The problem with Big Tech isn't censorship. It's the power to shape what we see in the first place.
When we talk about censorship on social media, the debate usually becomes political almost immediately: Facebook censored only the conservatives viewpoint. Facebook didn't censor some misinformation. Google manipulated the search results. X promoted a certain political viewpoint.
After talking with former Facebook content moderator and whistleblower Ryan Hartwig, I have a fundamental question:
Who decides what we get to see?
Censorship isn't only the result of deleting or removing content. It can involve what gets promoted in searches and feeds, what gets buried, classified as dangerous, and what never reaches us at all, without being deleted.
That creates a problem harder to see.
Someone Has to Moderate the Internet
Ryan worked for Cognizant, a contractor providing content-moderation services for Facebook. His job involved reviewing groups, posts, comments and videos on Facebook and Instagram.
Some of the material wasn't political. It was horrific.
Ryan described moderators encountering pornography, violent cartel videos, terrorist material and other graphic content. Workers were warned during the hiring process about what they would encounter and, according to Ryan, couldn't simply skip disturbing material assigned for review.
It's easy to say:
Stop censoring the Internet.
Nobody actually means:
Leave everything online.
Most don't want a social network filled with child sexual abuse material, terrorist recruitment videos, graphic murders or threats. Somebody has to make decisions. The question is where those decisions stop being moderation, and start becoming something else.
When the Rules Become Subjective
Ryan says that while working as a moderator, he began noticing something different.
Policies changed.
Exceptions were introduced.
Moderators received updates, telling them what kinds of material should be deleted or allowed. Ryan described Cognizant supervisors communicating with Facebook and periodic presentations explaining changes in enforcement. According to Ryan, some of those decisions appeared politically or ideologically selective.
That led him to begin secretly documenting what was happening and later become a whistleblower. During our conversation, I found myself asking a question that complicates the usual censorship argument.
What's inherently wrong with Facebook deciding what it allows members to see on Facebook?
A newspaper decides which letters to print. A television network decides which programs to broadcast. A bookstore decides which books to stock. If I own a website, I decide what appears on my website.
Why should Facebook be different?
Ryan and I spent a substantial part of the conversation wrestling with that distinction. His concern ultimately wasn't simply that Facebook made editorial decisions. He argued that the scale of the platform, its legal protections, its ability to affect political discourse and potential government involvement make the situation fundamentally different.
You Don't Have Free Speech on Facebook
Ryan recalled something a coworker once said: “You don't have free speech rights on Facebook, you have Facebook rights.”
Facebook isn't the government.
Neither is Google or YouTube.
We voluntarily use privately operated systems governed by rules we don't write. That doesn't make their decisions unconstitutional. It raises the question:
What happens when privately controlled platforms become the major infrastructure for public discourse?
If a local newspaper refuses to publish your letter, you can publish it somewhere else. If a handful of digital systems become the primary gateways through which billions of people communicate, search for information and encounter news, their decisions operate at an entirely different scale.
Ryan's concern went beyond American politics. He said U.S.-based moderators could review content originating in other countries, and described instances he believed could affect political discourse abroad. Whether every example supports the conclusions Ryan draws from it is a separate question. The underlying problem remains:
How much influence should any private information system have over public discourse?
What Happens When Government Gets Involved?
A private company deciding what it wants on its own platform is one question. Government officials pressuring or directing that company to suppress speech is another.
Ryan believes this is central to the legal debate surrounding social-media moderation. He argued that Section 230 can work if properly applied, but believes its protections have been interpreted too broadly. Some of the legal arguments became complicated enough that Ryan acknowledged he wasn't confident he was explaining every nuance correctly. The broader question doesn't depend upon accepting every legal interpretation discussed.
When does a private company's decision become a government action?
If Facebook independently decides a post violates its policies, that's one thing. If government officials legally notify a platform about criminal material, that's another. If government officials pressure a company to remove lawful political speech they couldn't constitutionally suppress, we have a very different problem.
The question isn't, Did Facebook censor something? It's:
Who made the decision, under what authority, and why?
The Problem Isn't Only What Gets Deleted
Suppose nobody deletes an article from the Internet.
It's still there.
You can't find it.
Is that censorship?
The practical result is similar. I compared a search engine to the card catalog in a library. The librarian doesn't have to burn a book to keep you from reading it. He or she could simply remove its card from the catalog. The book remains on the shelf. You don't know it's there.
A platform doesn't need to tell us what to believe. It can influence us by determining what information reaches us. Unlike obvious censorship, we never know it happened.
