Big Tech’s Promise Never To Block Access To Politically Embarrassing Content Apparently Only Applies To Democrats

It probably will not shock you to find out that big tech's promises to never again suppress embarrassing leaked content about a political figure came with a catch. Apparently, it only applies when that political figure is a Democrat. If it's a Republican, then of course the content will be suppressed, and the GOP officials who demanded that big tech never ever again suppress such content will look the other way.

A week and a half ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing about the threat of foreign intelligence efforts to interfere with US elections. Senator Tom Cotton, who believes in using the US military to suppress American protests, used the opportunity to berate Meta and Google for supposedly (but not really) suppressing" the Hunter Biden laptop story:

In that session - which I feel the need to remind you was just held on September 18th - both Nick Clegg from Meta and Kent Walker from Google were made to promise that they would never, ever engage in anything like the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story (Walker noted that Google had taken no effort to do so when that happened in the first place).

Clegg explicitly said that a similar demotion would not take place today."

Take a wild guess where this is going?

Exactly one week and one day after that hearing, Ken Klippenstein released the Trump campaign's internal vetting dossier on JD Vance. It's pretty widely accepted that the document was obtained via hacking by Iranian agents and had been shopped around to US news sites for months. Klippenstein, who will do pretty much anything for attention, finally bit.

In response, Elon immediately banned Ken's ExTwitter account and blocked any and all links to not just the document, but to Ken's Substack. He went way further than anyone ever did regarding the original Hunter Biden laptop story and the content revealed from that laptop. We noted the irony of how the scenario is nearly identical to the Hunter Biden laptop story, but everyone wants to flip sides in their opinion of it.

Elon being a complete fucking hypocrite is hardly new. It's almost to be expected. That combined with his public endorsement (and massive funding) of the Trump/Vance campaign means it's noteworthy, but not surprising, that he'd do much more to seek to suppress the Vance dossier than old Twitter ever did about the Hunter laptop story.

So, what about Meta and Google? After all, literally a week earlier, top execs from each company said in a Senate hearing under oath that they would never seek to suppress similar content this year.

And yet...

That's the link to the dossier on Threads with a message saying This link can't be opened from Threads. It might contain harmful content or be designed to steal personal information."

Ah. And remember, while Twitter did restrict links to the NY Post article for about 24 hours, Meta never restricted the links. It only set it so that the Facebook algorithm wouldn't promote the story until they checked and made sure it was legit. But here, they're blocking all links to the Vance dossier on all their properties. When asked, a Meta spokesperson told the Verge:

Our policies do not allow content from hacked sources or content leaked as part of a foreign government operation to influence US elections. We will be blocking such materials from being shared on our apps under our Community Standards."

Yeah, but again, literally a week ago, Nick Clegg said under oath that they wouldn't do this. The hacked sources" policy was the excuse Twitter had used to block the NY Post story.

Does anyone realize how ridiculous all of this looks?

And remember how Zuckerberg was just saying he regrets censoring" political content? Just last week, there was a big NY Times piece arguing, ridiculously, that Zuck was done with politics. Apparently it's only Democrat-politics that he's done with.

As for Google, well, Walker told Senator Cotton that the Biden laptop story didn't meet their standards to have it blocked or removed. But apparently the Vance dossier does. NY Times reporter Aric Toler found that you can't store the document in your Google Drive, saying it violates their policies against personal and confidential information":

As we've said over and over again, neither of these things should have been blocked. The NY Post story shouldn't have been blocked, and the Vance dossier shouldn't have been blocked. Yes, there are reasons to be concerned about foreign interference in elections, but if something is newsworthy, it's newsworthy. It's not for these companies to determine what's newsworthy at all.

While it was understandable why in the fog of the release about the Hunter Biden story both Twitter and Meta said let's pump the brakes and see..." given how much attention has been paid to all that, including literally one week before this, it certainly raises a ton of questions to then immediately move to blocking the Vance dossier.

Of course, the hypocrisy will stand, because the GOP, which has spent years pointing to the Hunter Biden laptop story as their shining proof of big tech bias" (even though it was nothing of the sort), will immediately, and without any hint of shame or acknowledgment, insist that of course the Vance dossier must be blocked and it's ludicrous to think otherwise.

And thus, we see the real takeaway from all that working of the refs over the years: embarrassing stuff about Republicans must be suppressed, because it's doxxing or hacking or foreign interference. However, embarrassing stuff about Democrats must be shared, because any attempt to block it is election interference.

Got it?