Billionaire businessman Marc Andreessen’s appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience” is causing national debate about banking and government overreach. In the three-hour podcast, Andreessen alleged the Biden administration is using “debanking” tactics to target tech founders and business owners, striking a chord with anti-establishment voters.

🚨MUST WATCH: Marc Andreessen breaks down the entire process of debanking and how the Biden administration used raw administrative power to silence anyone they didn't like: Crypto, Guns, Weed, and "Politically Exposed People" aka right wing voices without due process. (FULL CLIP) pic.twitter.com/zwe4NNc26p

— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) November 27, 2024

Public sentiment is moved by discussions of whether debanking is an existential threat to banking freedoms and the validity of Andreessen’s claims.

Andreessen’s Debanking Claims

“Debanking” refers to the government denying or restricting banking services for individuals or organizations, often for political, regulatory, or ideological reasons. Andreessen alleges more than 30 tech and crypto founders have been denied banking services by the Biden administration.

Andreessen likened the Biden DOJ’s actions to Obama’s “Operation Chokepoint,” a controversial 2013 program claiming to combat fraud by targeting banks and payment processors that provided services to high-risk industries like payday lenders, firearm sellers, and online gambling operators. Andreessen suggests these are politicized operations to expand financial control target political dissenters.

• Weaponized Regulation: Andreessen claims the government is using financial tools to suppress political opposition in emerging industries like cryptocurrency.
• Stifling Innovation: He cautions that overreach tactics will drive entrepreneurs out of the U.S., undermining America’s competitive edge.
• Historical Parallels: He compares current regulatory practices to past government overreach, like the Red Scare and Great Depression interventions.

Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB

Andreessen was also outspoken in criticizing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and its architect, Senator Elizabeth Warren. He frames the CFPB as emblematic of a persecutory government, saying its goal is to “terrorize financial institutions” using its extensive regulatory framework as a tool to bring free market innovation and wealth creation to heel.

Marc Andreesen on Elizabeth Warrens agency CFPB which has spent the last 4 years terrorizing people via debanking. This is going to be a 3 part thread. pic.twitter.com/M8lpCLxsk5

— Paul (@WomanDefiner) November 26, 2024

Elizabeth Warren’s Role

• Supporters, typically progressives, see Warren as a champion of consumer protection, emphasizing her success in holding financial institutions accountable.
• Critics say her own wealth undermines credibility, accusing her of targeting businesses to maintain and increase government economic control.
• Many view her policies as part of a progressive philosophy which promotes excessive regulation to restrict free-market dynamics.
• Andreessen also alleges that Warren uses the CFPB to target political opponents, debanking them for conservative political speech.

Liberal Pushback

• Warren supporters object to Andreessen’s claims, calling him a corrupt billionaire who feels he is exempt from justified regulatory enforcement and fairness.
• They fear Republican leadership could target the CFPB and destroy its ability to enforce consumer protections.
• There is particular concern that low-income households could disproportionately bear the brunt of regulation rollbacks, worsening financial inequality.

In general, conservatives view the CFPB as weaponized government agency, arguing it targets political opponents, businesses, and hampers innovation. Progressives are more likely to advocate for expanding its reach to combat corporate exploitation and ensure accountability.

Voter Group Sentiments

MIG Reports analysis shows a divided public response to Andreessen’s claims.

Conservatives and Libertarians

• 65% of discussions come from the right, who strongly oppose debanking practices.
• Critics see debanking as a politicized weapon for financial censorship.
• Concerns focus on the erosion of capitalism and free-market principles.

Moderate and Skeptic Views

• 30% of the discussion takes a neutral or skeptical stance, seeking more evidence to validate Andreessen’s allegations.
• This group emphasizes the need for balanced regulation over unverified claims of overreach.

Progressive Reactions

• Left-leaning voters say government actions and regulatory crackdown are necessary for market oversight and equity.
• Skepticism toward Andreessen’s perspective frames him as a selfish billionaire detached from systemic challenges.

Overall Reactions

• 74% of those discussing the interview express concerns about the long-term consequences of government financial interference.
• Fears that banks are “puppets of political agendas” undermine public confidence as people view gatekeeping access as tyrannical.
• Younger voters (18-34) express skepticism toward institutions and demand investigations into debanking practices.
• Small business owners fear economic instability and reduced access to financial services.

