Matt Taibbi Attempts to Make Censorship Resonate with Liberals

“Hey, Haters: Come to Argue about Free Speech and Censorship”

Last night, December 7, 2023, Matt Taibbi appeared at the Montauk Club in Park Slope, Brooklyn to hold a “censorship town hall event.” Capitalizing on the neighborhood’s reputation as a Democrat/liberal hotspot, Taibbi marketed the event with the line “Hey, Haters: Come to Argue about Free Speech and Censorship.”

While the crowd who did attend was largely friendly, Taibbi made no secret that he is frustrated that revelations from the Twitter Files and CTIL Files have not gained more mainstream traction. Audience members agreed, expressing their feelings that these recent revelations are some of the biggest scandals of government overreach since Watergate and the Pentagon Papers.

Taibbi’s promotion continued with, “Haters, come and let me have it. Bring every reason you think the digital censorship subject is a dumb right-wing fantasy, and you can air every one. I made the mistake in the first speeches I prepared on this subject of being too polite and not planning on challenging the audience. This time I want it to be heated, and if you want to go to unfriendly, that’s fine with me… In between the fighting parts, there will a presentation on censorship-by-proxy and how it traces back to the War on Terror years, when so many Democrats opposed this behavior. If you’re one of those, you can tell me what’s unconvincing about this history, because I still don’t understand the Brooklynite reaction on this topic.” In other words, he wants to learn why this story has not resonated more with a mainstream audience.

Taibbi gave an hour-long presentation to the crowd of an estimated 200 people (including several standing because there were not enough available seats) and then opened the floor to a town hall-style question and answer session. The Honest Media reporter who attended is 29 and felt like one of the youngest people in the room; otherwise, the crowd members spawned all ages from about 30 and older, were mostly white, included some people wearing alternative political slogans (such as a man with many pins on his jacket with slogans criticizing COVID vaccines), and a representative from the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 2024 campaign.

In his presentation, Taibbi gave general information about what he has learned from covering the Twitter Files and now the CTIL Files, and revealed that he is writing a book on digital censorship. He talked about how teams directed by the FBI have gone after alternative points of view on social media (including recently COVID-skeptics or critics of US support for the Ukraine War). While these viewpoints are targeted for being “misinformation” or “disinformation,” Taibbi says the targeted content is really uncomfortable information or critical of government narratives; the CTIL Files specifically revealed that much of the censorship targeted truth. In fact, a new term has arisen, which is “malinformation” and specifically means factual information, but inconvenient for the government in the sense that it is meant to mislead or manipulate, according to the government’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) who have spearheaded most of these government-led censorship campaigns.

Taibbi revealed that job requirements for people who flag potential internet posts and accounts to be targeted call for a bachelor’s degree, and the “readers” (who ultimately decide whether to recommend censorship) must have master’s degrees. Therefore, the people making these decisions about what speech to allow on the internet are uniformly highly educated, rather than working class people. Taibbi joked that you probably do want educated people making these decisions, but really you should want no one making these decisions. Instead, free speech should be permitted and individuals should be entrusted to make their own decisions of what to believe or not.

Taibbi did clarify, however, that he is not a free speech absolutist. He said that speech involving or promoting crimes (such as child abuse or sex trafficking) should of course be restricted, and allowing total free speech can endanger a society. But speech restrictions should be based on the law rather than politics

Taibbi responds to a question from an audience member during the town hall portion of the event

Responding to questions about how to stop these censorship forces, Taibbi joked that he “isn’t really a solutions person” and is better at identifying problems. But he did throw out a few possibilities including antitrust measures, lawsuits, and legislation. Nevertheless, each one involves complications. While antitrust can help reign in the enormous corporations that fuel and fund such censorship, the government, rather than just private companies, is also playing a huge role in these attacks on free speech. The Department of Justice has antitrust and civil rights divisions, but also now a massive anti disinformation unit, meaning that any efforts from this agency to fight censorship would put different branches of it at odds with each other. Lawsuits can potentially render some of these practices illegal, but the Supreme Court lacks enforcement mechanisms to force the government to stop these tactics or prevent it from finding new techniques to censor. Legislation that outlaws censorship and/or defunds the institutions behind it could be the most impactful, but most elected officials are mired with conflicts of interest.

