New Censors and Old Decentralized Internet Dreams

\ “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.”

Using the same analogy, I argue that the greatest trick “The Usual Suspects” of censorship ever pulled was convincing the Internet, they no longer exist.

“Censorship is flourishing in the information age. In theory, new technologies make it more difficult, and ultimately impossible, for governments to control the flow of information. They are also creating more subtle tools to complement the blunt instruments of attacking journalists.”

The World Wide Web censors aren’t gone or defeated. They’ve just become more thoughtful and discreet. This feeling is universal, and not necessarily limited to academia:

Yes, the process of Internet decentralization removed the gatekeepers. And yes, these gatekeepers adapted quickly and responded sharply by leaving the web gates wide open. The digital “noise” took care of the censorship 3.0.

“Noise Is The New Censorship”

\ I felt that something was off. I just didn’t know how to define it. A Stanford fellow identified it as the “noise.” That’s how every one of us has become a censor. I keep repeating myself: there is no fake news, there are only lazy people. There’s so much “noise” that it’s understandable you don’t have time or nerve for fact-checking.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Nowadays, the only thing necessary for the triumph of censorship is for Internet people to take things for granted. Here’s the most recent example:

https://www.instagram.com/voteinorout/reel/DOiuAmIkSgv/?embedable=true

The Internet in 2025 isn’t decentralized; it’s Balkanized. “Balkanization or Balkanisation is the process involving the fragmentation of an area, country, or region into multiple smaller and hostile independent states.” All of these terms sound about right in describing the decentralized Internet:

• smaller
• hostile
• independent
• states

Instead of one big centralized system, we have quite a few “independent” Internet “states” that are “smaller” and by default “hostile” to each other. All in the name of transparency and freedom of speech. So, we have X (Twitter), and we have BlueSky. I don’t want to generalize things, but you go to either of these platforms with certain expectations and biases. You go on Reddit, and you find your tribe (sub).

There’s a place for everybody online. You’ll seek and you shall find your small independent Internet state in the name of freedom. It will be centralized from within, but you don’t care. Only the gatekeepers you don’t consider your own are censors.

“Every minute of every day, all of these thoughts and feelings are uploaded into platforms that are owned by billionaires or massive technology companies and built for viral advertising and the collection of individual data. The internet is not a monolith. For every community of mass-shooter fandoms, there is another that is silly, joyous, productive, or totally harmless. But it is hard not to notice that, in the aggregate, something poisonous is in the architecture of its platforms and the way that our technologies demand not just our attention, but our most heightened emotions. This is not an environment for good-faith politics. These platforms are governed by algorithms that tend to prioritize engagement above all else, amplifying the loudest, most shameless users because these voices will draw in other voices. This attention is worth good money, both to posters who can harness it, as well as the tech companies.”

Yes, it’s good money. We should…

Follow The Money, My Internet Censorship Honey

\ If the “noise” doesn’t help, then you cover your censorship tracks with the money. You amplify the cooperative voices, and you mute disobedient ones as a result. I found it ironic that I was finding out about the secret Democratic influencer program by WATCHING rather than READING what Taylor Lorenz had to say. That’s also one form of censorship, even when you push journalists in the most gentle way possible to change platforms. Taylor Lorenz is still a journalist, but it’s more than likely that new and young content consumers will identify and remember her as a YouTuber.

Previously, pro-Trump influencers were also influenced knowingly or not. “The Justice Department alleged that Russian state media producers funneled nearly $10 million to an unnamed Tennessee-based company, later determined by CNN to be Tenet Media.” Money goes left and right, making it almost impossible to put up a good anti-censorship fight.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” Isn’t that exactly what’s happening on X every single day? Talking about my favorite investigative journalist, it’s been a while since I’ve heard from Matt Taibbi.

