Censorship, Science, and the Facebook Reversal

A Personal Journey Toward Free Inquiry

“It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”
—Justice Louis D. Brandeis (Whitney v. California, 1927)

This powerful statement has guided my work, shaping both the title of my Substack, Irrational Fear, and my upcoming book by the same name. Over the past few years, many of us have felt these “irrational fears” creeping into our public discourse… especially online. Platforms like Facebook once pursued an ever-more aggressive approach to content moderation, shutting down debate under the banner of “fact-checking” and “DEI initiatives.” Now, after a new NBC News report detailing Meta’s pivot away from those same initiatives, there are real signs of change.

Why Is Free Speech Framed as a “Shift to the Right”?

The NBC News article frames this development as Meta “shifting to the right”—a characterization that is increasingly common whenever corporate policy starts to permit a wider scope of speech. But since when has defending free speech itself been pigeonholed as “right wing”? The idea that debate, inquiry, and the free exchange of ideas belong to one political camp is a distortion of the fundamental principle that everyone benefits from open discourse. In reality, safeguarding free speech should be universal, transcending party lines and ideological affiliations.

The Shifting Landscape of Facebook Moderation

For a while, it seemed as though Facebook, with help from contracted fact-checkers, was increasingly silencing voices that diverged from approved narratives, an alarming phenomenon I experienced firsthand.

One of the most telling controversies involves John Stossel, whose video discussing both climate change and forest mismanagement as drivers of wildfires was flagged as “partly false” by Climate Feedback (now known as Science Feedback), even though Stossel explicitly acknowledged the role of human-caused climate change. Critics argue the fact-check ignored his core point about land-management failures, focusing instead on labeling him a climate “denialist.” This episode became emblematic of alleged bias, especially after Stossel filed a defamation lawsuit against Facebook (later dismissed on procedural grounds).

Similarly, Michael Shellenberger, a longtime environmentalist who penned an article downplaying certain “climate alarmism” narratives, found his piece pulled from Forbes, an action lauded by many who accept climate orthodoxy but criticized by others as silencing a nuanced perspective. Both cases highlight a persistent concern: by disregarding inconvenient facts or alternative viewpoints, Climate Feedback may effectively shut down legitimate debate in the name of “fact-checking.”

Many of my own posts also fell victim to shadowy “violations,” which I dissected in my Substack pieces, “Manufacturing Consensus” and “Update: Manufacturing a Scientific”. In these essays, I warned that content moderation could devolve into content suppression when driven by political or ideological agendas rather than a genuine quest for truth. Now, as Facebook recalibrates its reliance on DEI programs and external fact-checkers, it appears they may be recognizing how easily these mechanisms can be misused to stifle legitimate debate.

Science Feedback: The Organization at the Epicenter

Much of Facebook’s climate-related fact-checking has been handled by Climate Feedback, now known as Science Feedback. A glance at their partners, funders, and donors reveals a network of institutions and individuals that may have vested interests in shaping scientific discourse. Funding alone doesn’t automatically signal foul play, but in a world where who pays for the “facts” can sway what is deemed factual, we must ask: What do these donors stand to gain from controlling which scientific debates get visibility and which do not?

When money flows from politically or economically motivated stakeholders into “fact-checking,” it’s easy for the lines between legitimate oversight and censorship to blur. Under these conditions, the rightful role of debate is compromised, and “manufactured consensus” can emerge, an issue I explored extensively in past articles.

Leaving Academia: Vindication at Last

It was precisely this dynamic, politically driven filtration of knowledge, that propelled me to leave academia. As I chronicled, I feared that once bureaucrats, politicians, or monied interests seized control of our knowledge-producing institutions, true scientific inquiry would be suffocated.

Walking away was a personal gamble. For a time, I worried my voice would vanish into the void, leaving no trace or noticeable effect. However, the recent dismantling of certain DEI programs, combined with Meta’s decision to pivot away from certain fact-checker contracts, stands as a powerful sign that critical mass can indeed shift the tides. My decision to speak out, even if it meant losing the safety of academia, now feels vindicated.

The Larger Context: Nearing the Brink of Permanent Censorship

Under Facebook’s old system, and echoed by Twitter’s former regime, as exposed by the Twitter Files, social media platforms were alarmingly close to implementing near-total control over what users could see and say. The net was cast so widely that even truthful commentary could be ensnared if it conflicted with a preferred narrative, often justified under vague labels like “hate speech” or “dis/mis/malinformation.”

I shudder to imagine a future where official gatekeepers decide which scientific findings or personal experiences qualify as truth. Had these policies continued unabated, legitimate voices like whistleblowers, scientists challenging mainstream paradigms, and investigative journalists, could have been permanently stifled. When large platforms with global reach choose to censor, entire societies lose access to knowledge.

“Irrational Fear”: The Real Reason We Must Keep Speaking Out

Remember, as Louis Brandeis wrote in Whitney v. California: “It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” These words don’t merely decorate the top of my emails; they define my motivation in championing genuine free inquiry. They inspired the name of my Substack and my forthcoming book, both entitled Irrational Fear.

Free speech is our most effective antidote to the panic and confusion that arise when people are denied the chance to examine all possible angles of a debate. When debate is suppressed, fear becomes the default setting… fear of being wrong, fear of being canceled, and fear of stepping outside the orthodox line. If powerful forces can exploit those fears, they effectively control the narrative.

Conclusion: Shining Sunlight on “Irrational Fear”

In the spirit of Justice Brandeis, we must remember that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” The inherent checks and balances of vigorous public debate must not be outsourced to private entities with opaque motives. Genuine fact-checking, open peer review, and civil disagreement are healthy. Forced consensus, intimidation, and gatekeeping are not.

I write Irrational Fear because I refuse to accept a world where speech is so policed that we forget the essential function it serves. By re-examining Facebook’s shift, the demise of some restrictive DEI structures, and the emergent restoration of free speech in once-censored digital spaces, we can see tangible evidence that persistent voices do make a difference.

Let’s continue using ours to keep the light shining. In doing so, we fulfill the true purpose of speech: to liberate us from the bondage of those irrational fears that would otherwise keep us silent.