> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://libertys-lens.ghost.io/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Follow the Money, Follow the Power: How Big Tech Flipped Its Script—and What That Says About the State - URL: https://libertys-lens.ghost.io/follow-the-money-follow-the-power/ - Published: 2025-10-06T03:51:16.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-13T16:52:04.000Z - Description: Ignore the theatrics about “censorship.” The real story is how platforms chase power—and how the state is learning to use that reflex. - Author: Graham Baughman - Tags: Newsletter, #Migrated-1786639647847, #Import 2026-08-13 16:47 ## Short version The data never supported the idea that Big Tech purged the right. Pre‑Musk Twitter’s own research showed right‑leaning political content received more algorithmic lift than the left in six of seven countries ([PNAS](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2025334119?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). After Musk, the dial moved further right—critics throttled and journalists suspended while engineers reportedly hard‑coded boosts for the owner’s posts ([Ars Technica](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/02/report-musk-had-twitter-engineers-boost-his-tweets-after-biden-got-more-views/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). Meanwhile, the government’s pressure toolkit is migrating from quiet jawboning to public leverage—on broadcast licenses, merger approvals, and made‑for‑TV “inquiries.” A Supreme Court ruling made clear that claims of government‑run moderation lacked standing ([SCOTUSblog](https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/murthy-v-missouri-3/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)), but regulators can still chill speech indirectly. Follow the incentives, not the press releases. [Subscribe](#/portal/signup) --- ## The new “censorship” narrative—still missing the receipts The loudest claim of the last few years has been that Silicon Valley “censored conservatives.” But when Twitter (pre‑Musk) audited its own ranking system, it found a consistent pattern: mainstream right‑of‑center politicians and news outlets benefited from the algorithm more than their left‑of‑center counterparts in most of the democracies studied. In other words, the feed itself tilted right before the ownership change ([PNAS](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2025334119?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). And when plaintiffs tried to prove that the federal government coerced platforms into suppressing views, the Supreme Court in *Murthy v. Missouri* tossed the case on standing grounds, emphasizing the lack of a “concrete link” between government outreach and platform decisions ([SCOTUSblog analysis](https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). That doesn’t mean jawboning isn’t real—administrations of both parties pressure platforms during crises. It means the evidence for a top‑down, state‑directed censorship regime never cleared the bar in court. The better explanation for what we see online remains a mix of user behavior, ad incentives, and ranking rules that reward outrage and identity affirmation (see also polarization and echo‑chamber research in [PNAS](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2023301118?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). --- ## Musk didn’t “free” Twitter; he centralized it—and tilted it Since the 2022 acquisition, the platform’s content governance has been increasingly personal. Reporting indicates engineers were instructed to give the owner’s posts a “power‑user multiplier,” flooding the ranked timeline after his Super Bowl‑weekend post underperformed the president’s ([Ars Technica](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/02/report-musk-had-twitter-engineers-boost-his-tweets-after-biden-got-more-views/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). That’s the opposite of neutral rules applied at scale; it’s bespoke amplification from the top. Combine that with episodic suspensions of critical journalists and policy lurches, and you get a platform whose “free speech” posture doubles as discretionary promotion for favored voices ([Ars Technica](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/report-twitter-secretly-boosted-accounts-instead-of-treating-everyone-equally/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). --- ## When the state wants leverage, it goes where it has teeth If you want to see real coercive pressure, don’t look first at social feeds—look at broadcast. In mid‑September, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr publicly warned Disney/ABC and its affiliates that there were “remedies” the agency could pursue after a monologue from Jimmy Kimmel, punctuating it with the classic “easy way or hard way” construction. Within hours, large station groups preempted the show and ABC suspended it; Carr then applauded the move on air ([Variety](https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io) | [Variety](https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/fcc-chairman-jimmy-kimmel-suspension-1236522728/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). Days later, members of Congress pressed Carr on whether he had misused licensing authority, and another letter probed whether a pending station‑group merger figured into affiliates’ decisions—a reminder that licensing and merger review are powerful sticks even when never swung ([Variety](https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/adam-schiff-brendan-carr-fcc-kimmel-1236527374/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). --- ## “Free expression,” rebranded: Meta’s pivot in Washington Facing legal and political heat from all sides, Meta has tried to step out of the line of fire. In August 2024, Mark Zuckerberg told Congress that senior Biden officials repeatedly pressured the company to suppress certain COVID‑related content, adding that he “regrets” not pushing back harder and that Meta made its own calls ([POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/26/zuckerberg-meta-white-house-pressure-00176399?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). By January 2025, Meta dropped third‑party fact‑checking in the U.S. and rolled out a “community notes”‑style model, pitching a return to “free expression”—a shift cheered by some on the right and criticized by others as a capitulation that will supercharge misinformation ([Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/zuckerberg-ends-meta-fact-checking-trump-takes-office-live-2011107?