Fact check: Yep that censorship \happened to millions under the Biden administration

1. Summary of the results

The claim about censorship under the Biden administration requires significant nuance. While there is evidence that federal officials from various agencies including the White House, CDC, and FBI communicated with social media platforms about content moderation ^[1], particularly regarding COVID-19 and 2020 election content, the legal system's assessment has been complex. The 5th Circuit Court found evidence of potential coercion ^[1], but the Supreme Court ultimately rejected the lawsuit on technical grounds of legal standing ^{[2] [2]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial pieces of context are missing from the original statement:

• Historical Perspective: Previous presidents like Adams and Wilson enacted far more extreme censorship measures ^[3], making the "unprecedented censorship" narrative questionable.
• Legal Nuance: Justice Barrett's Supreme Court decision emphasized that while government officials did communicate with platforms, there wasn't a clear causal link between government pressure and content removal ^[4]. However, Justice Alito's dissent characterized it as a "campaign of coercion" ^{[4] [2]}.
• Content Moderation vs. Censorship: Experts argue that the administration's actions were focused on moderating dangerous misinformation rather than political censorship ^[3].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement contains several problematic elements:

• Scale Exaggeration: The claim of "millions" being censored is not supported by any of the provided sources.
• Oversimplification: The statement presents a binary view of a complex issue that involves multiple stakeholders, including:
• Government agencies concerned about misinformation ^[1]
• Social media platforms making moderation decisions
• Courts providing oversight and different interpretations ^{[2] [4]}
• Political Framing: The issue has become highly politicized, with different groups benefiting from different narratives:
• Political opponents benefit from framing it as widespread censorship
• The Biden administration benefits from framing it as responsible moderation of dangerous misinformation ^[3]
• Social media platforms benefit from maintaining their independence in content moderation decisions