The concentration of power among today’s tech giants has become a central issue in debates about free speech, accountability, and transparency. During a recent Senate hearing, Senator Josh Hawley took center stage, drawing attention to alleged censorship practices by Facebook, Google, and Twitter. With evidence provided by a whistleblower from Facebook, Hawley accused these platforms of coordinating efforts to suppress certain voices, hashtags, and websites—a charge that Mark Zuckerberg struggled to refute.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNaMjWCBdDU?feature=oembed&w=1170&h=658]

Hawley’s explosive allegations, coupled with Zuckerberg’s evasive responses, have fueled calls for greater oversight of big tech companies, with particular focus on reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides liability protections to these platforms.

A Modern-Day Robber Baron Era

Senator Hawley began his remarks by likening the current state of big tech to the robber baron era of the late 19th century. Back then, the most powerful corporations colluded to set prices, control information flow, and eliminate competition. Hawley argued that tech giants like Facebook, Google, and Twitter now wield similar power, but on a global scale.

“Your companies are the most powerful companies in the world,” Hawley said, addressing Zuckerberg directly. “And I want to talk about how you’re coordinating together to control information.”

The Whistleblower’s Claims

Hawley’s remarks were bolstered by a Facebook whistleblower who provided insights into the company’s internal operations. Central to the discussion was Facebook’s “Tasks” platform—a collaborative tool used by employees across the company. According to the whistleblower, the Tasks platform is not only used for routine project management but also for coordinating content moderation efforts.

The platform allegedly facilitates discussions among Facebook’s content moderation teams, including the Community Well-Being team, the Integrity team, and the Hate Speech Engineering team. What’s more, the whistleblower claimed that this platform included input from counterparts at Google and Twitter, suggesting that the companies collaborate to determine which individuals, hashtags, and websites to censor.

Evidence Presented in the Hearing

Hawley presented a screenshot of the Tasks platform as evidence, showing references to “election integrity” and other content moderation topics. The screenshot appeared to support the whistleblower’s claims that Facebook collaborates with other tech companies on censorship.

“Facebook censorship teams communicate with their counterparts at Twitter and Google and then enter those company suggestions for censorship onto the Tasks platform,” Hawley stated. “So that Facebook can then follow up with them and effectively coordinate their censorship efforts.”

When pressed on this issue, Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook collaborates with other companies on “security-related topics” such as combating terrorism, child exploitation, and foreign influence operations. However, he denied that these collaborations extend to content moderation policies or specific decisions about what to censor.

A Battle for Transparency

Hawley repeatedly demanded that Zuckerberg commit to providing the Senate with detailed information about the Tasks platform. Specifically, he asked for a list of every mention of Google and Twitter on the platform, as well as a list of websites, hashtags, and phrases flagged for censorship.

Zuckerberg declined to make such a commitment, citing potential “sensitivities” and the need to consult with his team. This refusal only intensified Hawley’s criticisms.

“We could subpoena this information,” Hawley warned, “but I’d much rather get it from you voluntarily. Let everybody take note that Mr. Zuckerberg has now repeatedly refused to provide information that he knows that he has and has now acknowledged that he has.”

Sentra: Another Tool Under Scrutiny

In addition to the Tasks platform, Hawley introduced allegations about another Facebook tool called “Sentra.” According to the whistleblower, Sentra is used to track Facebook users across the internet, including their visits to third-party websites, interactions with Facebook buttons, and even accounts registered under different names.

Hawley displayed a screenshot of Sentra in action, showing detailed information about a user, including their birthdate, account creation date, last login, and online activity.

Zuckerberg denied familiarity with the tool, prompting skepticism from Hawley. “It’s always amazing to me how many people before this committee suddenly develop amnesia,” Hawley remarked.

Section 230 Reform and Big Tech Accountability

The hearing also delved into the broader issue of Section 230 reform. Enacted in 1996, Section 230 grants tech platforms immunity from liability for user-generated content while allowing them to moderate content in “good faith.” Critics argue that this protection has enabled platforms like Facebook and Twitter to wield enormous power without accountability.

