Recently, we noted that, after a court ruling, Brazil has banned X, stranding 40 million users.

Bans and similar limitations are a problem for content creators — people who post news to social media accounts of all kinds. That’s especially true if they are monetized, that is, they get a cut from the advertising. Many of them make a living that way.

Tech mag writers, always happy to hear of another pie in the face to Elon Musk — who bought Twitter and turned it into X — have exuded a quiet glee over the Brazilians’ plight.

Why are journalists happy to hear about and promote censorship?

Remember the Sherlock Holmes tale “Silver Blaze,” where Holmes pounces on the fact that the dog did not bark in the night? The guard dog did not bark because he knew the horse thief. Journalists at established media may be unconcerned by growing worldwide internet censorship because it mainly affects independent content creators, not those who follow establishment lines at outlets owned by government-friendly billionaires or funded by governments. Like the dog, they have no reason to “bark.”

Didn’t journalists, at one time, oppose government censorship. Yes, certainly. Back in the days of newsboys and printer’s devils, newspapers competed for eyeballs and advertising. Headlines about erring politicians were part of the industry’s lifeblood. Radio and TV, of course, followed suit. Politicians grumbled.

But now, faced with an irretrievable internet-driven decline, traditional mainstream media journalists resent the interlopers who benefit from the new order. That was particularly evident at the Democratic National Convention last month where 200 content creators got VIP treatment, befitting their comparative importance.

The mean girl tells off the others

One person who has noticed this is Washington Post mean-girl journalist — and now Substacker — Taylor Lorenz. Recognizing that the official news media are in free fall, she skewers the legacy grumblers:

The way creators are being mocked and belittled by so-called “established” journalists and observers online is nothing short of disgraceful. The entitlement, the arrogance, and the gatekeeping is appalling. While the viciousness of these attacks is upsetting, the backlash is not surprising. This is the same kind of protectionist behavior that has been happening in the media world for decades, as many invested in institutional power structures lash out amidst their dwindling influence. (I wrote about this last year for WaPo and extensively in my book). From the first blogger to receive White House press credentials in 2005, to fashion influencers being seated front row at Dolce & Gabbana in 2009, to this recent convention, creators have been infiltrating and upending traditional media structures for nearly 25 years.

Taylor Lorenz, “My take on the journalists vs content creators debate,” Taylor Lorenz’s Newsletter, August 31, 2024

Lorenz is no free speech champion

On the contrary, she was appalled that the Disinformation Governance Board was deep-sixed in 2022. She blamed “coordinated online attacks” from its probable intended victims.

But, as her book Extremely Online (Simon & Schuster 2023) indicates, she has adapted because she knows that the power has shifted. And so has the audience:

As Edward Wasserman, professor of journalism and former dean of Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley told me last year, national news publications often rely on access journalism and serve primarily wealthy audiences, and that shapes their coverage, making them less likely to hold powerful people to account. “For all its claims about independence and bringing a critical gaze to policy,” he said, “there are vast areas where the [traditional] press is in lock step with the people who own and run the country.”

Lorenz, “My take on the Journalists vs content creators debate”

In other words, legacy media is not even written for the rest of us any more.

Where we are now

The many attempts at government censorship of social media (it’s certainly not just Brazil) are easier to understand if we keep in mind that the internet crashed the cost of censorship as well as of content creation for independent media. Censorship through compliant big platforms is comparatively easy, as the Twitter files showed. Legacy media journalists are mostly sitting in the bleachers, cheering for the government — which is, increasingly, their boss.

And you may not be interested in the war between journalists and content creators but the war is interested in you. In a world where internet censorship is becoming very attractive to governments, your right to be informed of things that might affect you will depend on who wins.

You may also wish to read: X now banned in Brazil; huge fines threaten secret users. The Supreme Court’s ruling seems to be part of an international trend toward attempted government control of the news stream. One of our readers writes to say, “I resisted the military dictatorship in Brazil in the 1960s, and I will resist the dictatorship of a judge in 2024.”