that medical authorities had also changed their stance and that YouTube and its internal rules had therefore “evolved” with them.
Companies changed their rules under political pressure
The open admission of political pressure, the deletion of accounts, and today's “evolved” correct opinion on medical and other issues related to the pandemic did not come by chance from a technology company.
The official letter to the House of Representatives is a response to two significant events related to the investigation of improper political pressure to censor the world's largest technology companies.
The first is the fact that Republicans are conducting an investigation into Biden's censorship during his term in office.
Censorship industry complex
The House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Abuse of Federal Power have released a preliminary report titled “The Censorship Industrial Complex: How Senior Biden Administration Officials Pressured Major Tech Companies to Censor Americans, Truthful Information, and Critics of the Biden Administration.”
The report details the Biden White House's months-long campaign to force large companies—notably Facebook, Google, and Amazon—to censor books, videos, posts, and other online content. By the end of 2021, Facebook, YouTube, and Amazon changed their content moderation policies in ways that directly responded to criticism of the Biden administration.
After reviewing tens of thousands of emails and non-public documents between the Biden White House and major technology companies, the committee's report reveals that these companies changed their content moderation rules in response to the Biden administration. Censorship under Biden also targeted truthful information, satire, and other content that did not violate the platforms' rules.
The White House pushed for censorship not only on social media but also in books, and the pressure to censor content was intended to have a chilling effect on further online speech as well as on the companies that operate online platforms.
Significant litigation over censorship
Another important point is the litigation in the US known as Murthy v. Missouri (No. 23-411), originally referred to as Murthy v. Biden. In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs—the states of Missouri and Louisiana—and individuals accused the federal government of discreetly censoring content on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter (now X), and YouTube during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election.
The plaintiffs claimed, based on specific cases, that posts on social networks, mostly of a conservative nature, had been suppressed under pressure from government officials and falsely labeled as disinformation.
Judge Terry A. Doughty confirmed these facts and found that the government had made a concerted effort to suppress protected speech. The court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting government agencies from “taking any action to request, encourage, urge, or otherwise influence social media platforms to censor, suppress, or restrict speech at the discretion of government officials.”
The dispute was ultimately decided on appeal by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed and partially reversed the lower court's decision, reasoning that communications from government officials could be viewed as “pressure or substantial encouragement that would influence the platforms' decisions.”
Alibi decision and notable dissenting opinion
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs—both individuals and states—were not entitled to such judicial intervention because they did not meet the requirements for “standing” under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, i.e., active legitimacy. Standing means that a person has the ability to assert a particular right.
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case—that is, whether there was a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (freedom of speech) and thus unlawful censorship. The court sidestepped this question by finding that the plaintiffs did not meet the procedural requirements for bringing the lawsuit because they did not have a sufficient “personal interest in the matter” or the possibility of a direct claim.
In the opinion of the US Supreme Court, the plaintiffs failed, among other things, to demonstrate a sufficient connection between the government's communication and the specific intervention by the platforms, as well as the risk of a recurrence of such communication with an impact on their specific expression of opinion.
The ruling is accompanied by dissenting opinions from Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. The dissenting opinion criticizes the majority for refusing to examine the substantive issue of freedom of expression and instead focusing on procedural issues. The three judges argue that the plaintiffs' legal claim should be examined on its merits and that there are reasons why the government should not have the ability to unlawfully interfere with content on the platforms.
The judges further argue that the government should not have the ability to use pressure, threats, or coordination to induce private entities to restrict freedom of expression, and that such actions should be subject to judicial review.
The court did not make a binding decision on whether censorship had also taken place at the legal level in this case.
Political propaganda of a single opinion and falsification of science
The public must content itself with the fact that another large technology company has admitted that politicians pushed for the censorship of opinions that did not suit them, even though they were objective and true. It turned out that “disinformation” or “misinformation” later proved to be the truth, which simply should not be the subject of public debate. That is what those in power wanted – without relevant scientific evidence.
In this context, it is also worth noting a phenomenon that has subsequently developed in the world of science.
Objective and scientifically sound opinions were suppressed under the influence of political pressure. Not just on one platform, but simultaneously on all major networks – such as YouTube, Facebook, and Google.
Divergent scientific opinions could thus not be presented publicly and were confronted with pseudoscientific claims (e.g., about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines) that were only represented by a select group of people, often without any counterarguments.
People with scientific or professional training were ridiculed and censored by politicians, activists, and the media for their questions or opinions without sufficient basis. The power that had been created on the basis of hard-line political propaganda and the suppression of private companies was sufficient.
This created a fictional reality in which there was only one correct opinion on these issues. The rest was disinformation. This was evidenced by many deleted posts. However, it turned out that these were deleted due to political decisions, and now the companies that wrongfully accused public figures in particular are paying for it.
The modern “owners of the truth” and fighters against disinformation, however, beat their chests and claimed that “the truth is not up for debate.” These same people would have applauded the Inquisition in the past, which condemned Galileo for his claims about the heliocentric view of the world. Because there is only one truth, and it must not be questioned.
They did not know that they had fallen victim to a massive political campaign that favored only one correct opinion.
Some are still unaware of this today. These are primarily those who refuse to expose scientific findings to opposing opinions—even though this approach forms the basis of scientific research.