The audience was largely friendly and sympathetic to Taibbi’s message but things got contentious when one apparent troll took the microphone. The young man (probably also late 20s or early 30s), who wore a shirt saying “In Fauci We Trust,” gave his point of view that censorship is actually good because the government should protect people. He said COVID-19 caused exorbitant amounts of death so any messaging that imperiled a cohesive anti-pandemic strategy endangered people’s lives, particularly those of minority and LGBTQ+ populations.

Taibbi embraced the tough questioning, but the man’s remarks divided the room as many audience members heckled and interrupted him, while others told them to be quiet and listen, and some audience members later referenced him saying they had appreciated the different point of view. Taibbi politely engaged with the man (and constantly asked the interrupting crowd members to let him speak), responding that he believes governments should be able to spread their own words and desired prescriptions for societal problems – with an enormous budget to fund these efforts – but censoring alternative points of view violates democratic principles and risks burying the truth in case the government’s strategies are wrong.

The questioner finally indicated some sort of troll motives by asking the audience to give him a moment of silence before he shouted a message of support for trans people and let out a huge shriek before storming out of the room, and left the event. Nevertheless, our reporter found it revealing that even at an event where the majority of the audience seemed opposed to digital censorship, many people in the crowd tried to silence this man from giving his dissenting opinion; the example shows how human nature constantly amplifies majority views while silencing those who challenge them, as Taibbi’s examples of censorship involve as well.

Another audience member made the point that some degree of censorship may be required now more than before because of internet communications, which have only existed in recent decades. The internet does make information flow more unpredictable than previously, deep fakes and video/audio manipulation are possible, and users can hide behind anonymity. Taibbi, while still opposing the current censorship regimes, did admit that a censored internet could be the future and said that maybe the future of internet communication is in-person gatherings like this one.

A further question asked why young Americans in particular today do not seem particularly concerned about speech policing on the internet. Taibbi expressed confusion as well, saying that when he was young he wanted to oppose the government in almost any way possible and be rebellious, whereas this generation seems to often seek government protection instead. He cited precarious economic conditions as a possible factor and also said that younger people grew up in a world with more government presence than previous generations; for example, most Americans under 30 have never known a world without the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), as their parents did.

Taibbi also highlighted that internet censorship is often seen as a left versus right issue (politically), which is a misrepresentation. While it is true that most elected officials standing up to the “censorship-industrial complex” today are from the Republican Party, he presented examples of many independent journalists and groups he has encountered who have been silenced to varying degrees. They include Consortium News, the Grayzone, the Green Party, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Additionally, the tools that allow such censorship today – even if they are presently being used more often against “right wing” views as a Democratic Administration holds power in Washington, DC – can just as easily be weaponized in the other direction depending on the political balance of power if these practices become normalized.

Finally, when asked why this censorship has arisen, Taibbi presented a few possibilities. One is that there are people who legitimately believe (like the aforementioned contentious questioner) that the government should play a role in policing acceptable speech in a society. Additionally, there are major economic incentives to keep people divided that create numerous conflicts of interests, as explored in Taibbi’s 2019 book Hate Inc.

Taibbi engages with audience members directly after the end of the question and answer session

He ended the event by highlighting a book called Information Wars by Richard Stengel. This 2019 book explores how the internet and social media have made “disinformation” more pervasive than ever in present societies, which is a risk for general welfare. But Stengel also says that governments have responded by weaponizing their own disinformation to create false narratives, and democracies are currently ill-equipped to fight it.

Nevertheless, the role of the mainstream media in spreading narratives must not be ignored. While independent media has flourished in the internet age, traditional media sources are still the most influential sources in both diffusing stories and nudging audiences towards desired conclusions. Since traditional media outlets and their journalists have generally advocated for digital censorship, they now choose to ignore Taibbi’s revelations about the extent of it. Gaining widespread traction is therefore an uphill battle, but one that will not be abandoned.