New Psyop: Banning Social Media

Letters from O'Brien #56

Dear Mr Smith,

Every few months there is another attempt at redirecting the narrative or attacking the dissents. Of course, this is obvious by now. What is not so obvious are the various methods through which these goals are being achieved. Today I write to you about what I believe will be yet another attempt at subterfuge in the coming months; and that is the push to ‘ban social media’.

Where to begin? Well, I am beginning to see increased interest in social media and its consequences on mental health, particularly for young people. This unremarkable observation, however, is now being employed by the current regime to present social media banning as some sort of solution. In the US and Australia, the idea - while not yet fully formed - is increasingly becoming a talking point in the media. This is a good indicator that something might be coming…

SOCIAL MEDIA AND INFORMATION

For years, US politicians attempted to have TikTok blocked or banned in America. Initially there were various reasons for this, ranging from security issues to (presumably) its outperformance of domestic competition. For years nothing happened. Then, suddenly in late 2023, everything very quickly changed - A ‘TikTok ban’ was back on the table, and very rapidly decisions passed through the upper echelons of government, resulting in restrictions now placed on TikTok and its parent company. Why was this? Because - as it turned out - TikTok had become arguably the most hostile platform towards Israel following operations beginning in Gaza.

Despite all of this, the public was fed a watered down, or in some cases completely false narrative. Media outlets began highlighting the ‘mental health dangers’ surrounding the platform, criticism grew surrounding its algorithm, while the most common point of contention was its supposed use as a ‘tool of the CCP’. Yet taking a step back, it is clear that these were not the primary motivating factors for a ban. Rather, the primary motivating factor appears to be the free flow of information following the start of the latest Israel-Gaza conflict.

In this same manner, one must assume that any future moves to ban or limit other social media platforms are motivated not by a sense of moral duty, but in order to control the narrative.

TWITTER AND INSTAGRAM

To keep it brief, I want to highlight why Twitter/X and Instagram are now being perceived by those in power as threats. I believe these two platforms are the primary targets of a social media ban, although one may also include Telegram and Rumble further down on this list.

With TikTok more-or-less off the table, next in line is Twitter. I would argue that Twitter is technically more problematic to the regime than TikTok could have ever been, since Twitter now roams about as a truly untamed force. With no algorithmic deterrent from wrongspeak, conversations which would otherwise be throttled by moderation are now playing out in view of everyone. To exemplify this, look at practically any ‘pro-narrative’ post, and its replies; without fail someone will respond with the truth, and this repose will outperform the original post in terms of likes and retweets. From a purely psychological standpoint, this is powerful (as I have mentioned many times before) because it literally visualises some sort of comradeship amongst likeminded individuals backing each other up. This is unacceptable to the regime, since it legitimises dissent.

Just like TikTok, Twitter has seen a particularly strong uptick in discussion surrounding Israel and Talmudic Judaism since October 2023. Unlike TikTok, which shows bias towards anti-Israel liberals - Twitter with its free speech policy has allowed those on the political right to use this Overton window shift to highlight more fundamental issues. Through continual engagement, those on the dissident right have attempted to use this liberal and centrist criticism of Zionism to highlight deeper issues like Talmudic doctrines of racial supremacy, subterfuge, usury, anti-Christian sentiment, and so on.

In fact, while criticism of the current conflict has gone beyond mainstream, on Twitter discussion about the Talmud (previously an off-limits topic) has almost been normalised. This is a big deal. When discussions about these topics become normalised online like this, they quickly move into the window of acceptable discussion.

One can already perceive the pressure mounting to curb this free flow of information; Musk was recently pushed towards implementing a biometric verification system for Twitter. This system - one must note - is conveniently operated by an Israeli firm which many have claimed to be linked with Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence agency.

Now it should go without saying, but social media can indeed work to the detriment of mental health, particularly amongst young people. I wouldn’t  dispute that at all. What is not so clear is whether a ban is the solution and how that could even be implemented.

