Concerns Over Censorship by Big Tech During Pandemic

During the coronavirus pandemic, major tech companies played a role in censoring Americans. Now, it seems that similar interests are vying for influence in rural areas to establish surveillance data centers while also attempting to stifle dialogue about these developments. The current actions appear to be pushing beyond mere censorship and are creating a pretext to criminalize dissent.

Law enforcement, both federal and state, ought to focus on more pressing threats like jihadist networks, political violence, and other serious issues. Yet, a recent report revealed a concerted effort by the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and around 80 regional fusion centers, all aimed at monitoring supposed anti-technology violence.

It’s disheartening to see law enforcement acting against the American populace for the sake of Big Tech.

Internal documents from the DHS and FBI label “anti-technology extremism” as an imminent domestic threat, primarily based on a handful of unverified threats directed at politicians. While genuine intimidation or violence should never be tolerated, framing opposition to data centers as a significant federal concern seems excessive. It’s a form of manipulation cloaked in a guise of intelligence gathering.

This mirrors the rationale behind actions taken during the Trump administration, such as the involvement of marshals with surveyors in Maryland, aimed at framing community opposition as dangerous before discussions even took place.

Take, for instance, the case of Harley Delander from Dixon, Illinois. Recently, he organized a Facebook event protesting at a prominent Republican’s home due to plans for a large data center project. While such protests can raise eyebrows, they’re quite common in local disputes. However, law enforcement found no credible evidence of any planned violence from Delander or his supporters.

Just hours later, Delander was arrested outside his home. He faces serious charges for supposedly creating fear for a public official and his family through his comments. This incident illustrates a troubling trend where law enforcement leans towards criminalizing robust public discussions based on subjective feelings rather than factual occurrences.

In another alarming example, a man from Massachusetts spent a year in prison pending trial for sending an angry email to a local politician. Though the message was harsh, it contained no threats, yet he was extradited to face charges under legislation against the intimidation of public officials, which hinges on a perceived feeling of fear.

We’re at a point where heated political discussions, a hallmark of democracy, could lead to restrictions on First Amendment rights. This is quite an unusual way to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

The pushback against this trend isn’t limited to aggressive emails or protests outside officials’ homes. Numerous law-abiding citizens, particularly in rural areas, have found themselves arrested for speaking out during public hearings on data centers.

A recent incident saw an Oklahoma farmer, Darren Blanchard, arrested after he exceeded his 3-minute speaking limit at a town hall meeting about an AI data center project. He was detained for attempting to hand over written remarks after his time was up, which seems excessively punitive.

In a similar vein, another resident of California was arrested for merely voicing his concerns at a county meeting after finishing his speaking time. His comments were well-received, yet he was swiftly apprehended and charged with threatening a public official.

Even in Midland, Texas, where citizens were calling for meeting decorum during a data center discussion, police intervened quickly, although no formal charges were reported. This highlights a willingness among law enforcement to marginalize those opposing data center projects before they can voice their dissent.

It’s happening in conservative areas all over the country, and it’s troubling to witness law enforcement acting in tandem with Big Tech to limit the voices of American citizens.

Furthermore, recent insights from a law enforcement bulletin in Philadelphia indicate that authorities are monitoring anti-data center activism, labeling those involved as “domestic violent extremists.” Authorities, however, admitted they had no specific threats identified.

This seems to be a strategy to concoct vague threats, categorize them as domestic extremism, and use them to justify surveillance and intimidation tactics. Citizens opposing these developments are portrayed as threats, simply for resisting the encroachment of Big Tech into their communities.

The irony in this situation is stark. Governments are resorting to censorship and intimidation to tackle challenges rooted in surveillance and data control.

Essentially, we’re footings the bill for a hanging rope.