As we were basking in the joy of treason and celebrating our independence from English treachery on the Fourth of July, a judge issued an injunction to protect free speech on social media platforms.

District Judge Terry A. Doughty granted an injunction to prevent federal agencies and officials from pressuring social media companies to remove or suppress content that contains protected free speech on their platforms. The injunction also prohibits these officials from flagging such content or influencing the companies’ content moderation guidelines.

This preliminary injunction conveys extensive implications for the First Amendment, beckoning a potential disruption to the collaboration between governments and social media companies in censoring the voice of Americans.

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law restricting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Judge Doughty’s order imposes constraints on the Department of Justice, the State Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This legal action was provoked by allegations that government officials had advised social media platforms to address posts that could incite vaccine tentativeness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, free speech was often muted as governments and social media platforms struggled with the challenge of moderating content related to the origins of Covid, the vaccine, masks, lockdowns and other related information.

This ruling will strongly address the subject of the government demanding private social media companies’ to censor content on their platforms.

While the final ruling is still pending, Judge Doughty stated that the evidence provided demonstrates a concerted effort by the defendants to suppress speech based on its content. Judge Doughty expressed his lack of persuasion by the defendants’ arguments.

The opinion also suggests that if the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true this could be a knowing attack on free speech, as the federal government and the defendants are accused of blatantly disregarding the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

Judge Doughty’s order does permit certain exemptions allowing communications related to national security threats, criminal activities or voter suppression.

This lawsuit specifically targets the federal government's role in content censorship on social media, in contrast to previous complaints that primarily focused on the actions of tech companies themselves. The injunction extends beyond restraining government technology company communications and also prevents collaboration between government agencies and academic groups dedicated to studying social media.

Following on the shirttail of this indictment, trying to diversify its services and compete with Twitter, Meta, aka Mark Zuckerberg, launched Threads. Threads immediately started censoring and putting warning labels on the accounts of users.

The launch and actions of Threads raises and exposes the shining spotlight on Meta’s control over information. This is unmistakable through early censorship of users by the dominance of big tech oligarchs.

Meta’s unrivaled control over the distribution and broadcasting of information is a subject of weighty debate. The platform’s algorithms are designed to curate content based on user preferences and create echo chambers and information silos.

By reinforcing users’ existing beliefs, Facebook, Instagram and now Threads can influence what people experience online. With the information received from algorithms, what you see will be commanding what you see.  They will also shield you from nonconforming views.

This power is amplified when Meta collaborates with governments and activist groups, which enables information manipulation and censorship of citizens on behalf of governments.
With the launching of Threads, Meta heightens the cage fight with Twitter as they seek out new user demographics. However, the early signs of censorship against users within the first 24 hours of Threads are cause for concern. The suppression of voices reinforces worries about Meta’s control over what they consider is acceptable speech. This censorship questions Meta’s commitment to cultivating open dialogue.

“The goal is to keep it friendly as it expands. I think it’s possible and will ultimately be the key to its success,” wrote Zuckerberg.

What then has to be done is define “friendly,” which then will just be a gentle move to censorship. Being friendly is removing anything that could be considered unfriendly to numerous beliefs and groups of people.

This practice of friendly is muffling the voice to appease fragile feelings. Zuckerberg wants a fake and illusory experience into the product of Threads, portraying a false picture in a world that is only friendly.

This is a utopia, but that’s not how the world works. What is beneficial to any person or society about a platform that will hide the truth from its users to protect the feelings of another selected group? This is what they want, to keep everyone in an imaginary world of illusion.

What has unfolded within the absurdity in which we live is that we have moved past knowing and understanding. We have become used to an overcrowded nightmare and everyone continues to act as if it is normal. We now, as a whole, interpret and translate what we are receiving according to the information and conditioning that we have received beforehand. This acclimatizing and guidance installs the prejudice to miss the truth. - dbA

You can find more of the unfiltered insight and the Art of Dan Abernathy at www.contributechaos.com.