Senator Ted Cruz echoed Hawley’s concerns, accusing tech companies of selectively silencing conservative voices while amplifying others. “Big Tech enjoys massive corporate welfare through the effect of Section 230,” Cruz said. “It’s a subsidy that no one else gets while these companies become some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet.”

Zuckerberg’s Evasive Responses

Throughout the hearing, Zuckerberg’s responses to key questions were marked by vagueness and deflection. When asked whether Facebook employees access users’ private information, such as personal messages, Zuckerberg admitted that records are kept but was unable to provide specific numbers.

Similarly, when asked whether Facebook tracks users’ online activity through tools like Sentra, Zuckerberg claimed he was unfamiliar with the name and could not confirm whether such tracking occurs.

These evasive responses drew sharp criticism from Hawley, who accused Zuckerberg of stonewalling. “What we have here is clear evidence of coordination between Twitter, Google, and Facebook,” Hawley said. “Mr. Zuckerberg knows he has the tools to track this, but he won’t commit to letting us see it.”

Broader Implications

The revelations from the hearing have significant implications for the future of tech regulation and free speech. If the allegations of coordinated censorship are true, they raise serious questions about the influence of tech companies over public discourse and the potential for abuse of power.

Critics argue that such practices undermine the principles of a free and open internet, where diverse viewpoints should be allowed to flourish. Moreover, the concentration of power among a few corporations creates a dangerous monopoly over information, making it increasingly difficult for alternative voices to be heard.

Public Reaction

The hearing has sparked widespread debate on social media and in political circles. Supporters of Hawley’s stance view the revelations as evidence of big tech’s overreach, while critics question the interpretation of the evidence presented.

Proponents of Section 230 reform argue that the current law gives tech companies too much leeway to act as both platforms and publishers. Meanwhile, defenders of the status quo caution against hasty changes that could stifle innovation and harm smaller platforms.

The Way Forward

As calls for reform grow louder, lawmakers face the challenge of balancing accountability with innovation. Proposals for reforming Section 230 range from imposing transparency requirements to narrowing the scope of liability protections.

For tech giants like Facebook, hearings like this one underscore the growing scrutiny they face from both sides of the political aisle. Whether through voluntary transparency measures or legislative action, the pressure to address concerns about censorship and accountability is unlikely to abate.

Conclusion

Senator Josh Hawley’s exposure of whistleblower claims has added fuel to the ongoing debate about the power of big tech. By shining a light on alleged coordination between Facebook, Google, and Twitter, he has raised critical questions about the role of these companies in shaping public discourse.

As lawmakers, regulators, and the public grapple with these issues, one thing is clear: the era of unchecked power for big tech is coming under increasing scrutiny. The revelations from this hearing may mark a pivotal moment in the fight for accountability and a more equitable internet.

For those concerned about the future of free speech and democracy, the time to engage in this conversation is now.

This has been a long standing issue when Google has specifically and provably targeted conservatives for censorship of their materials.   From the recent Project Veritas under cover investigation that conversed with many Google executives that confessed that google uses AI (Artificial Intelligence) to sort out what searches relate to pro-conservative content, and then once google’s AI identifies the search as pro-conservative related, it buries all pro-conservative content at the bottom of the search results.   Youtube has many accusations as well as many investigations to the same type of behavior and is also a Google subsidiary.

Project Veritas Sends Google Letters to Congress

Just last week there was a Senate hearing  on Google censorship and Reason Magazine reported Google News may well skew left: A study by the media company AllSides found that approximately 65 percent of the company’s search engine results come from left-leaning sources.

I can say with certainty Google/Youtube/Twitter/Facebook all the big social media giants have censored us as well.   I have the notices from these companies of when we were censored, but no reason given.   We went from 7.4 million visitors on twitter every month up until May, to now only getting less than 100,000 views on twitter per month, after they censored us, and banned us for a short time.  I was able to recover the account, but not the popularity of the account.    On facebook, you can’t even link to this website, try it.   Try typing in:  https://disruptarian.com  it won’t let you post it!  Same with three other of our URL’s.   So I would be happy to join a class action lawsuit on this censorship.  Just write me!  I have plenty of verifiable documentation.

