it has long seemed to me that the censoring of information in the west is done through distraction and entertainment. there is so much media to consume and the most easily consumed has historically been the media that serves the interests of the powerful. this is still true, though the market concentration of legacy media ownership reached a crescendo just as the internet started to proliferate.

capital has obviously inserted itself into the internet's largest platforms, which all benefit from network effects. the effect that social media, like facebook and twitter, have had on the dissemination of news is hard to overstate. of course, the legacy platforms trying to differentiate themselves as being somehow more legitimate, but that distinction falls apart outside of obvious specific examples. the real difference is the level of interactivity in legacy media is non existent.

legacy media has only ever been interested in creating one-way outputs: articles, videos, etc., where the forum of an engaged audience is presumed to exist and agree with the outputs. web 2.0 phenomenon has completely this blown up. nowhere is this more obvious and absurd than their curated "Town Hall" events where handpicked Joe Blow is brought in to ask an approved question from a note card, and this is meant to represent the public square.

in any event, more to the question of censoring the internet, i think what we're seeing is the attempt to bring the "public square" under some level of control. we all know that people arguing in the comments section is often more interesting and engaging than probably 90% media outputs. when that is taken away, people go elsewhere to do it. communities are still trying to find the level of moderation they desire for that kind of interaction. all the while, the established power structure is seeking to insert itself into that conversation within the largest communities. and yes, i think "preventing violent extremism" is the tactic that gives them the most leeway and power. "national security" implications give the most latitude in avoiding courts and issuing gag orders. "stopping misinformation" is probably going to be the framing that is used more broadly when some censorship becomes public. for example, though the laws around the banning of TikTok are all weird national security legalese, the way it's being framed proponents of the ban is as a source of disinformation. i think this is because the national security argument has a better shot in legal interpretation than "people are lying on my internet program, ban the internet program".

a key piece of censoring the public square is to make sure the censorship itself doesn't invite much attention or scrutiny.