OPINION:
Last month, Google announced that creators who had been removed from YouTube for political speech related to topics such as COVID-19 and elections would be allowed to return to the platform.
In recent discussions with the House Judiciary Committee, the company acknowledged that the Biden administration had urged it to remove certain content, including material that did not violate YouTube’s existing policies. Google described this pressure as “unacceptable and wrong” and said public debate should not be limited to the views of authorities alone.
The company indicated it would not rely on third-party fact-checkers and raised concerns that European censorship laws could impact American companies and restrict lawful speech. These statements were issued after a subpoena from Chairman Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, as part of a multiyear investigation into Google’s moderation practices.
This decision is a huge win for free speech advocates, especially for conservatives who have been affected by Big Tech censorship. It all started after Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election. I would know, having been there.
In the summer of 2016, I was hired to work on the secret digital team known as “Project Alamo,” which was responsible for deploying hundreds of thousands of targeted digital ads daily for the Trump campaign. We relied heavily on Facebook, using the platform’s targeting tools to deliver tailored ads that solicited small-dollar donations.
Audiences were defined by their demographics, interests and online behavior. Each new donor’s information was added to the database, allowing us to reach them directly for future fundraising efforts. Our scrappy team raised more than $250 million for the campaign, and many have credited us for delivering Mr. Trump’s victory.
However, with the election’s unexpected outcome and the alleged collusion between the campaign and the Russian government, companies such as Meta shifted to implementing strict controls on their platforms. This contributed to the rise of independent fact-checking and content moderation, as well as a decline in engagement with content linked to politicians, particularly congressional Republicans.
At the time, it felt like Big Tech was trying to overcorrect for its role in Mr. Trump’s 2016 win. You had talking heads on the left shouting “Russian collusion!” all while understating just how poorly Hillary Clinton’s digital efforts were compared with ours.
I described the internet as the “Wild West” before the 2016 presidential election. You could deploy ads in minutes without complicated disclaimers or long review processes. By moving the goalposts after the election cycle, it became increasingly more challenging for conservative candidates and their teams to use social media platforms.
During the 2016 election season, most political ads required disclaimers, but in 2018, Meta began requiring advertisers to verify their identities and locations for political and “issue” ads. Issue-based ads covered topics such as civil and social rights, environmental policy, health care, immigration and other relevant issues.
This painstaking process involved uploading your government ID to the platform and hoping Meta would accept it. I knew many people who were often locked out of their advertising accounts, forcing them to jump through even more hoops to do their jobs. Time is money, but especially in the advertising business.
A think tank client of mine during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency was experiencing subpar Twitter engagement, particularly for content that challenged government lockdown policies. For almost a year, it seemed impossible to grow their following, and the only conclusion I could come to was that they were shadow banned.
Even now, I have a client whose ads are typically flagged even though the content isn’t inherently political. Because it’s a right-leaning organization, algorithms disable ads for activities such as member sign-ups and virtual book clubs. There’s a process for reviewing flagged content, but, again, time is money.
It’s hard to say what would have happened in the 2020 presidential election if not for social media’s heavy hand, but I think the election would have been closer or would have gone in Mr. Trump’s favor. It would undoubtedly have been easier for conservatives to run paid and organic ad campaigns.
Still, at a time when Americans were largely skeptical about the government’s reaction to the pandemic, the answer to differences of opinion is more speech, not less.
Moreover, the news from Google just confirms what many digital professionals have long suspected: Threats to free speech have always come from the left. Let’s hope Big Tech makes good on its efforts to support free speech moving into 2026.
• Chloe Anagnos is a visiting fellow with Independent Women.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.