"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
- George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings (as said by Tyrion Lannister)
The recent social media banishment of Dr. Robert Malone, a Covidstan dissident who likely presented more of a threat than our Big Tech overlords were willing to stomach thanks to his expertise and contribution to the development of mRNA technology, has again brought leftist censorship to the forefront of the public consciousness.
Malone, who joined other prominent figures like feminist author Naomi Wolf, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, and Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in having their Twitter accounts demolished because of so-called “Covid misinformation,” went on to parlay his banishment into a viral appearance on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast. So in this case, thankfully, Big Tech censors seem to have had their actions backfire on them. Because of their censorship, Malone ended up gaining a larger audience than he otherwise would have and ironically caused both his name and the phrase “mass formation psychosis” to trend for days on the very platform that kicked him off.
Arguing against the idea that actual censorship is taking place, many on social media correctly pointed out the fact that Malone wasn’t actually silenced in the end. Nor was Wolf, a prominent author and tech company owner, or Berenson, who enjoys a tremendous following on Substack, or Greene, a sitting congresswoman. All have voices that will continue to be heard outside of the Twittersphere. The ones who point this out are still generally supportive of the social media giants’ decisions as private companies. They, and Big Tech, know full well that the information they are trying to ‘suppress’ will exist somewhere, whether it’s Rumble, Substack, Gab, Locals, GETTR, or any of the other platforms conservatives have built for themselves.
So what then is the problem? If censors aren’t censoring to silence, why are they censoring in the first place? After all, they aren’t banning the accounts of flat earthers, people who think the moon is made of green cheese, or even Islamic fundamentalists hellbent on global jihad. They aren’t even kicking off everyone who disagrees with their Covid narrative, only seemingly some of the most prominent ones. What is their strategy? Is there a strategy at all?
The motives behind leftist censorship don’t get discussed nearly enough, but let’s delve into them a bit now. First of all, I’ll go ahead and rule out any commitment to actual truth. These people wouldn’t know truth if it bit them in the eye, nor do they care about what the truth actually is, especially on topics where there are leftist-friendly narratives to push, like race, climate change, gender theory, and, especially of late, Covid.
No, leftists don’t have truth to sell, but they do have a narrative. They want to push an agenda and facts aren’t on their side, but they also know they can’t kick *everyone* off who disagrees with them, if only because there are too many and/or they don’t want to be super transparent about what they’re doing. Nor do they want to engage in open debate, allow a preponderance of such debates on their platform, or allow their preferred narrative-pushers to be called out too strongly by super-qualified detractors. That’s why I believe Big Tech selectively kicks off certain accounts, large accounts with lots of reactions to their posts. Instead of entirely banning the ideas (for now, at least), they are in effect limiting debate about the ideas that tend to center around these accounts.
I think Big Tech censors aren’t really afraid of the information they are censoring nearly as much as they are afraid of a free, rational, back-and-forth debate about their key narrative issues. Why? Because, obviously, our side would absolutely obliterate theirs. Do you think someone like Dr. Anthony Fauci would ever engage the likes of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Martin Kuldorff, or Dr. Robert Malone in a debate about Covid policy, even though those highly qualified individuals - and everyone else on Team Reality - have consistently called for it? We all know the answer to that. Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s appearance on Rogan was a mistake that likely won’t happen again, and it would never have happened in the first place had Rogan intended to bring on a Bhattacharya or Kuldorff to counter his points.
Reacting to conservative and Team Reality outcry over the YouTube and Twitter’s censorship of Dr. Robert Malone and Malone’s subsequent appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Dilbert creator Scott Adams tweeted: “Stop watching long interviews that involve one non-expert talking to one expert. That's a guarantee you will be misinformed. Ask yourself if Twitter or Google would ban content in which opposing sides are argued by experts. They wouldn't, because that would be useful.”
To which I responded: “That would be great, except in this case it seems that only one side is begging for such a debate while the other avoids it at all costs.”
Hypothetically, were such a debate to occur, would Big Tech allow it to remain on their platforms? To know the answer, you only need to know if Big Tech giants are actually calling for a reasonable, rational discussion between adherents of both sides of the issue? They could make it happen in a snap - and even Fauci would be shamed into participating - yet they never will.
On any given issue, which side is begging for a debate? Which side is suppressing the debate? The answer will tell you a ton about which side is likely closest to the actual truth.