WATCH: WEF Elites in Davos Lament Dubious Lack of Censorship

January 17th, 2024 5:48 PM

The ongoing World Economic Forum conference has featured more than one anti-free speech “expert.” 

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been one of the most discussed topics at the globalist World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Davos 2024 conference. Hence, it’s no surprise that the issue of alleged online “misinformation” has come up multiple times. WEF released its 2024 report classifying “misinformation and disinformation” as the top short-term global threats. Multiple panelists or speakers seemed to agree with WEF that more censorship is needed online, including government regulation of so-called “hate speech,” especially in the age of AI.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was particularly blunt in ludicrously framing free speech as a problem during her speech. Echoing the WEF report on “misinformation,” she alleged, “For the global business community the top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate, it is disinformation and misinformation, followed closely by polarization within our societies.”

Von der Leyen later returned to the topic, boasting of her work to censor free speech. European Union tech legislation has been condemned as anti-freedom, but Von der Leyen claimed to be protecting democracy:

“Disinformation and misinformation tackling this has been our focus since the very beginning of my mandate. With our Digital Services Act, we defined the responsibility of large internet platforms on the content they promote and propagate. A responsibility to children and vulnerable groups targeted by hate speech, but also a responsibility to our societies as a whole. Because the boundary between online and offline is getting thinner and thinner, and the values we cherish offline should also be protected online. And this is even more important in this new era of generative AI.”

Von der Leyen wasn’t the only one to speak on this topic. President of swissuniversities Luciana Vaccaro and Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes described X (formerly Twitter) as “toxic,” while also yearning for anti-free speech policies. “For a long time I was on Twitter and now it’s become such a toxic place that I’ve concluded it’s not a worthwhile place to spend time,” Oreskes claimed. “I have given up on X. What a scary name that even is, right?”

Vaccaro seemed to agree, characterizing X as a “very toxic environment.” She lamented,  “I have no solution on that.” She expressed her conviction, however, that social media will have a more restrictive “code of conduct” in the future. “I think there will be a societal reflection on how information is brought there. Of course on X now there is also the policy of the owner that is problematic but I think this is a problem of the society of the future,” she rambled.

Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.