Free speech is under siege: Do we care enough to save it?
In the latest Collapse Life podcast, investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker returns to talk about social media censorship, government overreach, and the broader implications for public discourse.
The latest episode of the Collapse Life Podcast, hosted by Zahra Sethna, tackled the growing concerns over free speech and censorship in today’s digital landscape. Guest
, an investigative journalist known for his Substack, , gave poignant examples to show the intricate dynamics between social media platforms and government censorship, which hides under the disguise of "moderation.”Thacker talked about his latest clash with Facebook’s fact-checkers, an episode that serves as a telling example of how the lines between moderation and censorship have been blurred. After sharing a video of Kamala Harris discussing the need for more social media regulation, Thacker’s post was flagged for "missing context" — by a fact-checker in Italy, no less. The disconnect between what was said in the content, what Thacker shared about it, and what the fact-checking source flagged raises serious questions about the objectivity and relevance of these so-called checks, especially when it comes to American political content.
The incident underscores a broader trend: the so-called "disinformation industrial complex" — a network of platforms, government bodies, and fact-checkers that increasingly dictate what is permissible speech. Thacker argues that while these entities claim to combat misinformation, they often end up controlling the narrative, skewing it in one particular direction in a way that completely stifles legitimate debate and dissent.
Thacker points to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recent admission that Facebook, under pressure from the Biden administration, had engaged in content suppression on issues ranging from COVID-19 to the Hunter Biden laptop saga. Zuckerberg’s promise to refrain from such actions without third-party validation in the future only highlights the ongoing struggle between government influence and platform independence.
The conversation also touched on the semantic game being played — where "censorship" is rebranded as "moderation." Thacker cited a legal case involving Nina Jankiewicz, whose failed lawsuit against Fox News hinged on the nuanced difference between these terms. The judge’s ruling effectively called out the hypocrisy by returning to the dictionary definition: restricting speech is censorship, no matter what label you give it.
Thacker’s insights reveal a troubling shift, especially from those traditionally seen as defenders of civil liberties. The Democratic Party, often viewed as the champion of free speech, now finds itself leading efforts that, in Thacker’s view, curtail these freedoms under the guise of combating disinformation. He expressed his concern that the public discourse is being increasingly sanitized, leaving little room for genuine dissent or challenging conversations.
This podcast serves as a stark reminder that free speech is not a guaranteed constant — it requires active defense, especially in an age where digital platforms and governments can easily align to shape and restrict what we see and hear.
Watch the full episode of the Collapse Life podcast on YouTube or Rumble to dive deeper into these critical discussions. As free speech faces unprecedented challenges, it’s more important than ever to stay informed and question the forces that seek to control the narrative. Your voice is crucial in this ongoing battle for open discourse.
Sadly, we have a huge percentage of our population that is so shortsighted as to actually endorse restrictions on speech. All they want to do is relegate the power to silence what they oppose with no concept of the fact that power shifts and their speech will be subjected to the same kind of restrictions when the tide changes.
I am old enough to remember when freedom of speech was championed by the left and censorship was a tactic of the right. It doesn't matter your political orientation, the restrictions you call for will be used against you.
Of course under the current status quo, the outrage isn't exactly consistent. People complain about censorship in one context but are all for censorship elsewhere. Their entire rationale is based on being able to censor things that they don't like and have the freedom to express things that they do like.
Real freedom of speech requires you to allow speech that you don't like. That's harder than most are willing to accept.
I feel like we're on the edge of collapse with the election coming, and many factors converging to destroy free speech and then freedom as we know it. Although this isn't just about censorship, I saw a great interview with Bret Weinstein on the Highwire. He revealed in detail the risks of "vaccines",especially the mrna platform and how the science has been warped. He discovered how selective breeding of mice to favor long telomeres, caused a huge misrepresentation of drug safety testing, which led to the realization that most mice studies aren't valid. After being run out of his job he was deplatformed, demonitized and censored. This story shows the depths of corruption in a very concise and articulate way, and gave me a sense of hope despite the dark implications. By questioning his own assumptions he discovered not only the most profound corruption and malfeasance but also a growing community of people willing to make a stand for truth and freedom. https://thehighwire.com/watch/