The Free Speech Grift: How Politicians Tricked You Into Demanding Surveillance

It's happening everywhere: Politicians screaming "big tech censorship" and "free speech" while simultaneously crafting legislation that gives governments unprecedented control over what you do online. They attack moderation, while pushing laws that would require platforms to verify your identity, scan your messages, and report you to authorities. This is because the goal was never about protecting speech, it was controlling it. And they're counting on you to not connect the dots.

The Setup: Weaponizing "Free Speech"

I'm a proud free speech supporter. So let me clear up the biggest misconception I see online: Free speech means the government can't prosecute you for what you say (with exceptions like threats or incitement). It was a revolutionary idea—criticize the king without losing your head, dissent without state violence. But it has never meant private platforms must host your content, amplify your views, or give you a microphone. The reality is you don't have a constitutional right to a Twitter account any more than you have a constitutional right to sit at a restaurant that kicked you out for screaming at staff.

And we saw this debate play out recently with the Supreme Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. By upholding Texas’s right to demand ID for adult content, the court signaled that 'modest' surveillance is an acceptable price for speech. So politicians aren't just screaming at the restaurant manager, they’ve convinced the courts to let them station a guard who demands your papers before you can look at the menu.

This is all part of the grift. Millions have fallen for this idea that "free speech" is synonymous with "I should be able to say whatever I want on any platform without consequences." And this serves a distinct purpose: it positions platforms as the enemy and government intervention as the solution.

The Bait: Section 230 and the Platform Panic

Enter Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, one of the most important laws protecting internet freedom. Section 230 says two critical things:

1. Platforms aren't liable for user-generated content (you can't sue YouTube because someone uploaded a defamatory video)
2. Platforms can moderate content in good faith without losing that protection (removing spam doesn't make you a publisher)

Without Section 230, platforms would either have to manually approve every post (impossible at scale) or host nothing to avoid liability. While imperfect, it enables the messy, chaotic, innovative internet we have. But lately, Section 230 has been attacked from all angles. Politicians from both parties blamed it for everything from "big tech censorship" to "misinformation" to "harmful content." The proposed solution? Gut Section 230.

The 'Sunset Section 230' bills make this explicit. By threatening to let the law expire entirely, lawmakers are holding a gun to the head of the internet. They know that no company will risk a billion-dollar, class-action lawsuit because a user posted something spicy. This is a forced retreat into a sanitized, corporate-approved version of the web where only 'safe' (read: government-compliant) speech is allowed.

Notice what's missing from all these debates? Your rights. Your privacy. Your actual freedom.

The Switch: From Platform Rights to Government Control

This is where the deception crystalizes in what almost sounds like hypocrisy. The same politicians screaming about "free speech" and "government overreach" are also the same ones pushing:

• Age Verification: Over half of US states have passed or are pushing age verification laws. Some are even pushing to age-verify entire app stores—meaning you might soon have to upload a government ID to the cloud just to download a calculator or a weather app. This:
  • Creates a comprehensive database of what you read, watch, and browse
  • Normalizes government ID requirements for internet access
  • Massive privacy violations and identity theft risks
  • Creates the precedent for deciding who gets access to what content (as deemed by the government)
• Message Scanning Mandates: The EU's Chat Control proposal would require platforms to scan your private messages for illegal content. The UK's Online Safety Bill includes similar provisions. This means:
  • End-to-end encryption becomes illegal or useless
  • Your private conversations are screened by AI
  • Governments decide what content triggers reporting
  • The infrastructure for mass surveillance is built permanently

The pattern is quite clear: Use "free speech" and "moderation" rhetoric to demand government control over platforms, then use that control to mandate surveillance, verification, and content restrictions that is reminiscent of 1984 with better UX and a subscription. If this were actually about protecting children + adults, we'd see comprehensive data privacy laws, mandatory security standards, and actual consequences for platforms that exploit people for engagement. Instead, we get a national ID checkpoint for the internet, while refusing to deal with any systemic problems that got us here in the first place.

What They're Ignoring: Actual Rights For Citizens

While politicians push age verification and message scanning, they're silent on regulations that would actually help users:

• Transparency Requirements: Platforms should disclose their moderation criteria, algorithm mechanics, and data collection practices.
• Data Privacy Minimization: Platforms should be required to collect only necessary data, delete it when no longer needed, and give users actual control over their information.
• Security Baselines: Platforms should meet minimum security standards to protect user data from breaches.
• Interoperability Rights: Users should be able to communicate across platforms without lock-in.
• Algorithmic Transparency and Choice: Users should understand how algorithms rank and recommend content, and have alternatives.
• More User Control: Users should have the legal right to use platforms in ways that guarantee more control for both themselves and their families. Rather than having the government decide what is and isn't safe for children to access online, more tools should be available for parents to help choose what they want their own children to access. (yes, this is a radical idea called making parents parent their own children—not the government)

Notice what all these have in common? They empower users rather than governments. They increase freedom rather than control.

What Platforms Should Be Allowed to Do

Here's what I think will make both sides angry: I think platforms should generally be allowed to moderate however they want. Not because moderation is always good, but because the alternative, government-mandated speech rules, is catastrophically worse.

We’ve reached a point where everyone wants to use the State as their personal content manager.

• The Left is persistently angry that platforms don't do more to moderate
• The Right is persistently angry that platforms have rules at all

In my opinion, if a platform wants to be a free-for-all with minimal moderation, users can choose to use it. Alternatively, if a platform wants strict community guidelines, users can choose that instead. On our forum, we opted for the latter; we took moderation quite seriously and took immediate action if someone wasn't following our rules. But I believe if someone else hosted a forum with almost no rules—they should have the right to do that! (obviously barring illegal content!)

The question to ask is: who gets to decide which trade-offs you have to accept when you register for a service? You, or a politician who’s never used the platform?

If we want to fix big tech we need to build alternatives and create an ecosystem that allows others to compete. We need to support decentralization. Enable interoperability. Make it so easy to switch providers that platforms have to actually compete for your time and attention instead of lobbying for greater control over your life.

The Path Forward: Demand Actual Rights

The moderation deception only works if we accept the framing. Real regulation, the kind that actually helps users, would look nothing like what's being proposed. It would:

• Protect user privacy and security
• Require transparency without mandating outcomes
• Enable competition and interoperability
• Empower users with real choice and control
• Apply universally without picking winners

Bad regulation, the kind being pushed, does the opposite. It mandates surveillance, restricts alternatives, empowers governments, and eliminates user choice. The question isn't whether platforms should be regulated. The question is who regulation serves: users seeking freedom and privacy, or governments seeking control and surveillance.

The grifters are counting on you not connecting the dots. They're betting you'll accept surveillance as long as it's wrapped in 'safety' rhetoric.

Don't fall for it.

Written by

Share

Copied