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io) | [Newsweek (opinion)](https://www.newsweek.com/protecting-free-speech-about-more-letting-content-run-wild-opinion-2012746?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). **The meta‑story about Meta:** the company isn’t declaring fealty to an ideology so much as hedging against whoever can hurt it next. In an election‑year letter, Zuckerberg both rebuked Democratic jawboning and signaled accommodation to a potential Trump‑era enforcement agenda. It’s not principle; it’s survival ([POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/27/zuckerbergs-new-washington-game-00176527?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). --- ## Alphabet’s relief rally: antitrust remedies, not breakup After Google lost the liability phase in the DOJ’s search‑monopoly case under Lina Khan and Biden’s DOJ, the big question was remedy. In early September 2025, Judge Amit Mehta rejected the most severe proposals (no Chrome divestiture), and Alphabet’s market cap surged. At a White House dinner days later, Sundar Pichai thanked the administration for “constructive dialogue,” telling the president, “I’m glad it’s over.” ([CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/04/google-ceo-thanks-trump-for-antitrust-resolution.html?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io) | [CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/05/tech-megacaps-worth-market-cap.html?prefer%5Freader%5Fview=1&prefer%5Fsafari=1&ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). Markets read it as a pivot away from maximalist remedies toward negotiated constraints. The broader takeaway is less about who “won” and more about the signal: when the White House and enforcement chiefs make nice with dominant platforms, policy risk drops and stock prices jump. That’s the incentive structure platforms respond to, and it has little to do with any single post getting throttled ([U.S. News/Reuters](https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2024-12-11/google-parent-alphabet-hits-record-high-after-trump-taps-andrew-ferguson-as-ftc-chair?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). --- ## Jawboning Goes Mainstream: The ICEblock Precedent Ignore the press releases about “safety.” The real story is how platforms now bow to direct government demands—no back-channel, no deniability. When Attorney General Pam Bondi demanded Apple pull ICEblock, a crowdsourced app that let users anonymously report ICE sightings in public, Apple complied within hours. Google followed suit, removing similar apps. The developer, Joshua Aaron, called it “capitulation to an authoritarian regime.” Legal experts called it jawboning—government intimidation masquerading as public safety ([NPR](https://www.npr.org/2025/10/03/nx-s1-5561999/apple-google-iceblock-app-removal?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io) | [OPB](https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10/04/apple-bows-to-trump-pressure-to-remove-iceblock-app/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). > **Aside:** Under Lina Khan, the FTC served the public interest by pursuing concentrated power. Under Trump, the agency’s “platform censorship” inquiry is a political cudgel. For more on Khan’s role and how we got here, see [How Lina Khan Radicalized the Elite: Why the Donor Class Chose MAGA Over Being Treated Like You](https://libertys-lens.ghost.io/how-lina-khan-radicalized-the-elite/). Civil liberties advocates are pushing back hard against the app’s removal. David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argues that ICEblock’s core function—sharing truthful information about government activity in public spaces—is exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect. “Transparency about government operations is a matter of the highest public interest,” Greene said. “When citizens publish accurate information about what their government is doing, that speech deserves the strongest constitutional protection.” ICEblock didn’t dox agents or incite violence; it let citizens communicate about government actions in public spaces. That’s speech, not sabotage. Apple’s calculus was simple: protect the bottom line, keep the White House happy, and silence anything that might draw regulatory heat. Tim Cook’s recent gestures to Trump—gold plaques, billion-dollar investments—show where the priorities lie ([NPR](https://www.npr.org/2025/10/03/nx-s1-5561999/apple-google-iceblock-app-removal?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io) | [OPB](https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10/04/apple-bows-to-trump-pressure-to-remove-iceblock-app/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). The lesson? Platforms aren’t defending speech; they’re defending themselves. The First Amendment is collateral damage ([NPR](https://www.npr.org/2025/10/03/nx-s1-5561999/apple-google-iceblock-app-removal?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io) | [OPB](https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10/04/apple-bows-to-trump-pressure-to-remove-iceblock-app/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). > “It is not surprising — they have been threatening this for a while and we do expect to see more of this and other blatantly unconstitutional actions going forward”—David Greene, the civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) --- ## TikTok: the algorithm is the ballgame The U.S. and China announced a framework to keep TikTok operating stateside while shifting ownership toward U.S. investors. Depending on the final terms, the recommendation engine—the “secret sauce” that decides what you see—may be licensed from ByteDance rather than fully transferred, preserving Beijing’s leverage over the most consequential part of the product ([TIME](https://time.com/7317896/tiktok-us-china-deal-bytedance-algorithm/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io) | [TIME](https://time.com/7317261/tiktok-ban-deal-update-china-us/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). Even if Oracle hosts U.S. user data in Texas, control over curation—what ideas are amplified or buried—remains the real question for democratic speech ([TIME](https://time.com/7319281/tiktok-trump-surveillance-china/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). --- ## The new “censorship” inquiry: an enforcement cudgel In February 2025, the FTC launched an inquiry into whether platforms “deny or degrade” access based on content or affiliations—explicitly inviting stories of bans, shadow bans, and demonetization. Framed as a consumer‑protection and competition issue, the probe dovetails with a political push to redefine moderation as censorship ([FTC](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/02/federal-trade-commission-launches-inquiry-tech-censorship?