Predictive Analysis

As public discourse around debanking continues, expect the following trends:

• Increased Scrutiny: Calls for congressional hearings or investigations into banking practices targeting specific industries are likely to grow, especially from Republicans.
• Policy Proposals: Conservatives may push for legislation protecting access to financial services, framing it as a free-market issue.
• Polarized Narratives: Progressives will likely frame regulatory measures as critical, accusing conservatives of politicized actions in the other direction.

Bluesky, a social media platform positioned as an alternative to X (formerly Twitter), is generating conversation and mockery with many Americans still on X.

Liberals tout Bluesky as a less divisive, less objectionable escape from Elon Musk’s platform, which has recently seen a leftist exodus. But many online, like Joe Rogan, mock the platform, saying it’s a leftist echo chamber.

🚨Joe Rogan on Bluesky and Rumble:

"They keep trying to say people are going to Bluesky. You know if you go to Bluesky and say there are two genders you get banned instantly? Blue sky is just the newest echo chamber of the old Twitter. It's all these Stephen King dorks that go… pic.twitter.com/mv8Rbar7xJ

— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) November 20, 2024

Here’s what Americans are saying:

• Liberals embrace Bluesky as a sanctuary from what they see as the chaos and lack of moderation on X under Elon Musk.
• Conservatives critique Bluesky for fostering echo chambers and stifling debate, likening it to the heavily censored Twitter, prior to Musk buying it.
• Criticisms center on perceived ideological policing and fears Bluesky will become another fragmented niche in the polarized media landscape.

These sentiments play into discussions about the death of legacy media for news and political discourse, liberal rejections of Musk and X, and questions about moderation versus free speech.

Liberals Rage Quit X

Many say Bluesky’s growing user base is comprised of over-serious liberals or trolls from the right wing. Liberals heading to Bluesky cite dissatisfaction with X’s transformation under Elon Musk.

Liberal Concerns with X

• Liberals say X has abandoned polite, organic discussion in favor of overemphasizing conservative voices and allowing “misinformation” and “divisive rhetoric.”
• Many are frustrated with Musk’s chaotic management style, which they say prioritizes “free speech absolutism” over safety and inclusivity.
• There is also exhaustion over algorithm-driven content on X, with users hoping Bluesky will offer more autonomy and less corporate or political influence.
• They view Bluesky’s structured moderation as more like Twitter before Musk, saying it was less problematic.
• Bluesky looks to appeal to those disillusioned with to state of discourse on X like LeBron James and Mark Cuban.

In case you’re wondering how bad things are at Bluesky, Mark Cuban is the center-right voice of reason. https://t.co/uSxy2uoiK1

— BostonWriter (@bostonwriter) November 21, 2024

Criticisms of Bluesky

Meanwhile on X, there is mostly criticism and mockery directed at Bluesky.

A New Echo Chamber

• People say Bluesky fosters ideological silos, allowing the left to remain ignorant of views they disagree with, and which caused so many to be shocked by the election outcome.
• Those on X also say Bluesky is too tightly moderated, viewing Twitter-of-old as a serious threat to free speech online.
• There are also accusations that Bluesky is drawing much more objectionable content than X, like CSAM and MAPs advocacy.

“You have violated Bluesky’s terms of service” pic.twitter.com/d3fEGdfc7Q

— Delicious Tacos (@Delicious_Tacos) November 21, 2024

A Fountain of Memes

• Many on the right or avid X users take the opportunity to mock and make memes about Bluesky users, saying they’re thin-skinned and intolerant.
• People joke about Bluesky’s attempt to enforce moderation to prevent the spread of “misinformation” and “hate speech.”
• Some also suggest liberals who object to Elon Musk are jealous of X’s success and the threat it poses to legacy media, refusing to participate due to sour grapes.
• People question Bluesky’s long-term viability, saying X has a significant market share and citing examples like Mark Zuckerberg’s “Threads,” which had lackluster impact.
• Others simply join Bluesky themselves to troll and bait what they view as ideologues who take themselves too seriously.
• There are also some on X reporting that they created a Bluesky account and were almost immediately perma-banned for things like saying men are men and women are women.

lol you guys are starting to make waves over there at Bluesky. pic.twitter.com/I8JiFnzClv

— Libs of Bluesky (@Libsofbluesky) November 20, 2024

After president-elect Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr for Secretary of Health and Human Services, the left-wing media has predictably begun its efforts to sway public sentiment against him. A viral “fact check” of RFK Jr.’s criticism of Froot Loops in America, has ignited a wave of criticism toward media attempts to shape public opinion.

