#FBI The FBI and the censorship of the Social Media AI Overview – GS Ongoing controversy surrounds the FBI’s interaction with social media companies, particularly regarding alleged government-induced censorship and the suppression of free speech. While the Supreme Court has set limits, the relationship remains a subject of legal and political debate. The FBI says it provides information on foreign influence campaigns to help platforms protect against election interference. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Allegations of government overreach • Congressional inquiries: A House Judiciary Committee report alleged the FBI colluded with Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) to request the removal of thousands of social

#FBI
The FBI and the censorship of the Social Media
AI Overview – GS
Ongoing controversy surrounds the FBI’s interaction with social media companies, particularly regarding alleged government-induced censorship and the suppression of free speech. While the Supreme Court has set limits, the relationship remains a subject of legal and political debate. The FBI says it provides information on foreign influence campaigns to help platforms protect against election interference. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] 
Allegations of government overreach • Congressional inquiries: A House Judiciary Committee report alleged the FBI colluded with Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) to request the removal of thousands of social media accounts, including those of American citizens. A former Twitter executive testified that the FBI warned the platform about potential Russian disinformation before the New York Post published its story on Hunter Biden’s laptop, which led to its suppression on the platform.
• “Jawboning” accusations: Lawsuits allege that federal agencies, including the FBI and the White House, pressured social media companies to remove content by flagging posts as misinformation. Critics claim this practice, known as “jawboning,” amounts to unconstitutional government censorship by proxy, since it is difficult for companies to refuse a government request.
• Surveillance concerns: The ACLU has raised concerns that the FBI’s use of social media monitoring tools could have a “chilling effect” on protected speech. The FBI has stated it follows legal guidelines for surveillance. [2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] 

FBI position and recent developments • Combating foreign influence: The FBI maintains that its partnerships with social media companies are crucial for combating foreign malign influence operations, in which hostile foreign governments use social media to spread disinformation and sow discord.
• Reestablished communication: After legal challenges led to a suspension of contact, the FBI reestablished communication with social media companies in early 2024, following new Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines. The FBI stated that it now uses a standardized preface in all communications, assuring companies that it does not request or expect any specific action.
• Foreign threats: As of mid-2024, the FBI and DOJ have publicly announced successful efforts to disrupt foreign influence campaigns in coordination with tech companies. In one case, a tip from the FBI helped Meta remove a network of inauthentic accounts spreading Russian propaganda.
• Revised policies: A July 2024 report by the DOJ’s Inspector General found that the FBI lacked a comprehensive strategy for engaging with social media platforms and recommended the development of new guidance that acknowledges First Amendment implications. The DOJ agreed and has updated its procedures for sharing information. [5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16] 

Key legal rulings • Murthy v. Missouri (2024): The Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s injunction that had significantly restricted the Biden administration’s communications with social media platforms regarding content moderation. The Court ruled that the private plaintiffs who brought the case lacked standing to sue, and therefore did not directly address the First Amendment claims regarding “jawboning”. [1, 2, 17, 18, 19] 

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1]  cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/…
[2]  nbcnews.com/politics/supreme…
[3]  sanderscivilrights.com/feder…
[4]  hageman.house.gov/media/in-t…
[5]  nytimes.com/2024/08/15/busin…
[6]  thefire.org/news/doj-report-…
[7]  aclu.org/news/free-speech/fb…
[8]  judiciary.house.gov/media/pr…
[9]  edition.cnn.com/2023/07/10/p…
[10]  brennancenter.org/our-work/r…
[11]  hageman.house.gov/media/in-t…
[12]  nbcnews.com/tech/security/fb…
[13]  nytimes.com/2024/08/15/busin…
[14]  justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/…
[15]  fbi.gov/contact-us/field-off…
[16]  govexec.com/oversight/2024/0…
[17]  theguardian.com/us-news/ng-i…
[18]  direct.mit.edu/daed/article/…
[19]  knightcolumbia.org/content/k…

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 25, 2025