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io) | [FTC RFI](https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/request-public-comments-regarding-technology-platform-censorship?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). Whatever one thinks about platform bias, this is government signaling: “we’re watching.” And when the same chair later warned companies not to weaken U.S. data security or “censor Americans at the behest of foreign powers,” it underscored how speech policy is now braided with trade and geopolitics ([U.S. News/Reuters](https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2025-08-21/ftc-chair-warns-tech-firms-not-to-weaken-data-privacy-to-comply-with-eu-uk-laws?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)). --- ## What all this says about power Platforms talk about principle. Regulators talk about protecting consumers. Politicians talk about the First Amendment. But the pattern is stable: companies tune speech rules to please whoever holds the sticks—antitrust remedies, merger approvals, broadcast licenses, data‑localization deals, procurement, and tax policy. When the political weather shifts, so do the dials. That’s why the most consequential “speech” decisions aren’t the viral takedown of the day; they’re the quiet, durable arrangements between government power and the chokepoints of distribution. Think of it this way: *the difference between a post being labeled and a show being pulled by half the country’s affiliates isn’t a matter of taste; it’s a matter of state capacity.* --- ## Bottom line Meta and Alphabet’s public statements aren’t smoking guns of government‑run censorship; they’re affidavits of how tech survives: resist enough to maintain deniability, then pivot hard to please whoever can hurt you next. The platforms chase power; the state is learning to script the chase in public. If you want to see who’s shaping the speech landscape, don’t just read the moderation updates—watch the policy dials, the deals, and the ticker. **Follow the money, follow the power.** --- ## For readers who want the receipts - Twitter’s algorithm amplified mainstream right‑leaning politicians and outlets — ([PNAS](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2025334119?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - Supreme Court dismisses “jawboning” case for lack of standing — ([SCOTUSblog](https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/murthy-v-missouri-3/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - Musk’s posts reportedly hard‑boosted after Super Bowl underperformance — ([Ars Technica](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/02/report-musk-had-twitter-engineers-boost-his-tweets-after-biden-got-more-views/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - FCC chair threatens ABC/affiliates over Kimmel; affiliates preempt; ABC suspends — ([Variety](https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - Congressional scrutiny of FCC threats and merger leverage questions — ([Variety](https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/adam-schiff-brendan-carr-fcc-kimmel-1236527374/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - Meta letter alleging Biden‑era pressure; regrets for not pushing back — ([POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/26/zuckerberg-meta-white-house-pressure-00176399?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - Meta ends U.S. fact‑checking; pivots to “free expression”/community notes — ([Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/zuckerberg-ends-meta-fact-checking-trump-takes-office-live-2011107?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - Alphabet relief after remedies ruling; CEO thanks administration for resolution — ([CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/04/google-ceo-thanks-trump-for-antitrust-resolution.html?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - TikTok deal framework may retain Chinese algorithm via licensing — ([TIME](https://time.com/7317896/tiktok-us-china-deal-bytedance-algorithm/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - FTC opens “platform censorship” inquiry; invites shadow‑ban/banning stories — ([FTC](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/02/federal-trade-commission-launches-inquiry-tech-censorship?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - FTC chair warns on foreign‑driven censorship/data‑security weakening — ([U.S. News/Reuters](https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2025-08-21/ftc-chair-warns-tech-firms-not-to-weaken-data-privacy-to-comply-with-eu-uk-laws?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - Polarization & echo chambers in ranked feeds — ([PNAS](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2023301118?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - Apple and Google remove ICEblock after DOJ demand — ([NPR](https://www.npr.org/2025/10/03/nx-s1-5561999/apple-google-iceblock-app-removal?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io) | [OPB](https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10/04/apple-bows-to-trump-pressure-to-remove-iceblock-app/?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - ICEblock developer calls removal “capitulation to an authoritarian regime” — ([LAist](https://laist.com/brief/news/politics/legal-experts-condemn-apple-bowing-to-white-houses-request-to-remove-ice-tracking-app?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) - Civil liberties experts call ICEblock worthy of the highest level of First Amendment protection—([Al Jazeera](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/3/apple-pulls-iceblock-from-app-store-following-us-government-pressure?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io)) [Leave a tip](https://donate.stripe.com/aFa3cx2qT7n75ut3eXeIw01?ref=libertys-lens.ghost.io) *— Liberty’s Lens* This article is provided for public interest reporting and analysis. All external links open in a new tab and point to their original publishers. [Subscribe now](#/portal/signup) [Leave a comment](#ghost-comments-root)