"Censorship inherently reinforces existing power structures." Get the foundations here for teaching about censorship, suppression, and narrative control.
"One of the best ways to manipulate a society is to manipulate the social spheres."
"Censorship inherently reinforces existing power structures"
Censorship is any deliberate suppression or prohibition of speech, whether for good or ill. In the United States and countries which have adopted its model, censorship induced by governments and their appendages is constitutionally prohibited except in the narrow category of “illegal speech”—e.g., obscenity, child exploitation, speech abetting criminal conduct, and speech that incites imminent violence. Because censorship involves the exercise of power to silence another individual, censorship is inherently hierarchical. A person who lacks the power to silence another cannot censor them. For this reason, censorship inherently reinforces existing power structures, whether rightly or wrongly… because censorship depends on and reinforces existing power structures, censors tend especially to target those who seek to hold power to account.
Contents
Vocabulary
Why Censorship Matters
Telltale Sign of Being a Victim of Propaganda
Censorship & Narrative Control Strategies
Framing a Problem to Manufacture Consent for a Particular “Solution”
Fact Checking, Misinformation & Disinformation Industry (includes Facebook Fact Checking, Snopes, Reuters Fact Check, NewsGuard, Trusted News Initiative, Washington Post Fact Checking, Other Industry Players)
Prebunking and Limited Hangouts
Replacing Journalists with Stenographers
Suppressing Evidence for Corporate Interests
Governments Usurping Control Over Speech
Censorship Examples
Repercussions & Responses
More than 70 Sources
Vocabulary
BIG TECH / TECH GIANTS — A few large corporations that have excessive power and influence on society, markets and information. Includes Alphabet (Google & YouTube), Amazon, Apple, Meta (Facebook & Instagram), and Microsoft.
BOOK BURNING — Refers to multiple times in history when books, a primary source of knowledge, inspiration and wisdom, were burned by oppressors and war victors to censor the information within them. Examples include Libraries in Nazi Germany, the Library of Alexandria and many others. When used to refer to current events, it means censorship.
BOT — “The traditional definition of an online bot is a software application that posts automatically. However, in common usage, it is more often used to describe any anonymous online identity who is secretly incentivized to post according to specific narratives on behalf of an outside interest.” [source]
CENSORSHIP — To suppress or delete something as objectionable. [dictionary]
CUT-OUT — “A mechanism… used to create a compartment between the members of an operation to allow them to pass material or messages securely.” [source] Government agents routinely hide their actions behind other organizations to fraudulently avoid constitutional limitations on government power. The front organization is called a cut-out.
DISINFORMATION — “Any information shared by a person who knows it to be false. Disinformation is synonymous with lying.” [source]
FIRST AMENDMENT — Refers to the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The first amendment refers only to government censorship and is not legally enforceable with corporations.
“LIMITED HANGOUT” — “A limited hangout or partial hangout is a tactic used in media relations, perception management, politics and information management… [It] gives a taste of the truth that is stage-managed and controlled. It misdirects away from the depth of the scandal, withholding key information that could damage the powerful. The tactic originated as a technique in the espionage trade.” [source] It appears that the truth about a previously held secret has been revealed when in fact it is only a portion of the truth in order to quash further interrogation that could reveal the full truth.
MISINFORMATION — “Information that is not completely true, regardless of the intent behind it… Technically, under the broadest definition, all human thoughts and statements other than absolute mathematical axioms are misinformation, because [they] are generalizations based on subjective beliefs and experiences, none of which can be considered perfectly true…. Because no particular ‘degrees’ of misinformation can be defined, an official with a license to censor misinformation could censor virtually any statement at any time and justify their action, correctly, as having censored misinformation.” [source]
MONOPOLY — A sector or industry dominated by one corporation, firm or entity.
MONOPOLIZE — To dominate.
OLIGOPOLY — A market or industry dominated by a small number of powerholders.
PREBUNKING — Information designed to make people less susceptible to a contrary narrative
PROPAGANDA — Any organized attempt to move large numbers of people to, or away from, some thought or action. [Mark Crispin Miller PhD] In contrast to persuasion through argument, propaganda uses sub-rational manipulation.
Why Censorship Matters
If you’re a person who believes that fact checkers and gatekeepers of information serve a valid purpose (such as ensuring accuracy or restraining speech that causes harm), then it’s necessary to oversee those gatekeepers to evaluate how the power that’s been entrusted is being wielded.
If, on the other hand, you believe that people have a right to communicate without surveillance and censorship, then it’s necessary to know what information is being controlled, and by what means. This better enables us to work around the systems of control and to work with others to ensure we have access to the information we seek.
Telltale Sign of Being a Victim of Propaganda
Can you present compelling evidence for either side of an argument, or do you lazily presume the other side is simply “crazy”?
A common tool of education in the 20th century was debate. Every student was expected to be capable of presenting compelling evidence for either side of an argument. That requires digging into a subject from multiple perspectives until you have a reasonably complete understanding of it. If, instead, you have no idea why others would hold a particular viewpoint, or you believe that no matter how many people have that perspective that they must be “crazy,” this is a clear indication of having been propagandized.
In reality, with open sharing of information, it’s not particularly difficult to understand why someone has the viewpoint they do. While a less informed person tends to think the other side of an argument makes no sense, a more informed person tends to know why another person holds a different view. To be more or less informed does not mean to be more or less educated or even more or less of an “expert” (which can simply be a biased, incomplete perspective). The less informed person will tend to conclude certain things based on a powerful, unquestioned belief that has come about for a reason (e.g. unhealed trauma, school and religious indoctrination, media and political propaganda, and other powerful and serious contributors).