A New York Times fact-check called U.S. and Canadian versions of Froot Loops "roughly the same," focusing on similar sugar content but ignoring the important differences in additives. People are scoffing because the fact-check invalidates itself by claiming the two versions are the same while listing the same important differences the MAHA movement attempts to highlight.

Spitting out my coffee after reading this NYT "fact check" of RFK Jr. pic.twitter.com/sqL9jaeUR1

— Brad Cohn (@BradCohn) November 17, 2024

The Media Foments Distrust

Americans mostly see the media’s treatment of RFK Jr. as typical of biased and politically motivated anti-Trump narrative shaping. This, they say, contributes to the degradation of journalistic integrity and erosion of public trust.

Online discussions frequently highlight how fact-checking efforts by the media frame Trump, conservatives, and their associates as “fringe,” “conspiratorial,” and “paranoid.” Rather than engaging with the substance of RFK’s critiques about the health system or regulatory practices, media reports often focus on tangential issues or minor inaccuracies. For many, this approach shows an unwillingness to address concerns Americans share about health governance and corporate influence.

The Left are now drinking bottles of Seed Oil in protest of RFK Jnr nomination for Secretary of Health. 🤡🌍 pic.twitter.com/kuSPwrpVHB

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) November 18, 2024

The perceived mismatch between media focus and public priorities inflames frustration. Audiences are increasingly wary of media outlets that appear to sidestep meaningful critiques of government and industry practices, often opting not to consume coverage at all. For RFK supporters, coverage seems less like a good-faith effort to inform the public and more like a deflection from core issues of health reform and institutional accountability.

Health Reform as a Unifying Vision

While Kennedy’s platform does elicit some polarized reactions among voters, his message resonates with many Americans concerned about chronic health issues and the transparency of health agencies.

MAHA critiques of the healthcare system—pushing for reform, accountability, and better health outcomes—have struck a chord with voters across ideological lines. Conversations frequently highlight MAHA's focus on rising rates of chronic illnesses, infant and maternal mortality, and declining life expectancy in the United States.

These concerns, increasingly dismissed by mainstream political narratives, unify a public disillusioned with the status quo. Kennedy’s willingness to address these challenges head-on has made him a symbol of hope for systemic change. His calls for evidence-based policies and independent oversight of health agencies resonate deeply with those who feel neglected by traditional political narratives.

Dr. Casey Means Wows Liberal Audience and Gets Them to CHEER for RFK Jr.'s HHS Nomination

“If we were crushing it [at health], we would not be spending 2x every other country in the entire world and have the lowest life expectancy of any developed country in the entire world.”… pic.twitter.com/160GKOHQMh

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) November 16, 2024

A Candidate of Substance, Misrepresented

The media’s hypocritical treatment of RFK Jr. contrasts sharply with the substantive discussions among Americans. Legacy media outlets, which at one time highlighted Kennedy’s efforts, now focus on his controversial views as overly simplistic.

Uh oh, @JoeNBC. Is this you?

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough says that he believes vaccines can cause autism, while hosting RFK Jr. on his show: pic.twitter.com/a4Sd4HxzVi

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 18, 2024

However, public discourse shows interest in the MAHA critique of vaccines and food and drug reform. Supporters view Kennedy as someone who prioritizes integrity and transparency, challenging both corporate interests and entrenched government practices that many believe have failed the American public.

Far from the caricature mainstream narratives presents, many Americans view Kennedy as a thoughtful and principled advocate for reform. His legal battles against corporate malfeasance, such as his successful lawsuits against Monsanto, serve as a testament to his commitment to protecting public health and the environment. For his supporters, these actions lend to his credibility as someone willing to confront powerful interests in defense of the common good.

Media Skepticism Tarnishes its Legacy

The controversy around Kennedy’s media coverage reconfirms the shift in how Americans consume and interpret information. Social media and alternative reporting have amplified voices that challenge establishment narratives, creating a space where audiences can scrutinize and discuss issues on their own.

Cultural shifts in media consumption and trust speak to the existential challenges facing traditional media outlets. As public trust declines, figures like Kennedy gain traction by addressing concerns Americans feel are ignored or dismissed. The debate about his candidacy and public statements offers a window into the changing dynamics of media influence and public discourse in America.