Curation Is Unavoidable
Google can't show us the entire Internet on the first page. Facebook can't put every post at the top of our feed. YouTube can't recommend every video simultaneously. Some system has to decide what comes first.
Even a chronological feed makes a decision: newer information receives priority over older information. The real problem isn't that algorithms curate information. They have to. The better question is:
What principles determine the curation, and do we understand them?
There may be no perfectly neutral algorithm. Every ranking system contains choices: Relevance according to whom? Authoritative according to what standard? Harmful according to whose definition? Misinformation compared with what source?
Good Intentions Don't Solve the Problem
Information control doesn't require an evil mastermind. The people making these decisions may genuinely believe they're improving the world. When we say “Google” or “Facebook,” we make a corporation sound like a single person with a single intention. These organizations consist of thousands of people making policy decisions, writing algorithms, responding to government requests, reviewing content and trying to solve problems. They may sincerely believe they're reducing misinformation, preventing violence or protecting vulnerable groups.
But good intentions don't eliminate the danger created by concentrated power. Somebody with different beliefs can inherit the same system. This shouldn't depend on whether we agree with today's decision. We should ask whether we would be comfortable with the same power being exercised by people whose politics we oppose.
Maybe the Problem Is Concentration
Decentralization may help lessen the problem. I'm not convinced it can solve it. . A fragmented Internet can still contain propaganda. Small platforms can still censor. Alternative search engines can still manipulate results.
Decentralization has tradeoffs. The danger isn't that Facebook moderates content. It's that so much communication and information flows through so few systems. When one company makes a bad decision, the consequences reach enormous numbers of people. More independent pathways to information make any single gatekeeper less powerful.
You Don't Have to Leave the Internet
A possible response to all this is to delete Facebook, stop using Google, throw away your smartphone, and disappear from the digital world. That's not that satisfying. Ryan talked about trying to find a middle ground—using technology, while making privacy-conscious choices.
Google, social media, and AI are useful tools. The solution isn't to pretend they don't exist. We need to change how we interact with them.
When something appears in my news feed, I can ask: Why am I seeing this? Who benefits from my seeing it? What am I not seeing? What assumptions went into deciding that this search result is authoritative? Where did this information originate? Can I find evidence that contradicts it?
Those questions don't require abandoning technology. They require remembering that the information arriving on our screens has passed through systems we didn't design.
The Best Defense Against Censorship is Thinking
It's critical thinking.
The Internet allows us to find information supporting almost anything we already believe. The abundance of information that makes the Internet powerful, also makes bias easier.
Eliminating censorship wouldn't solve the entire problem. Imagine tomorrow that every platform became completely open: No political moderation, no ideological filtering, and no suppression of controversial opinions.
We would still have propaganda, misinformation, and bots. We would still have people selectively sharing evidence that supports what they believe. The ultimate defense against information control can't depend on finding the perfect platform.
We have to remain capable of questioning the information we're given. That includes information we dislike, and information we agree with. If Facebook suppresses an argument, ask why. If Google gives you an answer, ask how it knows. If an alternative platform tells you the mainstream media is lying, ask for its evidence too.
If a whistleblower makes an allegation, don't dismiss it because it's uncomfortable, and don't accept it because it confirms something you suspected.
The goal isn't to distrust everything.
It's to understand why you trust what you trust.
If nobody censored anything tomorrow, would we actually become better informed?
Only if we learn how to think about what remains.
Editor's Note
This article is based on my podcast conversation with Ryan Hartwig. The ideas discussed here originated in that conversation, while the structure, emphasis, and commentary are my own. Any errors or interpretations are mine, not Ryan Hartwig's.
About Ryan Hartwig
Ryan Hartwig worked as a Facebook content moderator through contractor Cognizant and later became a whistleblower. He is co-author of Behind the Mask of Facebook: A Whistleblower's Shocking Story of Big Tech Bias and Censorship.
Website: https://ryanhartwig.org/
The Book:
Behind the Mask of Facebook: A Whistleblower's Shocking Story of Big Tech Bias and Censorship
Listen or watch
The full conversation: Facebook Whistleblower and Big Tech Censorship with Ryan Hartwig.
Apple Podcasts • YouTube • Spotify
About the Author
Daniel Stih (danielstih.com) is an aerospace engineer, software engineer, indoor environmental consultant, and author of 12 books. For more than 30 years, he has investigated complex problems spanning engineering, technology, the built environment, and human decision-making. His work explores how evidence, assumptions, and systems shape the conclusions we draw—and whether we're solving the right problem. Learn more about his approach in Why I Think This Way.