Big Techs, Censorship and Manipulation

Companies like Meta (formerly Facebook) and Twitter (now X) control platforms that have become the main channels of communication for millions of people worldwide. At the center of this discussion are figures like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, whose recent actions raise serious questions about freedom of speech, censorship, and political manipulation.

In today’s digital landscape, where social media not only influences behavior but also shapes the course of elections and governmental decisions, the power of Big Tech is undeniable.

https://fountain.fm/episode/VzJItfySZ8z6417prHyD

Recently, a public letter written by Mark Zuckerberg revealed how the U.S. government, under Joe Biden’s administration, pressured Facebook to censor information during the COVID-19 pandemic. The controversy involves, among other topics, the censorship of content related to Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, during the height of the laptop scandal. This revelation raises questions about the role these platforms play in spreading or withholding information, as well as the direct impact this has on democracy.

Meta and Censorship: Zuckerberg’s Letter

In his letter, Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook was pressured by the Biden administration to suppress information about the pandemic and the Hunter Biden case, something he now claims to regret. This has sparked heated debate about how far social media should go in yielding to governmental pressure. Many see this as a threat to freedom of speech, while others argue that this censorship was necessary to control misinformation.

The issue here is not just about government pressure, but the fact that Facebook, as a global platform with billions of users, holds unparalleled power to shape narratives. When a platform decides what is “acceptable” or “truthful,” it directly influences public perception and opinion formation, especially during critical moments like an election.

Zuckerberg, in his letter, seems to be trying to salvage his image, but the damage has already been done. The admission that Facebook collaborated with the government to suppress certain information raises doubts about the platform’s impartiality and its commitment to free speech.

Elon Musk and Free Speech on X

Meanwhile, Elon Musk, now in control of Twitter, renamed X, has promised to transform the platform into a space for free expression. However, the reality seems more complex. Musk claims that X should be a place where all voices can be heard, regardless of political or ideological alignment. Yet, this promise has proven difficult to fulfill in practice.

X continues to ban users and censor content, especially in countries with authoritarian governments like India and Turkey. This creates a dichotomy: on the one hand, Musk advocates for unrestricted free speech, but on the other, he complies with censorship requests from these regimes. This raises questions about Musk’s true intentions and the extent to which he is willing to uphold his principles when the platform faces international pressure.

Moreover, Musk has used X as a political platform, especially in support of former President Donald Trump. The reinstatement of Trump’s account, banned during the Capitol insurrection, has raised further suspicions that Musk is turning X into a tool of political power. For many, this represents a significant risk to the neutrality of digital platforms.

The Cambridge Analytica Scandal and the Risk of Political Manipulation

The discussion of censorship and free speech on social media brings up a case that shocked the world a few years ago: the Cambridge Analytica scandal. In 2015, this British company was accused of using personal data from millions of Facebook users to manipulate elections, including the Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election.

Although Cambridge Analytica was dissolved after the scandal, its legacy remains. Big Tech companies still have access to vast amounts of user data, and the power this grants them is alarming. Companies like Meta and X could, in theory, directly influence election outcomes by manipulating algorithms to promote certain narratives or suppress others.

This scenario raises crucial questions: to what extent can we trust these platforms to act impartially? Are they truly committed to free speech, or are they using their power to shape the political future of the world according to their own interests?

The Pablo Marçal Case and Manipulation in Brazil

In Brazil, a recent example that illustrates the complexity of the relationship between social media and political power is the case of coach Pablo Marçal. Marçal, who built a considerable following, became involved in controversies related to using his influence to manipulate public opinion. Recently, it was revealed that X hired the renowned law firm Pinheiro Neto to defend Marçal’s continued presence on the platform, even after controversies.

This move raises concerns about the selective enforcement of social media’s own rules. Why are some influencers protected while others are summarily banned? Marçal’s influence, particularly among conservative voters in Brazil, is undeniable, and the public defense of his account on X suggests that more is at stake than just free speech.

What we are witnessing is the rise of a new era where social media plays a central role in global politics. Control over the flow of information lies in the hands of a few giant companies, and the decisions of their leaders—whether Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or others—can have a profound impact on elections, governments, and democracies.

This raises legitimate concerns about the future of democracy in a world where private platforms have the power to control public discourse. Big Tech censorship, often disguised as “misinformation control,” can easily become a tool for manipulation.

For citizens, this means being vigilant and critical about the information they receive on social media. Freedom of expression must be defended, but we also need to question who is behind these platforms and what their true motivations are. Trust in social media is at stake, and the future of democracy may depend on how we decide to deal with this unprecedented power.

Conclusion