The idea that "woke is dead" is gaining momentum in political discourse with cultural backlash against progressive forces. MIG Reports data shows 65% of voters reject "woke" ideology, labeling it divisive and elitist. This fall from vogue is demonstrated in figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez removing pronouns from her twitter bio.

It was all utter 💩💩💩 from day one.

Now they’ll all pretend they had nothing to do with it. https://t.co/RHlA2z40By

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) November 14, 2024

For many Americans, "woke" no longer signifies progress but a ridiculous and imposed distraction from pressing issues like inflation, national debt, and border security. Only 20% of those in online discussions maintain a positive view of woke themes like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and choosing preferred pronouns. The prevailing perception is that its time has passed.

MIG Reports analysis shows:

• 65% of voters oppose woke ideology, citing societal fragmentation.
• 20% support woke principles, emphasizing equity and systemic reform.
• 78% express concerns about identity politics undermining meritocracy.

Transgender Ideology

One of the flashpoints in cultural discussions is transgender athletes in sports and education. A recent viral CNN exchange between Shermichael Singleton and Jay Michaelson demonstrated the cultural battleground. Singleton referred to transgender athletes as boys, sending the panel into chaos and hysterics.

I respect @abbydphillip but it’s not “transphobic” to state reality. A boy can’t magically become a girl through pronouns, drugs, or surgery—no matter how much @jaymichaelson says otherwise. @MrShermichael was right. Testosterone is not a social construct. pic.twitter.com/nytZaLOIqe

— Delano Squires (@DelanoSquires) November 9, 2024

Many viewers point out public backlash against forced speech, censorship, and a complete refusal to acknowledge reality among woke advocates. They use the liberal reactions on CNN as an example of how many Americans view transgender ideology as enforced by a cultural ruling class, who are now losing power.

• 70% of online discussions criticize trans ideology, with concerns centered on fairness in sports and girls’ safety.
• 20% advocate for transgender rights, emphasizing inclusion, and equality.

The most polarizing debates involve the conflict between transgender rights and women’s rights. Critics argue policies allowing transgender participation in women’s sports threaten hard-won opportunities for female athletes and put girls in harm’s way.

Corporate America and the Rollback of DEI

Corporations are also beginning to withdraw from DEI initiatives, signaling more tremors in the cultural landscape. Companies like Toyota, Boeing, Target, and Bud Light have been subject to boycotts and criticism for DEI complicity. This has caused many to abandon woke advertising and corporate policies.

Americans are making their voices heard against "woke capitalism," which they say causes businesses to pander to a woke progressive agenda that undermines traditional values. Culture war discussions celebrate the death of DEI programs, the return of “Merry Christmas,” and instances of progressives removing pronouns from social media bios.

Target has signs that say, “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays.”

The Golden Era has begun. pic.twitter.com/DQVPnsEXVQ

— Brittany Martinez (@BritMartinez) November 7, 2024

Identity Politics in Media

Many say cultural Marxists are on the back foot, retreating from a decisive outcry against wokeism which was sealed with the 2024 election red wave. Those on the right view liberals removing pronouns as a sign of retreat. They say announcing pronouns is a kind of enforced ideological conformity which is no longer socially acceptable.

💭
My therapist colleagues are removing pronouns from their bios. What’s going on?
💭

— Tania Marshall 🇨🇦🇦🇺🇳🇿Psychotherapist Author (@TaniaAMarshall) November 15, 2024

Media narratives compound these tensions. There is overwhelming distrust toward mainstream outlets which advocate for progressive agendas and marginalize conservative voices. Recent reports that “The View” is searching for conservative voices, leads to both celebration and mockery of legacy media which people view as irredeemably out of touch and one-sided.

BREAKING: ABC News reportedly searching for conservative voices to balance the anti-Trump rhetoric spewed by the hosts on “The View.” pic.twitter.com/ErqxaFwtcA

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) November 14, 2024

Rooting Out DEI Hires

Another theme in online discourse is celebration over removing woke figureheads from government positions. Memes and jokes circulate about Trump's cabinet picks generating outcry in the establishment and media over “unqualified” and “unserious” candidates. Meanwhile, liberal appointees receive severe mockery for the shocking number of woke LGBTQ activists in Democratic government.

Liberals: Pete Hegseth shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Also Liberals: pic.twitter.com/WlCQunhcmx

— THAT SOUTHERN DUDE (@TSDmemes) November 13, 2024

Culture critics who push back against the progressive alignment with woke ideology say it’s time to relegate LGBTQ activists back to the fringes, instead of elevating them to positions of power and influence. This growing rejection of identity and gender politics coincides with similar trends where Americans want a return to traditional values and more conventional ways of life.

