Remember when social media was supposed to be the “voice of the people”? Yeah, apparently, the people now need government-approved subtitles.
According to a report by The Intercept, YouTube (that’s Google’s giant video machine) recently deleted over 700 videos related to alleged Israeli human rights violations, after a friendly tap on the shoulder from the U.S. State Department.
Because nothing says “freedom” like selective muting.
Politicians love to say they’re defending free speech, right up until someone says something they don’t like.
The U.S. isn’t alone here. India censors posts faster than you can say “democracy.” Turkey practically has a department dedicated to deleting tweets. Russia? Well, their entire playbook is built on algorithmic influence. Australia has even demanded global takedowns of videos, because apparently “the internet” is within its jurisdiction.
And the U.S., champion of free speech since forever, has also been quietly busy sending “content removal requests.” The latest one just happens to target pro-Palestinian groups, because, you know, geopolitics and optics.
Now here’s where it gets delightfully ironic.
The sanctions behind these YouTube deletions were introduced by none other than the Trump administration, the same group that constantly screamed about “Big Tech censorship.”
Apparently, when they censor content, it’s not censorship, it’s “national security.”
Elon Musk even bought Twitter (RIP, now called X) to protect “free speech.” Except, of course, when people criticize him, then it’s called “algorithmic adjustment.” Because nothing protects freedom like reshaping your platform to favor your own opinions.
So yes, the free speech warriors have turned into the hall monitors of the internet.
Let’s be honest, “free speech” has become a choose-your-own-adventure game.
If a post supports your worldview, it’s “truth.” If it doesn’t, it’s “misinformation.”
We saw this movie before, during COVID. Remember the vaccine debates? Governments begged platforms to take down posts questioning vaccine safety. Later, some of those “conspiracies” turned into “maybe we should’ve looked into that.”
Was it censorship or crisis control? Depends which side of Twitter you were yelling on.
Because at the end of the day, people only hate censorship when it’s their opinions getting deleted.
The messy truth is that every government tries to steer social platforms, some openly, others quietly through “policy partnerships.”
And social platforms? They play along, balancing morality and money like a Cirque du Soleil act. Ban too much, and you’re anti-free speech. Ban too little, and you’re aiding “harmful content.”
There’s no winning here, just different flavors of hypocrisy.
So, when YouTube nukes 700 videos after a government “review,” it’s not shocking, it’s standard procedure in the new social media Cold War. Each side wants control of the algorithmic narrative, and every “free speech” debate is just a PR battle with better graphics.
Here’s the uncomfortable thought experiment: if the political tables were turned and your side was being silenced, would you still call it “necessary moderation”?
Because censorship always feels justified until it’s aimed at you.
Maybe free speech isn’t dying, maybe it’s just being quietly rebranded.
And while politicians play tug-of-war with social platforms, the rest of us are just standing here, trying to remember what we’re allowed to say before the algorithm gently reminds us to “review our community guidelines.”
