This article describes how misinformation is spreading online, and how various tech companies are choosing to react to it, including moderation and deletion of the content. Although the article never outright advocates that the content should be deleted or banned, it does start with the premise that the proliferation of this content is bad. The tone of the article could also be interpreted as suggesting the companies should be going further in moderating this content, but the article never states one way or the other. The statement at the beginning seems to be the most controversial part of the article. I won't state my opinion on how the content is labeled in the article, but will say that there is precedent from the U.S. Supreme court on the limit of free speech if it represents an imminent danger. I would say that the author of this article either believes that the content spreading online right now meets the qualifications of creating imminent danger, or believes that the definition of imminent danger should be expanded. That is a topic outside the scope of this review however. Aside from that, the summaries of how different tech companies are choosing to react to the online content seems factual and well reported.

Absolutely insane justification for censorship, reframing the entire concept of watching things on social media into "the weaponization of their services to amplify dangerous content" This article's full-throated defense of censorship in order to protect the public from "dangerous" content has now completely killed off whatever was left of the Washington Post's laughable "democracy dies in darkness" motto. Apparently people's freedom to consider non-mainstream ideas is no longer an option. Note that NONE of this has to do with whether the claims made in the Plandemic video are correct or not -- this article makes the case that the public should not be able to decide for themselves any longer, an incredibly dangerous idea that is exactly the kind of book-burning argument that runs counter to the core values and ethics of a free society.

This article presents its author and The Washington Post as censorship snitches, going to social media sites and begging for content to be censored. The framing of this article trusts the social media platforms to harness this new power with perfect accuracy and restraint, which is why I reviewed the article as Appeal to Authority. When publications call for censorship, on some level it means they either don't understand that it will come back to be used against them or that they know they will be untouched from the censorship because of ties to the social media companies. Stop removing or censoring content, just give people a way to hold content accountable in a transparent way.