We put up with shit like this, they can deal with Matt Gaetz. pic.twitter.com/BXgfIgscDw

— CHIZ 🇺🇸 (@CHIZMAGA) November 14, 2024

he recent controversy over CBS suspiciously editing Kamala Harris’s “60 Minutes” interview has escalated. This incident has grown larger than one interview or one candidate—it brings into question the role mainstream media in politics.

CBS released a statement framing the incident as Trump making accusations of “deceitful editing.” It went on to admit edits were made, but ultimately placed blame at Trump’s feet, saying, “Remember, Mr. Trump pulled out of his interview with 60 Minutes and the vice president participated.”

The statement drew heavy criticism from many people on social media, including lawyers, journalists, former CBS employees like Cathrine Herridge, and Trump himself.

🚨BREAKING: Trump announces he will likely sue CBS/60 Minutes for the editing of Kamala’s answer!

“It’s the worst scandal… I think I’m going to sue.”

They should lose their license for LYING to the American people! pic.twitter.com/9aVw67NHSz

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) October 18, 2024

The outcries accuse CBS of:

• Breaking journalistic integrity by refusing to release the full transcript.
• Lying about the extent of their deceptive edits.
• Revealing political partisanship by attacking Trump.

Exposing Media Bias

The edited interview omitted certain remarks and altered the context of Harris’s responses. When X users pointed out the discrepancies in various cuts of the question, many raised serious questions about transparency.

Harris’s critics say CBS is actively protecting her from scrutiny, particularly around sensitive topics like immigration and foreign policy. This is not an isolated incident, and many say it’s part of a larger pattern of editorial choices designed to shape public perceptions of Democratic candidates.

Key Examples of Bias

• Selective Editing: CBS edited portions of Harris’s “60 Minutes” interview, raising concerns about presenting an incomplete narrative.
• Lack of Transparency: CBS’s refusal to release the full transcript further fuels distrust, denying the public from judging based on the unedited content.
• Historical Context: This is not the first time CBS or other major networks have been accused of bias. Similar patterns emerged in coverage during the 2016 and 2020 elections, with a notable tilt by legacy outlets toward Democratic candidates.

Consequences for Public Trust

Public trust in the media has been declining for years, and incidents like this only exacerbate the problem. According to MIG Reports data, 60% of overall reactions express skepticism about CBS’s motives. Most Americans suggest the network’s editorial decisions reveal bias against Trump. This growing distrust is not limited to conservative voters—moderates and some Independents often question mainstream media bias.

Voter Group Reactions

• Conservatives: 75% distrust CBS, viewing it as part of a broader media agenda to protect Democrats and harm Trump.
• Moderates: 55% express skepticism but recognize the challenges of modern political journalism.
• Independents: 60% of Independents are ambivalent. They believe the media is biased but they are more concerned about Harris’s policy positions.
• Liberals: 65% of liberal voters defended CBS, saying there is heightened scrutiny on media outlets in a hyper-partisan election.

Impact on the 2024 Election

The implications of media manipulation are increasingly apparent with the rise of alternate platforms like X, where mainstream narratives are regularly challenged. Voters say when networks like CBS push partisan narratives, they influence the election in ways Democrats and media are fond of accusing conservatives of doing.

For the dwindling number of voters who rely on these outlets, distorted stories and depictions of political figures dangerously alter the public’s ability to make informed judgements. This is particularly serious when outlets fail to offer transparency when they are called out.

Voters believe Kamala Harris interviews should have been a straightforward opportunity for voters to understand her positions. Instead, they say CBS’s editing framed her responses in a way that sanitizes controversy, making it harder for voters to assess her leadership capabilities.

Projected Election Impact

• Perception Shaping: Selective editing reshapes public perceptions among undecided voters who may not view unbiased or counter-narrative content.
• Voter Disillusionment: The more voters sense media manipulation, the more disengaged they become, leading to potential lower voter turnout.
• Independent Voters: Important voter groups are becoming disengaged and critical of mainstream media, making gaining their votes more difficult.

Media Credibility Crisis and Trump Hate

CBS’s refusal to provide transparency reflects a broader crisis of credibility in the media. Americans increasingly distrust legacy outlets for news reports and analysis. This crisis exacerbates beliefs that the media is no longer reporting news, but actively trying to shape it.

