Disclaimer: This is an opinion piece. The views expressed here are my personal perspective based on my observations and experiences.
It’s no secret that social media has flipped the script on how we communicate, share ideas, and hold power accountable. But now we’ve got heavy hitters like Hillary Clinton and Vice President Kamala Harris making it crystal clear: they want control. Their recent statements about Section 230, social media regulation, and censorship beg the question—what are they really afraid of? Let’s break it down in true LanceScurv fashion.
Hillary Clinton’s Freudian Slip
Hillary Clinton, speaking with the kind of controlled panic that only a career politician can muster, recently said, “We should be, in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave platforms on the Internet immunity… if the platforms… don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.”
Now let’s pause right there. “We lose total control?” If that’s not a Freudian slip, I don’t know what is. What she’s really saying is that the power brokers—those who have dominated the media narrative for decades—are losing their grip. Social media gave the everyday person a voice, and now that voice is too loud, too clear, and too rebellious for their liking. They want to plug the ears of the masses and go back to the days where only carefully curated content was allowed to be seen. But the cat’s out of the bag now. Social media has exposed more about politicians than mainstream media ever would have dared.
🔥🚨BREAKING: Hillary Clinton went to CNN to announce that they are losing control and that Social Media companies should increase their censorship on Conservative misinformation.
Hillary Clinton: “we lose total control.” pic.twitter.com/k9VEhegFP7
— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) October 5, 2024
Kamala Harris Wants Oversight
Now enter Kamala Harris, with a passion for censorship that rivals the finest authoritarian regimes. She’s quoted as saying, “You can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and a different rule for Twitter… there has to be a responsibility… they are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop!”
Translation: the voices we don’t control are the voices we fear the most. Harris knows, like Clinton, that social media platforms like Twitter (X), under the ownership of Elon Musk, are giving people the freedom to speak without censorship. And that scares them. It terrifies them to the core because now the truth isn’t funneled through their corporate-controlled media outlets; it’s raw, uncut, and, more importantly, it’s viral.
She is so Stupid ! Kamala Harris said X needs to be taken down because there’s no oversight or regulation on what’s being posted 🙄
Really lady? You continually post about Trump and Project 2025 knowing it’s disinformation! pic.twitter.com/Rj9bMSlc0J
— Johnny Midnight ⚡️ (@its_The_Dr) October 6, 2024
The Social Media Battlefield
At the heart of this tug-of-war is Section 230. For those who don’t know, Section 230 is a part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It’s essentially the rule that says social media platforms aren’t liable for what their users post. If I, LanceScurv, post something on Facebook, Facebook doesn’t get sued for it. But this rule also allows platforms to moderate content—like taking down videos, blocking certain hashtags, and suspending accounts.
Platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram have increasingly used this power to silence dissenting voices—especially when it comes to politically charged or controversial topics. If it doesn’t fit the mainstream narrative or align with organizations like the World Health Organization (who now essentially dictates what’s allowed on YouTube), it gets yanked. Trust me, I know firsthand. I’ve got strikes on my channel because of content that was deemed “misinformation.” And let’s be real, this isn’t just about enforcing the rules—it’s about controlling the narrative.
Meanwhile, platforms like Twitter (now X), under Elon Musk, have taken a different approach. Musk understands the value of free speech and hasn’t bowed down to the pressures of censorship like other platforms. On X, people speak their minds, and yes, that includes criticism of Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and others in power. That’s precisely why Harris and Clinton are raging against it. They can’t control the flow of information the way they once could.
Mainstream Media’s Decline: Losing the Battle for Minds
Let’s face it—mainstream media is losing its grip. Whether it’s CNN, Fox News, or whatever network you prefer, they’re all essentially playing the same game. They give us what looks like opposing views, but those views are carefully molded to keep us distracted, divided, and most importantly, controlled. But who owns these media outlets? Who’s really behind the curtains, pulling the strings? It’s not just about the faces on the news, it’s about the puppet masters behind them.
