Michael Schellenberger

Rank 46 of 47
|
Score -202
5/28/2025, 2:05:45 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
42d
The new State Department sanctions reinforce the administration’s view of freedom of expression as a strategic American interest, as well as an instrument of foreign policy.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
42d
And the new rules would also sanction foreign officials who threaten to arrest foreign nationals “physically present in the United States” for activity they take on U.S. technology platforms, and who order US tech companies to halt payments to individuals in the United States for
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
42d
The new rule would also allow the State Department to deny visas to foreign officials who demand that US companies follow foreign censorship demands in the form of “content moderation policies,” as the European Union appears poised to do with the DSA.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
42d
The new policy allows sanctions in the form of visa denial for a variety of attacks on free speech, including if foreign officials threaten to arrest representatives of social media firms, or freeze their assets, as the Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Moraes has done, including
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
42d
Through the DSA the European Union is trying to set standards for how Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, X and others censor content. The U.S. “is committed to shutting down the global censorship-industrial complex,” a State Department communication seen by the Journal said.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
42d
“Obviously, we don’t love the idea of the Europeans censoring their own citizens,” Beattie told the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, “but the principal concern is these spillover effects affecting content-moderation policies and a variety of free-speech concerns within the

The statement and accompanying image discuss a U.S. foreign policy directive emphasizing the protection of American interests and citizens, which is part of a broader conversation about international content moderation and free speech. The directive aligns with a nationalistic approach, prioritizing domestic interests in foreign policy decisions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to protect American interests, which could be seen as prioritizing national security and citizen welfare, aligning with the principle of doing no harm to one's own citizens. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The directive may not promote understanding or empathy towards other nations, as it focuses on American interests, potentially at the expense of international cooperation. [-1]
  3. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses the platform of an executive order to assert national priorities, which can be seen as using influence for national betterment, though it may not consider global societal impacts. [+1]