The problem extends beyond CBS. The selective editing of political figures is part of a larger pattern where media outlets prioritize creating narratives over offering balanced, transparent reporting.

Many voters believe CBS and other outlets harbor a systemic bias against conservatives, but especially Donald Trump. They say partisan bias among executives and journalists pushes the network to present Trump unfavorably at any cost. Many voters feel trapped in a media landscape that cynically frames and twists information while smearing all dissenters as the ones pedaling “misinformation.”

A Nail in CBS’s Coffin

Distrust in the media has been growing for many years. However, this election cycle is further entrenching American views of media bias and free information.

Overall, sentiments indicate voters are angry and concerned that CBS is violating ethical norms. They say manipulating content and failing to provide transparency could be a death blow to the network.

Viewers question both the integrity of individual media outlets and the larger implications of their editorial practices. More Americans are saying legacy media is crumbling and may be obsolete sometime soon.

Both average Americans and celebrities are discussing this, demonstrated by a viral clip of Hollywood actor Zachary Levi calling out the ladies of “The View” for political bias in showbusiness. His assertions that Hollywood is a dying industry gained supportive reactions—especially from users on alternative platforms like X.

Zachary Levi went live on IG to talk about his support for Donald Trump- and towards the end, he sent a message to the women on The View- saying there is very much an imbalance in Hollywood in regards to Conservative and Liberal actors. He also sent a message to his fellow… pic.twitter.com/THXn6DjCJJ

— Steph Anie (@mynerdyhome) October 21, 2024

Recent media scandals and accusations of “misinformation” serve to further entrench voters in their existing views about free speech and media bias.

MIG Reports data shows:

• Republicans and conservatives blame legacy media outlets of skewing news in favor of Democrats.
• Democrat and liberals are more likely to believe the news unfairly benefits conservatives.
• Free speech advocates view X as a critical platform for keeping media outlets accountable.

CBS and the 60 Minutes Scandal

A "60 Minutes" interview with Harris has become a flashpoint of discussion about media bias and free speech on X (formerly Twitter). Many people online pointed out misleading edits during the interview, with two versions of Harris’s answer to a question—one coherent and the other a “word salad.”

A giant Fake News Scam by CBS & 60 Minutes. Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better. A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE. Election Interference.… pic.twitter.com/JRxSda3NeC

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 10, 2024

• 63% of voters are frustrated over CBS obscuring the reality of Harris’s responses, saying the network is betraying its political bias.
• Voters called for CBS to release a full transcript of the interview, demanding transparency and accountability.
• Americans say the mainstream media has abandoned impartial journalism and lies to help Democrats.
• Conservatives believe legacy media outlets systematically discredit conservative figures and viewpoints, making platforms like X critical for free speech.

Hillary Clinton’s Call for Information Control

Hillary Clinton recently made comments on CNN extolling the need for controlling misinformation. In a viral clip, she criticized Section 230 and called for its repeal. She said if social media platforms “don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.”

“If they don’t moderate the content, we lose total control.”

— Hillary Clinton pic.twitter.com/TeJ7qaIeaS

— The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole84) October 6, 2024

• 68% of voters criticize Clinton’s stance, calling it a violation of free speech and the Constitution.
• Voters say Democrats and the media advocate for censorship and using government force to silence opposing viewpoints.
• Many, especially on the right, say Clinton and others use accusations of “misinformation” to suppress dissenting opinions rather than promote truth.

X as a Free Speech Stronghold

Previous MIG Reports analysis showed less than 25% of all voters trust mainstream media. With this collapse of trust, more Americans prefer alternative platforms like X, which they see as vital for free expression.

• 62% of voters believe X plays an essential role in facilitating free speech and serving as an alternative to biased mainstream outlets.
• 48% worry legacy media and politicians are trying to suppress information shared on X and other online platforms.
• Democrats and Republicans both distrust media but cite bias as benefitting the opposite viewpoints.

Conservative Distrust in Media

Republicans and right leaning voters often feel frustration that mainstream media portrays conservative leaders, especially Trump, in a negative light. Many also point out that legacy outlets like MSNBC admit their bias in favor of Democrats behind closed doors. They say news outlets amplify or suppress stories based on whether they help or hurt Democrats.

