Google's admission of censorship during COVID shows jawboning cuts both ways

Google and YouTube's parent company, Alphabet, disclosed on Sept. 23 that the Biden administration pressured the company to suppress content that went against the accepted narrative during the pandemic — even when it didn't violate company policy.

The federal government interfered with how the nation's dominant search engine and its most widely used online video platform moderated speech.

Alphabet admitted Biden officials leaned on the company to remove posts questioning pandemic policy — even when they didn't break its rules. In a letter to the House Committee on the Judiciary, Alphabet's attorneys wrote: "While the Company continued to develop and enforce its policies independently, Biden Administration officials continued to press the Company to remove non-violative user-generated content."

This comes after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg shared much the same story last year.

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee on Aug. 26, 2024, Zuckerberg said senior Biden administration officials "pressured" Meta during the pandemic to remove or demote some COVID-19 posts, including humor and satire, called that pressure "wrong," and said Meta took actions it "shouldn't have."

COVID was chaotic, and officials were trying to keep people safe. But that doesn't excuse overreach.

Government pressure on media and speech isn't unique to the digital age, and administrations from both parties have tried to influence how Americans receive information. What's new is the scale and speed of influence when the government leans on online platforms used by billions.

We wrote with great concern about evidence that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr pressured Jimmy Kimmel's ABC bosses to take action after his lousy bit in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination. Kimmel has since returned to the air.

Free speech must be defended consistently, no matter which party is in power. Today's majority will someday be the minority — and when the government leans on companies to silence dissent, everyone eventually loses.

Indeed, the Biden administration's actions have emboldened retaliatory efforts from the Trump administration. This is a terrifying precedent for American politics that needs to stop.

When lawful content is suppressed under government pressure, it doesn't eliminate misinformation — it fuels distrust. Many Americans who suspected authorities were hiding uncomfortable truths during COVID feel vindicated by these disclosures, and that erosion of trust makes it harder to govern in future crises. Especially because some of the ideas flagged as "misinformation" later proved credible: the lab-leak theory is now considered plausible by intelligence agencies, and studies confirmed natural immunity offered real protection.

Ironically, removing lawful posts may have worsened public health outcomes. By driving skepticism underground rather than confronting it openly, officials created fertile ground for conspiracy theories that then were harder to debunk.

If Americans want to protect free expression, we must demand consistency from leaders of both parties. No U.S. government has the right to dictate what lawful ideas can be expressed by the people.

(COMMENT, BELOW)

Chicago Tribune
(TNS)
Previously:
• 09/09/25:
• 09/09/25: Biometric privacy laws must evolve with the times
• 08/26/25: What Justice Barrett's words on disagreement can teach us
• 08/21/25: Who's afraid of a healthy school lunch?
• 08/06/25: Joe Rogan belonged on Time's list of best podcasts
• 07/22/25: At a Coldplay concert, a kiss cam catches a cuddle and ruins lives
• 06/26/25: Want to know how a socialist mayor would govern New York City? Just ask Chicago
• 06/11/25: Hoping for a bond market crash to take down MAGA?
• 05/06/25: The Biden health saga should remind the media to tell the truth
• 05/06/25: Dems are doubling down on vulgar language. To what end?
• 02/25/25: Antisemitic fears in Windy City coalesce around a controversial puppet
• 02/05/25: Want a low-stress job with lots of time off? This state says it wants to recruit you
• 01/28/25: We are in a mental health crisis. A 'moonshot' is needed
• 11/07/24: Trump's win was a stunning repudiation of the chattering classes
• 03/21/24: Crypto's improbable comeback is cause for cheer --- and prudence
• 02/20/24: Don't write off fake meat just yet
• 11/23/23: Critical thinking is losing out to TikTok. A Thanksgiving intervention might help
• 11/23/23: Did the maker of Oreos surreptitiously cut the creme-to-cookie ratio?
• 11/15/23: David Cameron, a former British PM, makes a surprise return as Suella Braverman gets the chop. Is there a lesson here for the US?
• 10/23/23: Turns out it's bad business to jack prices just because you can
• 09/28/23: Here's why President Joe Biden should not have joined the UAW picket line
• 07/28/23: Surprise! Some good news from the IRS
• 06/07/23: Supreme Court just fired a shot at delinquent property taxes
• 05/05/23: Can't force an unprofitable grocery store to remain open
• 03/06/23: A powerful paper comes clean about its 'China virus' coverage
• 02/08/22: Facebook flops and The New York Times buys a puzzle. What's going on?