WHAT COMES NEXT

It is unclear whether anything I have said will eventuate into political action. The rumblings now infer intent to normalise the conversation about social media and the ‘mental health crisis’ (which is far more a result of feminism and societal breakdown than social media alone in my opinion).  I think the mental health angle is particularly poignant, because it touches on issues which are actually legitimate. The previous attempt to normalise online censorship was (and in Australia still is) done under the guise of ‘public safety’ and ‘countering radicalism’. However, this 2020-esque approach (which - again - Australia still oddly takes) doesn’t work, as the majority of people now see through this veneer and identify terms like ‘online radicalism’ and ‘hate speech’ as little more than liberal slop-speak. Any attempt to limit online information based on ‘radicalism threats’ will be met with extreme resistance from both sides.

Highlighting the true motives behind any future attempt to limit social media and the free flow of true information must be of utmost priority. Once enough people are aware of the subliminal motivations for a social media ban, they will stand firmly against it. It has happened before, and it will happen again. I must also say that for the first time in memory, the populist right and far left are actually aligned on this topic. Why? Because the left are increasingly seeing the fruits of censorship which they once called for; pro-Palestine protests are being shut down, criticism of Israel is being censored, and so forth. For the first time, young college-aged liberals are beginning to turn on their own Democratic Party for its weakness, whilst those on the populist and dissident right continue to criticise the Republican regime.

While far left and (dissident + populist) right have different reasons for highlighting these issues - and while they are certainly not allies - this unique situation can be used to highlight common inconsistencies and force new conversations in politics. For example, most can agree that foreign influence on US politics needs to be removed, and this can be used to ‘unify’ populists on the right with humanitarians on the left.

Ironically for populists on the left and right, the biggest challenge to overcome - in my estimation - will be establishment liberals (like the Biden admin) and more importantly the establishment conservative movements (Republican Party, CPAC, Turning Point, etc.), which are almost entirely built around (and funded by) foreign actors like the Adelsons, Bill Ackman, Paul Singer, and so forth. 

Also note that in the past, while liberal politicians sometimes aided in the process, it was conservatives who so eagerly pushed for a TikTok ban, and the current antisemitism bills. If the next push for censorship comes from increased criticism of Israel online, it will once again be conservative politicians leading the charge, whilst if it concerns other social issues like feminism and so forth, it will be liberals leading the charge, but in my estimation they will both be hand-in-hand either way. In fact, we saw this the other week, when the decision was made regarding the Capitol Hill rioters and the Supreme Court ruling on potential obstruction charges. For context, those on J6 who did not fight with police or take part in violence, but still entered the capitol building were charged with a number of misdemeanours. However, some were charged with a felony; obstruction of an official proceeding of congress. The Supreme Court ruled 6-to-3 that this statute clearly did not apply, since the statute more specifically refers to tampering or manipulation of an act of Congress, not merely entering the building. But in an incredible move, famous liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sided with the protestors, highlighting how the felony charges were an overstepping of power, whilst the ‘based and trad conservative mom’ Amy Coney Barrett voted against the protestors, claiming the charges were justified. I mean seriously? We live in hell…

Anyways, my point should be clear; if a social media ban is the plan, then the regime will likely normalise a conversation about just how bad mental health is. It will then tie this to social media use, especially amongst young people (which is true). Then, unipolar action will likely be taken across the west to block the use of certain platforms. We will probably get some sort of regulation which allows these platforms to continue to operate, but with new censorship algorithms or something to that extent. I would expect ‘conservative politicians’ to be all in favour of this, particularly if it pertains to criticism of Israel and lobbying, and liberal politicians if it concerns the regime narrative regarding multiculturalism, immigration, and so forth, but like I said earlier, both outcomes will likely have unipolar support.

The only solution is to keep speaking the truth and note the inherent threat of limiting speech. This should be abundantly obvious, yet people are very quick to forget the importance of free-flowing information and the basic necessity of freely speaking without censorship. By speaking the truth, the truth will grow, and as it grows, lies will perish and attempts at control will be exposed for what they truly are.

Sincerely Yours,

O’Brien

Help us by subscribing to Notes From The Past!