BREAKING: @MSNBC Producer Admits MSNBC Is 'Doing All They Can to Help’ the Harris Campaign

During an undercover date with an OMG journalist, Basel Hamdan (@BaselYHamdan), a writer and producer for MSNBC’s show “Ayman,” (@AymanMSNBC) was asked what the network has done to assist… pic.twitter.com/y9Yk8o1UX7

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 3, 2024

• 40% of conservatives discuss their outrage over media portrayals of Trump, arguing the press systematically manipulates narratives to discredit him.
• 65% argue “woke” culture is eroding traditional American values, contributing to extreme political discourse.
• 68% are concerned that the Biden-Harris administration wants to silence critical viewpoints, particularly during times of crisis or controversy.

Democrats Say Media Favors Trump

While Democrats also distrust the media, they believe bias favors conservatives. Many discuss “misinformation” and “disinformation,” saying it is a significant problem exclusive to the right.

• 70% of Democrats believe the media fails to hold Trump accountable for lies, suggesting a systemic bias in favor of conservative narratives.
• 65% say the media amplifies conservative claims about immigration being a crisis, while downplaying the benefits of diverse populations.
• 80% perceive conservative-leaning outlets as promoting misleading information to undermine Democrat credibility.

Hurricane Helene fallout is still ongoing as recovery and rescue efforts have not stopped a week later. The American public is becoming more explicitly angry with the federal government's response including Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Alejandro Mayorkas, and FEMA.

The ongoing recovery efforts reveal a troubling narrative about priorities and leadership that may carry significant implications for Americans across the country. Locals on the ground and civilian rescue and aid teams are sharing widespread reports that federal rescue efforts are absent, and FEMA agents are blocking or confiscating civilian efforts.

Just received this note from a SpaceX engineer helping on the ground in North Carolina. @FEMA is not merely failing to adequately help people in trouble, but is actively blocking citizens who try to help!

“Hey Elon, update here on site of Asheville, NC. We have powered up two…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 4, 2024

In spite of multiple accounts of government hinderance from many on-the-ground sources including influential figures like Elon Musk and Glenn Beck, FEMA and Red Cross are warning citizens about “misinformation” on social media, drawing even more backlash.

There has been a lot of rumors spreading about the #Helene response.

Rumors can create confusion & prevent people from getting assistance they need. Help us share accurate information: https://t.co/Z5vxuBTths pic.twitter.com/U3DCtmC1LN

— FEMA (@fema) October 3, 2024

Recovery Efforts are Civilian

Local communities are working tirelessly to begin the long road of recovery from Helene’s destruction. On-the-ground reporting indicates many residents are still stranded due to roads being completely washed away. Many still lack necessities like food, water, clothes, and sanitation. First responders, local agencies, and volunteers are laboring around the clock to restore order and deliver aid, using helicopters, mules, goats, ATVs, boats, and going on foot.

Many are speaking up about the horrific failure of federal response, which they describe as nearly nonexistent. There are also reports that FEMA whistleblowers are sounding the alarm on stand-down orders and lack of deployment.

BREAKING: FEMA whistleblowers have come forward alleging that the agency misappropriated funds in the wake of Helene, withheld pre-disaster aid, and that first responders and service members have been waiting in hotels without deployment orders. pic.twitter.com/uf0XrspRTz

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 4, 2024

Civilian rescue operations being shut down also anger many Americans who watch in horror as friends and neighbors face the most devastating loss of their lives. A viral report of a civilian helicopter pilot being threatened with arrest if he continued to rescue people from inaccessible areas is drawing criticism.

𝐔𝐏𝐃𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐖𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐍 𝐍𝐂: Remember the 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 if he continued to do rescues in Western NC? 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐮𝐬𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐝?… pic.twitter.com/0WiUVDog1n

— NONBidenary (@KellyLMcCarty) October 4, 2024

Voter Reactions to Government Failures

MIG Reports data shows:

• 70% of Americans believe the federal response has been laughable and that damage from the hurricane is underreported by officials and the media.
• 62% are outraged about FEMA funds being given to illegal immigrants instead of American hurricane victims.
• 52% criticize Biden and Harris’s leadership during the hurricane as offensive and lacking urgency.
• 55% say lawmakers should be held accountable for voting against supplemental disaster aid for FEMA and more foreign aid.
• 65% believe the government prioritizes illegal immigrants over Americans.

The backlash against the Biden-Harris administration is palpable, especially concerning FEMA and Alejandro Mayorkas. Many express feelings of anger, betrayal, and disillusionment. Any positivity in these discussions is directed toward local and civilian efforts to help friends and neighbors.