The real issue here is that social media has democratized the flow of information. No longer are we at the mercy of gatekeepers who decide what’s worthy of being called “news.” Now, a random person with a smartphone can expose lies, corruption, and hypocrisy. And that’s exactly what terrifies politicians like Clinton and Harris. They can no longer hide behind the veneer of respectability. Every word they say, every decision they make, is dissected, analyzed, and shared within seconds. And there’s nothing they can do to stop it.
Why Trump’s Voice Matters
This is why Donald Trump is such a threat. Whether you love him or hate him, the man knows how to speak directly to the people. Trump isn’t beholden to the usual power structures because he’s got his own money and his own platforms, like Truth Social. He’s not playing by the rules of censorship that Clinton and Harris want to impose. That’s what makes him dangerous to them.
Trump’s ability to bypass traditional media and speak directly to the people on platforms like X is a game-changer. It’s why they’re working so hard to push back against Musk’s free-speech policies. If they can’t control the conversation, they lose control of the narrative—and when they lose control of the narrative, they lose power.
What Are They Really Afraid Of?
Let’s be real for a second. The real fear here is losing control of the masses. Politicians and their media puppets have thrived on a system where they control what we see, hear, and ultimately think. But social media has shifted that balance. Now, the people can scrutinize every move, every decision, and every lie they tell.
And with platforms like X allowing free speech to flourish, the dirty laundry of politicians is being aired out for all to see. So when Harris says that social media needs more oversight, what she’s really saying is, “We need to put the genie back in the bottle.” But guess what? That genie’s out, and there’s no going back.
The Future of Free Speech
As much as they want to bring us back to the days when a handful of people controlled the media, those days are gone. Social media, for all its faults, has given the voiceless a voice. It’s given people like me, LanceScurv, the ability to speak freely and call out the nonsense for what it is.
So as we move forward, let’s remember that the fight for free speech isn’t over. Politicians will keep pushing for censorship because it benefits them. They don’t want a free exchange of ideas—they want controlled conversations. But as long as platforms like X exist, and as long as people are willing to speak the truth, we’ll keep the fight alive.
And to Clinton, Harris, and the rest of them who think they can control the narrative: we’re watching you, and we’re not going anywhere.
Here’s A Little More Detail From My Research On Section 230 And What It’s All About:
Section 230 is a key part of the U.S. legal framework for regulating online content. It’s part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, and its purpose is to protect both internet platforms (like social media companies) and the people who use them. Here’s what it means in practical terms:
- Protection for Platforms: Section 230 grants social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, immunity from being held liable for most of the content posted by their users. For example, if someone posts something defamatory on Twitter, Twitter can’t be sued for that content, as long as they didn’t create or significantly edit it.
-
Good Samaritan Clause: It also allows platforms to moderate content without fear of liability. They can remove, restrict, or moderate content they consider objectionable (even if it’s protected by free speech), and they won’t be held responsible for doing so. This means platforms have the freedom to create their own rules about what is acceptable on their site.
-
Free Speech Implications: Supporters of Section 230 argue that it protects free speech by allowing platforms to exist without being bogged down by constant lawsuits over user-generated content. Critics, like Hillary Clinton in this instance, argue that it gives too much power to platforms to regulate (or not regulate) content, contributing to the spread of misinformation, harmful content, and other abuses.
-
Calls for Reform: In recent years, there’s been a bipartisan push to reform or repeal Section 230. Some, like Hillary Clinton, believe platforms should be held more accountable for the content they host, particularly when it comes to misinformation or harmful content. Others worry that changes to Section 230 could lead to more censorship or make it harder for smaller platforms to operate.
In essence, Section 230 is at the heart of debates about free speech, censorship, and the power of social media companies. Repealing or altering it could dramatically change how social media operates and how they handle user content.
How do you think social media will change if Hillary and Kamala have their way? Leave your perspectives in the comment section below.
Yours Truly,
LanceScurv
Hard-hitting, Uncensored, and Unafraid…….
