Michael Schellenberger

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -91
Rep. Jim Jordan
@Jim_Jordan
·
1d
Even as Meta admitted the Biden-Harris censorship was wrong, others in Big Tech were reluctant to go on the record.

Now Google is acknowledging, for the first time, that it too faced censorship pressure from the Biden White House and that pressure was “unacceptable and wrong.”
9/23/2025, 1:39:01 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
1d
We need @realDonaldTrump to stand strong against EU censorship.

No trade deal is worth undermining the First Amendment.

The EU's @vonderleyen @EmmanuelMacron @_FriedrichMerz are eager to not only censor their own citizens but Americans and the world.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
14d
If you can’t freely express your opinions and vote for the candidate of your choice, you’re not a democracy. If you’re not a democracy, you can’t be in NATO. @realDonaldTrump @Keir_Starmer @EmmanuelMacron @_FriedrichMerz
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
1d
Had the above letter from Google, and the below letter from Meta, been sent before the Supreme Court received filings on Missouri v. Biden, the ruling may have gone the other way, as they demonstrate direct White House bullying of tech firms to censor legal content.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
1d
Finally! Google admits 1) that the Biden White House demanded censorship of legal content, and 2) that the European censorship law (DSA) could require it and other tech companies "to remove lawful content" both "within and outside of" the EU. The US must stand up to EU censors!
Rep. Jim Jordan
@Jim_Jordan
·
1d
🚨BREAKING: Due to our oversight efforts, GOOGLE commits to offer ALL creators previously kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations to return to the platform.

BUT THAT’S NOT ALL.

Thread:

The statement is a supportive remark directed at Jim Jordan, acknowledging his efforts in addressing issues related to censorship and free speech. It aligns with the broader conversation about government influence on tech companies and the importance of upholding the First Amendment.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but supports actions against perceived censorship, which could be seen as promoting free speech. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By supporting actions against censorship, the statement promotes understanding and empathy towards those advocating for free speech rights. [+1]
  3. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses influence to support actions that are perceived to benefit society by advocating for free speech and against censorship. [+1]