Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Was bien a fascist when he closed the schools and suppressed the media including the mainstream media and social media of an opposing view
Executive Summary
The central claim — that “Bien/Biden was a fascist when he closed the schools and suppressed the media including the mainstream media and social media of an opposing view” — is not supported by the available evidence: there is no documented federal action closing U.S. schools nor conclusive proof of wholesale suppression of mainstream media; reporting connects the Biden administration to targeted actions and pressure campaigns on specific outlets and platform policies, which critics call censorship while defenders describe as public-health or national-security coordination [1] [2] [3]. The debate centers on definitions of censorship and fascism, the scope of government influence on platforms, and selective examples such as sanctions against foreign outlets and documented White House-technology engagements, with partisan committees and tech-company accounts offering divergent narratives [1] [2] [4].
1. How the allegation arose — a narrative of closures and censorship that doesn’t match the record
The original statement conflates two different claims: closure of schools and suppression of media. There is no source in the provided material that documents federal orders closing schools; sources that address government action discuss media-related steps such as sanctions or urging platforms to act against misinformation, not blanket school closures or formal shutdowns of mainstream outlets [1] [3] [5]. The mischaracterization appears to derive from linking pandemic-era public-health measures, which included state and local school closures, to federal intent; the materials here instead focus on alleged administration-led pressure campaigns regarding online content and sanctions against specific foreign outlets, which are qualitatively different from the accusation of closing schools as an authoritarian act [6] [1].
2. Documented actions: sanctions and reported White House engagement with tech platforms
The reporting and committee materials identify specific actions: financial sanctions that affected a Russian state-connected outlet and White House communications with major platforms about content moderation. One source describes the shutdown of Sputnik’s U.S. operations through sanctions, framed by the author as censorship; other documents outline House Republican reports alleging a censorship regime and Google admissions of some account restrictions tied to content policies [1] [2] [4]. These are targeted, situational measures—sanctions tied to foreign-state media and pressured platform moderation around misinformation—not wholesale suppression of domestic mainstream media. Analysts and some platform employees push back on the characterization that these interactions amounted to government-directed systemic censorship [3].
3. What defenders say: public interest, misinformation, and national security rationales
Defenders of the administration’s conduct emphasize public-health and national-security rationales: urging platforms to reduce harmful misinformation during a pandemic and sanctioning foreign-state disinformation outlets are presented as protective measures rather than ideological suppression. Interviews and fact-checks noted by reviewers show platform employees and some independent reporting questioning the extent of direct censorship claims, asserting that tech companies retained editorial discretion and internal policy frameworks guided actions rather than unilateral government commands [3] [6]. This framing highlights intent and mechanism: government actors raising concerns with private companies differs from command-and-control censorship typical of authoritarian regimes.
4. What critics argue: coercion, overreach, and partisan investigations
Critics, including Republican House committees and some commentators, label coordination with platforms and enforcement of sanctions as coercive and symptomatic of administrative overreach that suppresses dissenting viewpoints. Committee reports and political analyses assert that pressure influenced content moderation decisions and that Google admitted to some censorship practices under the administration’s influence, which opponents use to support stronger claims about suppression [2] [4]. These accounts often come from partisan sources with overt political aims, and while they document specific instances of governmental engagement, they do not establish a uniform, nationwide policy of closing schools or completely muzzling mainstream media across channels [4].
5. Bottom line: allegations exceed documented actions; labels depend on definition and perspective
Available materials document targeted interventions and contentious government–platform interactions, but they do not substantiate the sweeping claim that Biden “closed the schools” or enacted a unified program to suppress all mainstream and social-media opposition—claims that require different and stronger evidence than what’s presented [1] [3] [5]. Whether the documented actions amount to “fascism” hinges on legal, historical, and definitional thresholds: fascism implies systematic elimination of political pluralism and civil liberties by state force, a standard not demonstrated by selective sanctions and policy engagements alone. The evidence supports debate over appropriate limits on government influence and platform accountability, not a conclusive finding that the administration met the definitional bar for fascist governance [2] [3].