> so long as the government doesn’t act as an authority to fuse censorship across all platforms

They literally discussed how they're doing this last week during a white house press conference.

When you consider things like Venmo facilitate social connections and interactions, this spills into payments pretty easily too.

And remember when Google launched Google+? They referred to email as the largest social network of all.. which is why they just started people's G+ connections with their most frequently emailed/emailers.

Yes, that’s why I mentioned it. I am against that.

Did they?

Yes.

> We are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff

> https://www.newsweek.com/biden-administrations-admission-the...

Psaki also discussed how they're building blacklists of people so that if you get banned on one platform, you also get banned on all of the other platforms.

Nowhere in this article does it support what you're saying.

The first is a direct excerpt from the linked article, which is a high level summary of the press conference. The second is a reference to this

https://youtube.com/watch?v=IwwwRC2xLC0

Okay, she's clearly talking about misinformation as it relates to public health. Do you think it should be up to the individual companies to discern the same dozen or so identifiable sources of anti-vax propaganda that's getting people needlessly killed?

As others have pointed out in this thread, "misinformation" has easily extended to politically inconvenient facts, such as the lab leak theory. The government absolutely does not, and should not, have the authority to censor what it deems to be misinformation. The fact that the government is directly coordinating censorship of a highly political subject absolutely discredits the notion that these are just private companies executing "corporate freedom of speech". It is a flagrant violation of the first ammendment at this point.

Saddam Hussein not having WMDs and the Iraq War being based on false pretenses was considered misinformation under Bush. NSA mass surveillance was considered misinformation under Obama. Climate change was considered misinformation under Trump. You are advocating for a "ministry of truth" to enforce the official government narrative. People need to be allowed to discuss these things, because the US federal government's track record for being a purely truthful, altruistic entity is quite poor.

That sounds dogmatic and short sighted to me.