Statement about the lawsuit from Tulsi Gabbard’s website

 

On June 28^th, 2019 in the immediate hours following the first Democratic Presidential debate, millions of Americans were searching online for information about Tulsi Gabbard.  In fact, according to multiple news reports, Tulsi was the most searched candidate on Google.  Then, without any explanation, Google suspended Tulsi’s Google Ads account.

For hours, Tulsi’s campaign advertising account remained offline while Americans everywhere were searching for information about her.  During this time, Google obfuscated and dissembled with a series of inconsistent and incoherent reasons for its actions.  In the end, Google never explained to us why Tulsi’s account was suspended.

Google controls 88 percent of all internet search in the United States – essentially giving it control over our access to information.  That’s one reason why Tulsi has been a vocal proponent of breaking up the tech monopolies.  And no matter what the motivation was for doing so, Google’s arbitrary and capricious decision to suspend Tulsi’s Google Ads account during a critical moment in our campaign should be of concern to all political candidates and in fact all Americans.  Because if Google can do this to Tulsi, a combat veteran and four term Congresswoman who is running for the nation’s highest office, Google can do this to any candidate, from any party, running for any office in the United States.

Big Tech’s dominance represents a clear and present danger to our democracy.  That’s why Tulsi is fighting back, and has filed a lawsuit against Google in federal court.  Today’s New York Times reported on the lawsuit filed by our campaign against Google.

Tulsi gave this statement to the NYT:  “Google’s discriminatory actions against my campaign are reflective of how dangerous their complete dominance over internet search is, and how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values.  This is a threat to free speech, fair elections and to our democracy, and I intend to fight back on behalf of all Americans.”  

Please join Tulsi in her fight for our core American values of free speech and fair elections.  The Big Tech companies need to be held accountable for their actions, and that’s why we need Tulsi in the White House!

 

Also for reference, I had seriously considered voting for Tulsi in 2020.  But after this outpouring of support for the Mauna Kea protesters, I have decided that will not be an option.

Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard

The Project Veritas Google Anti-Trust Expose

https://dailymotion.com/video/x7cpbit

This video has been banned, and people have been shadow banned for sharing it, by Google and other social media networks.   However we are going to boost this on DailyMotion and other video sharing websites in hopes that other non-Google influenced search engines will pick it up.

See more at:  https://www.projectveritas.com/

 

Below I am going to list some commentary by various sources.  The sources range in bias, from pro-gamers on Youtube, to Representatives in Congress, and then my own commentary on this issue, before the Project Veritas video was release.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKesJJNfhPc?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&w=1170&h=658]

Breitbart’s 2018 story that exposed YouTube’s black list.

On June 26 2019, during a US Homeland Security Hearing, Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw questioned Mr. Derek Slater, Google Global Director of Information Policy over revelations of a leaked email Project Veritas published yesterday. Said Rep. Crensaw:

“According to those emails, the emails say, given that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager are Nazis, given that that’s a premise, what do we do about it?”

You can watch a video clip of the hearing here:

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/26/rep-crenshaw-grills-google-executive-over-leaked-email-published-by-veritas/#fvp_Crenshaw,1s

A partial transcript of the hearing is available below:

Crenshaw:
From Texas for five minutes. Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you for some of some of the thoughtful discussion on how you combat terrorism online and there’s where the debates to be had there. Um, and there’s, there’s good questions on whether some of this content provides education so that we know of the bad things out there or whether it’s radicalizing people. Those are hard. Those are hard discussions to have and I don’t know that we’re going to solve them today. But the problem is is that the testimony doesn’t stop there. The, the policies at your social media companies do not stop there. It doesn’t stop with the clear cut lines of terrorism and terrorist videos and terrorist propaganda. Unfortunately, that’s not exactly what we’re talking about. It goes much further than that. It goes down the slippery slope of what speech is appropriate for your platform and the vague standards that you employ in order to decide what is appropriate.

