Staff Reports
Big Tech’s tentative retreat from the censorship bunker is a long-overdue victory for free speech and for every American who believes the marketplace of ideas should not be run by a handful of Silicon Valley gatekeepers. This week Alphabet signaled it will allow certain creators who were removed under its pandemic- and election-era enforcement to return to YouTube, a move conservatives have demanded for years as evidence that the platforms overreached. This reversal proves what many of us warned all along: tech’s “safety” purge was political and selective, not principled.
Let’s be clear about the history: Alex Jones and his Infowars channels were targeted by the platforms back in 2018 and 2019, when YouTube and others terminated channels tied to Jones for repeated policy violations. That purge set the template for how Big Tech could permanently silence a controversial conservative voice by labeling it “dangerous” and then cutting off distribution and revenue. Conservatives who objected were smeared as defenders of lies instead of defenders of free expression.
Alex Jones’ saga didn’t end on social platforms; it played out across the media and the courts as a cautionary tale about selective enforcement. Jones was later reinstated on Elon Musk’s X in 2023 after public pressure and a poll, showing that when platforms are forced to answer to users they sometimes correct course. That episode underlined two truths: platform decisions can change, and public pressure — not bureaucratic pronouncements — still matters in the fight for speech rights.
But there’s a catch, and conservatives shouldn’t pretend it isn’t real: YouTube’s announced rollback specifically targets accounts removed over COVID-19 and election content rules, not every single prior suspension. This means some high-profile bannings tied to other policy violations or to the legal fallout of defamatory claims may not be swept up by the change. The company’s pilot approach and vague language leave open whether a figure like Jones would be invited back automatically or forced to jump through new hoops.
Another hard truth is that Jones’ legal troubles and the massive judgments against him complicate any simple “reinstatement” narrative. Courts have held him accountable for false and destructive claims about the Sandy Hook families, and those judgments — along with ongoing bankruptcy and asset disputes — are separate consequences that platforms can cite when making moderation decisions. Until those legal matters are resolved, some platforms will claim they have non-political grounds to keep him off, even as they quietly loosen rules elsewhere.
Still, conservatives should celebrate the broader principle: when tech giants admit they were wrong, even incrementally, it punctures the arrogance of unaccountable censors. This policy shift is a vindication of years of pressure from Republican lawmakers, conservative creators, and everyday Americans who refused to accept a partisan informational monoculture. It also hands Republicans a roadmap — keep the heat on, keep demanding transparency, and force platforms to live up to free-speech rhetoric.
We must, however, be honest about strategy. Defending free speech means defending the right for even obnoxious or offensive viewpoints to have a platform while still supporting accountability for concrete harms like defamation and fraud. Conservatives can argue both: rein in tech’s ideological bias and insist on consistent, transparent rules that don’t selectively kneecap opponents. That balanced position is both principled and politically powerful if framed properly to voters tired of being censored.
Patriots should take this moment to press forward, not to gloat or to soften the fight. Push Congress for stricter oversight, elevate alternative platforms, and demand that the same free-speech standards apply to every ideology. If Big Tech truly wants to re-earn public trust, it will restore voices on a principled basis and stop acting like the speech police of a single political tribe.