Obviously, different people have different perspectives and we needn’t all agree on all things. It’s not a natural occurrence to have the idea that there are only two ways to think, and that one of them is dead wrong. Partisan, divisive thinking is often a result of unknowingly being the victim of narrative control (that benefits a third-party, who uses suppression, censorship and dehumanization to serve an agenda).
This agenda leads people to believe that they are well-enough informed when in fact they are in the dark about key information. Covid protocols are an obvious example. No matter one’s perspective on vaccines or masking, if he can’t succinctly describe a number of reasonable reasons why some people chose to be vaccinated or wear a mask, and why some people chose not to be vaccinated or wear a mask, then he lacks necessary information to effectively understand the subject.
One of the tactics used by narrative controllers is to co-opt natural, healthy intentions, subverting them to benefit an agenda. For example:
The universal desire for access to clean water may be redirected from demanding the end to toxic chemicals in farming and manufacturing, to trusting the EPA (which has been betraying the American people for decades) and relying on drinking water from corporations selling water in plastic bottles.
The natural, universal desire for emotionally healthy kids may be redirected from seeking foods unadulterated with sugars and artificial ingredients that affect mood and health, to relying on medical “professionals” educated only in pharmaceuticals to prescribe drugs to kids.
The point here is that we must seek to be well-enough informed to understand how another has come to their conclusion. Censorship and narrative control is completely contrary to this endeavor, resulting instead in reducing the available information.
Censorship & Narrative Control Strategies
See below to learn more about these tools and strategies that are used to control access to information:
Framing a problem to manufacture consent for a particular "solution"
Fact checking, misinformation, disinformation industry (Facebook Fact Checking, Snopes, NewsGuard, etc)
Prebunking and “limited hangouts”
Replacing journalists with stenographers
Suppressing research and evidence for corporate interests
Governments usurping control over speech
Framing a Problem to Manufacture Consent for a Particular “Solution”
In response to this situation, mainstream sources (that wish to maintain control over information) have honed this argument: “There are people and other governments (but not us) who publish false information, sometimes inflammatory and dangerous, causing innocent people who are incapable of discerning falsities to be influenced to act in inappropriate ways. This makes our people and world unsafe, and so, authorities need to surveil and control information.”
Many Situations & Problems, Always One Authoritarian Solution
The reasons for the need to control online speech change from day to day, but the demand for that control remains a constant. Some days it’s a need to protect the citizenry from online disinformation campaigns by foreign governments. Sometimes it’s the need to guarantee election security. Sometimes it’s the need to eliminate domestic extremism and conspiracy theories. Sometimes it’s Covid misinformation. The problems change, but the solution is always the same: increased regulation of speech by monopolistic online platforms in steadily increasing coordination with the US government.
– Don’t Underestimate How Badly The Powerful Need Control Of Online Speech, Jan 14, 2022
Other Considerations Not Proposed by the Authorities: Broaden Available Information, Invite Dialogue, Make Assumptions Transparent, Demonstrate & Encourage Critical Thinking
We explain why censorship is so dangerous, and why we need, in contrast, to broaden the scope of available information and foster dialogue and critical thinking.
The authoritarian narrative is fear-based, and the “solution” is to take power from individuals and give it to systems by funneling information through gatekeepers. This means:
The designation of “fact checkers” approved by the authorities
Millions of tax dollars allocated for campaigns to sway opinion (to follow the medical advice of a centralized authority, for example)
Partnerships between government authorities and corporate communication platforms to block content from being published
Using algorithms to flag certain phrases or sources which are then censored, suppressed (via elimination from search results) or saddled with “warnings” about the subversive nature of the content, as it is contrary to “official” sources
Such authoritarian solutions have inherent flaws due to the nature of systems, including a lack of transparency around built-in assumptions, a dismissal of subtlety, and a disregard for individual uniqueness and freedoms. Even if a system can be developed to create more benefit than harm, systems are notoriously corruptible, as exemplified throughout our posts on Bird’s Eye View.
We can see here that evaluating what is true isn’t as simple as identifying if something is factual, but also about which facts and perspectives are being neglected, the agenda behind the author, who has funded research being cited, what hypotheses have been tested, and so on. Outsourcing to “systems” has proven time and again that such complexity and subtlety is not honored.
In Censorship Examples below, we see how information has been routinely censored not because it’s untrue, but because it contradicts an “authority” such as government institutions and pharmaceutical interests. For example, medical professionals, researchers and individuals who question the need for 100% compliance with pharmaceutical-based medicine are flagged by censorship authorities, and non-pharma solutions and natural immunity, among many other examples, have been severely censored and suppressed.
Are corporate and government powers and mainstream media (or mainstream medicine, research or education) reliable sources for such broad scale conclusions and recommendations? (This article investigates what it means to be “mainstream,” demonstrates the corruption of mainstream sources, and lays bare the vast difference between mainstream media and investigative journalism.)
Fact Checking, Misinformation & Disinformation Industry
It’s become obvious that not all who publish take responsibility for verifying their content as factually correct, and it’s relatively common to see people express opinion as fact. We can presume that some sources who publish information that is false or lacking in context do so inadvertently, and some do so willfully.
Sound journalism has always taken responsibility for verifying information as factual, relying on fact checkers to verify key aspects of reporting. However, before the arising of censorship in mainstream media and the Internet, fact checking stayed within the bounds of verifiable, unquestionable facts such as names, places, dates, quotes and so on.
Fact checking has become industrialized by powers who now use it far beyond its historical role, transforming it into a weapon for censoring people who deliver factual information that doesn’t support an authority-approved narrative.