“The amusing coda to all of this is that when Hasan invited Taibbi to criticize Musk for anything, be it censorship of liberal voices, union busting, or what have you, Taibbi refused and stated that he liked Musk. Just a day later, Substack (where Taibbi makes most of his income) launched a microblogging option called Substack Notes, which Elon Musk took as a Twitter competitor, and so he made it impossible for anyone to interact with any Tweets linking out to Substack. Taibbi, who previously criticized pre-Musk Twitter for censoring Tweets and allowing prominent people to contact them directly about problems they had, contacted Elon Musk directly to find out why he was being censored. When Musk didn’t fix it immediately for him, Taibbi announced he was going to move from Twitter to Substack Notes, at which point Musk stopped following him on Twitter.”

Elon, just like anyone else, is free to follow whoever he wants or likes. However, we can’t ignore the power of his Midas touch on X. So many accounts, both big and small, are hoping and fighting for a like, share, or, in the best scenario, Musk’s following that guarantees a strong source of primary or additional content creation income. You may say, but that’s capitalism at its finest. My reply is, no, that’s censorship at its worst. I’m not an expert. Check out Taibbi’s X account with 2M followers. For someone with that number of potential content consumers, he gets a small number of views and interactions.

Taylor Lorenz isn’t deplatformed. She voluntarily changed the main platform (medium) for her work. Matt Taibbi isn’t silenced. He is only disincentivized to be more active on the arguably biggest news platform online. It’s been a while since Internet censorship used to be black and white; now you see someone, then you don’t. Now, you have fifty billion shades of grey where censorship operates and thrives online.

Masters of Internet Freedom Illusions

\ Benjamin Franklin wrote this in one of his letters: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It seems pretty obvious, doesn’t it? But, here’s the problem. What if you have to ensure online safety, and for that to happen, you have to give up your essential liberty (privacy)? A cherry on top is that the government isn’t interested in your feelings and opinions when the new bills are being pushed through:

“The revival of the Kids Online Safety Act comes amid U.S. and global discussions over how to best protect children online. In late 2024, Australia approved a social media ban for under-16s. It’s set to come into effect later this year. In March, Utah became the first state to pass legislation requiring app stores to verify a user's age. And Texas is currently moving forward with efforts regarding an expansive social media ban for minors. The Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA)—which would ban social media platforms from allowing children under 13 to create or maintain accounts—was also introduced earlier this year, but has seen little movement since.”

The mandatory age verifications, which are the core of all of these bills, are the point of no return. How are you going to be age-verified? Let’s see. Show us some ID.

While the KOSA (US) is still cooking, the OSA (UK) is working. One of the most vocal critics is the freedom of speech absolutist from our neighborhood:

“X said it was compliant with the act but the threat of enforcement and fines – which in the case of social media platforms such as X could be as high as 10% of global turnover – could encourage censorship of legitimate content in order to avoid punishment. The statement also mentioned plans to create a national internet intelligence investigations team to monitor social media for signs of anti-migrant disorder. X said the proposal may be positioned as a safety measures but “it clearly goes far beyond that intent”.

This is how we got ourselves in a situation that PornHub is in the same line of privacy fire with Discord, Reddit, X, and Bluesky. In the meantime, YouTube is already restricting channels that are flagged by AI to be managed by minors. Can AI make a mistake?

“YouTube will notify users if it determines they are under 18, but if the platform gets it wrong, users can verify their age by uploading a government ID, taking a selfie, or entering a credit card. The platform notes that some creators may “experience a shift in their audience categorized as teens,” potentially resulting in less ad revenue, since minors aren’t shown personalized ads.”

I remember when I started freelancing for real. I was so hyped. Hey, I no longer have a boss. I’m my own boss now. The truth is that I got dozens of bosses (clients) instead. Same with the censorship. Decentralization helped us cut off one head to rule them all - the Internets. The next thing you know, there are so many censorship Internet heads that you can’t cut them all, even if you want to.

So, enjoy this story while you still can. Who knows, you may have to verify that you’re age-appropriate to read it again, one day.

\ \ \ \