Recent revelations from Mark Zuckerberg have shed light on a disturbing reality: the Biden administration pressured Meta (formerly Facebook) to censor information about COVID-19—even when it was true. This should concern everyone, regardless of political stance. When the government gets involved in deciding what information can or cannot be shared, it undermines our ability to think critically, discuss freely, and ultimately make informed decisions for ourselves.
The idea that authorities, whether in government or private institutions, have the power to silence certain viewpoints is nothing new. We’ve seen this pattern emerge time and time again, but the past few years have revealed just how widespread and institutionalized this practice has become. Under the pretext of combating “misinformation,” platforms like Facebook have worked hand-in-hand with political figures to suppress dissenting voices—many of which were later proven correct.
For example, posts discussing vaccine side effects, alternative COVID treatments, or questioning the efficacy of lockdowns were routinely flagged or removed, despite later acknowledgment from official sources that these topics were, at the very least, worthy of discussion. Now, Zuckerberg’s admission confirms what many suspected: this wasn’t just a case of social media platforms making their own moderation choices—government officials were actively pushing for this suppression.
The core issue here isn’t whether every post about COVID-19 was correct. The issue is who gets to decide what is permissible to discuss. When we allow a handful of elites—whether in tech companies, government agencies, or media conglomerates—to dictate the scope of acceptable conversation, we give up our ability to weigh evidence and come to our own conclusions.
A troubling pattern has emerged in which the media and powerful institutions present a manufactured consensus, labeling any opposition as “misinformation.” We’ve seen this with COVID-19, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and various election-related stories. In many cases, these so-called “conspiracies” turned out to have merit, yet the damage was already done—public perception had been manipulated, and those who tried to sound the alarm were discredited or de-platformed.
This isn’t just about left vs. right. It’s about the principle of free inquiry. If we accept censorship when it benefits our preferred political side, we lose the moral high ground when the tables turn. True intellectual honesty requires us to defend free speech even when it’s inconvenient.
Perhaps even more insidious than direct censorship is self-censorship—the fear of speaking out because of potential backlash, de-platforming, or social ostracization. Many people today hesitate to express their true thoughts, not because they lack conviction, but because they worry about the consequences.
When dissenting voices are repeatedly silenced, a culture of conformity takes hold. People start policing their own speech, sticking to safe, approved narratives rather than questioning inconsistencies or voicing their genuine concerns. This self-imposed silence is just as dangerous as external censorship, as it creates the illusion of consensus where none truly exists.
In the long run, self-censorship leads to ideological echo chambers, where only one perspective is reinforced while alternative views are pushed out of sight. This doesn’t just hurt public discourse—it distorts reality itself, making it harder for society to recognize and correct its own mistakes.
If we genuinely care about truth and democracy, we must push for open dialogue instead of shutting down opposing views. Rather than blocking others or retreating into ideological echo chambers, we need to engage in difficult conversations—even when they challenge our beliefs. It is in these uncomfortable discussions that we grow, learn, and refine our understanding of the world.
Censorship fosters division, while honest debate allows for common ground. Suppressing differing viewpoints doesn’t make them disappear; it drives them underground, where they fester and grow unchecked. Instead of fearing controversial discussions, we should welcome them as opportunities to hear perspectives we may not have considered.
The recent admissions from Zuckerberg should serve as a wake-up call. We must demand that our leaders, regardless of party, respect the fundamental right to free speech. We should hold both private companies and public officials accountable when they try to control the narrative.
Censorship isn’t just about silencing certain opinions—it’s about controlling how we think, what we believe, and ultimately, how we live our lives. It’s time to reject this authoritarian approach and reaffirm our commitment to open discourse. Only by doing so can we ensure that truth prevails over manufactured consensus.