Crenshaw:
And this is especially concerning given the recent news and the recent leaked emails from Google, they show that labeling mainstream conservative media as Nazis is a premise upon which you operate. It’s not even a question. According to those emails, the emails say, given that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager are Nazis, given that that’s a premise, what do we do about it? Two of three of these people are Jewish, very religious Jews. And yet you think there are Nazis. It begs the question, what kind of education people at Google have to, they think that religious Jews are Nazis. Three of three of these people had family members killed the Holocaust, Ben Shapiro’s is the number one target of the alt right. And yet you people operate off the premise that he’s a Nazi. It’s a pretty disturbing and it gets to the question, do you believe in hate speech? How do you define that or do you, can you give me a quick definition right now? Is it written down somewhere? Google, can you give me a definition of hate speech?

Google:
Yes. So hate speech again, as updated in our guidelines now extends to, uh, uh, superiority over protected groups to justify discrimination, violence, and so on based on, uh, a number of defining characteristics, whether that’s a race, sexual orientation, veterans.

Crenshaw:
Do you have an example of Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson, Dennis Prager engaging in hate speech. Give one example off the top of your head.

Google:
So, congressman, we evaluate individual piece of content based on that content rather than based on the speaker.

Crenshaw:
Okay, let’s, let’s get to the next question. Do you believe speech can be violence? All right, though there’s, there’s not, not can you incite violence that is very clearly not protected, but can speech just be violence. Do you believe that speech that isn’t specifically calling for violence can be labeled violence and therefore harmful to people? Is that possible?

Google:
Congressman, I’m not sure I fully understand the distinction you’re drawing. Certainly, again, incitement to violence or things that aren’t urgent, dangerous behavior. Those are things that would be against our policies.

Crenshaw:
Here’s, here’s, here’s the thing. When you call somebody a Nazi or you can make the argument that you’re inciting violence and here’s how, as a country, we all agree that Nazis are bad. We actually invaded an entire continent to defeat the Nazis. It’s normal to say Hashtag punch a Nazi because there’s this common thread among this in this country that they’re bad and that there yeah, evil and that they should be destroyed. So when you’re operating off of that premise and it’s frankly, it’s a, it’s a good premise to operate on. Well, what you’re implying then is that it’s okay to use violence against them when you label them, when one of the most powerful social media companies in the world labels people as Nazis, you could make the argument that’s inciting violence. What you’re doing is wholly irresponsible. It doesn’t stop there. Well, a couple of years ago it was also made clear that you fact check system is blatantly targeted conservative newspapers. Do you have any comments on that? Are you aware of the story? I’m talking, about?

Google:
I’m not familiar with necessarily the specific story, congressman. I am aware that from all political viewpoints, we sometimes get questions of this sore. I can say that our fact check labels generally are done algorithmically based on a mark up and follow up on our policies

Crenshaw:
for the, for the record, they specifically target conservative news media and often times they don’t even, they have a fact check on there that doesn’t even reference the actual article. But Google makes sure that it’s right next to it. So as to make people understand that that one is questionable even though when you actually read through and it has nothing to do with it. Um, you know, a few days ago and this goes to Miss Bikert, uh, one of my constituents posted photos on Facebook of Republican women, daring to say that there are women for Trump. Facebook took down that post right away with no explanation. Is there any explanation for that?

Bickert:
Without seeing it,It’s hard for me to apply and that doesn’t violate our policies, but I’m happy to follow up on this specific example with you.

Crenshaw:
Thank you. Listen here, here’s what it comes down to. If we don’t share the values of free speech, I’m not sure where we go from here. You know, this practice of silencing millions and millions of people, it will create wounds and divisions in this country that we can not heal from. This is extremely worrisome. You’ve created amazing and platforms. We can do amazing things with what, what these companies have created, but if we continue down this path, it’ll tear us apart. You do not have a constitutional obligation to enforce the First Amendment, but I would say that you absolutely have an obligation to enforce American values, and the first amendment is an underpinning of American values that we should be protecting until the day we die. Thank you, and thank you for indulging me, Mister chairman. Thank you.

 

Dave Rubin responds to the Google Censorship expose by Project Veritas

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TnWfj3fQZg?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&w=1170&h=658]

 

Before this investigation by Project Veritas was released, when I was in Osaka Japan on June 13th 2019, I released this video addressing this very same topic of censorship.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP_iQDzdBQ8?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&w=1170&h=658]