Disillusionment, Anger, and Betrayal

Americans feel betrayed by a government they believe is actively working to thwart recovery. Reports that the federal government has spent more than $1 billion on shelter for illegal immigrants is causing American fury. The insult is compounded by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden announcing Hurricane Helene victims could receive up to $750 in aid.

Kamala is on the ground in Georgia two days after President Trump’s visit to offer those who’ve lost everything $750. Don’t spend it all at once.

If you were Ukrainian or a migrant you’d qualify for more assistance, but you’re just an American citizen, so don’t expect much. pic.twitter.com/9zT8VPS1SB

— Bad Hombre (@joma_gc) October 2, 2024

The anger is bolstered by a series of public comments and events from government officials which feel like a slap in the face to Americans. The feelings of betrayal and anger are widespread, fostering a growing rift between the public and their leaders.

On October 3, in the midst of ongoing recovery efforts, Kamala Harris posted photos of a campaign event with Liz Cheney with the tag line “Country Over Party.” Many voters sarcastically replied that the event was celebrating the country being over.

Country over party. pic.twitter.com/7A4SltBhUN

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 4, 2024

Voter reactions reveal a pervasive belief that American citizens are being overlooked in favor of illegal immigrants. The cries of frustration about government spending priorities resonate deeply across the country. Many also highlight a broader concern about the incompetence, negligence, and event hostility of the federal government.

Implications for the 2024 Election

The anger and frustration about Hurricane Helene may galvanize voters who feel ignored and persecuted by the government. However, many also express concern about Americans in severely impacted areas being able to vote at all.

Anger toward FEMA also includes accusations of optics management and photo ops while government workers sit on their hands. DHS Secretary Mayorkas’s announcement that FEMA likely doesn’t have enough money to make it through hurricane season also generated widespread backlash, with many pointing out his statement from just months again claiming FEMA was "tremendously prepared."

.@FEMA is focused on ensuring #Helene survivors get the assistance they need. I'm overseeing the NC response efforts among our local, state, tribal, & federal partners. The path to recovery is challenging, but it's possible & we'll be with these communities every step of the way. pic.twitter.com/dr6iNLlkvf

— Deanne Criswell (@FEMA_Deanne) October 3, 2024

A final slap in the face to Americans suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Helene came in a clip of Joe Biden completely forgetting about the storm. When asked what victims in the storm zones need, Biden said, “They’re getting everything they need. They’re happy, across the board.”

HOLY SH*T!

REPORTER: “What do the states in the storm zone need after what you saw today?”

BIDEN CONFUSE: “Oh, the storm zone. I'm with what storm they're talking about.” pic.twitter.com/cEprvVJxek

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) October 3, 2024

An ongoing public debate between Elon Musk and Gavin Newsom, fueled by social media exchanges, reveals American backlash against the CA Governor. In reaction to a parody ad for Kamala Harris using AI to simulate her voice, Newsom proposed legislation to prosecute those sharing “misleading” or “deceptive” content—including memes.

Kamala Harris Campaign Ad PARODY pic.twitter.com/5lBxvyTZ3o

— Mr Reagan 🇺🇸 (@MrReaganUSA) July 26, 2024

Musk argues this bill infringes on free speech—a view most Americans share. MIG Reports analysis shows discussion themes around free speech, government overreach, misinformation, and public trust.

I checked with renowned world authority, Professor Suggon Deeznutz, and he said parody is legal in America 🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/OCBewC3XYD

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2024

Free Speech vs. Censorship

The issue of free speech dominates the conversation, with 76.67% of the public siding with Elon Musk. The overwhelming support for Musk stems from a strong belief that Newsom’s proposed law threatens the First Amendment. Many express concerns that government involvement in regulating parody or memes sets a dangerous precedent for future censorship.

Phrases like "tyrant," "communist," and "totalitarian" are frequently directed at Newsom, highlighting the hardline stance on this issue. For most Americans, free speech is an essential American value that must be protected at all costs—regardless of the risks posed by allegations of misinformation.

Government Overreach and Political Polarization

This debate between Musk and Newsom over memes has become a flashpoint for broader concerns about government overreach. Voters frame Newsom’s bill as an unconstitutional attempt to silence critics, positioning him as an authoritarian figure seeking to impose his will on the public.

Conservatives and Independents are particularly strong in their disapproval. Only 15.5% of the MIG Reports sample express support for Newsom. This group says the bill is a necessary tool to protect elections and prevent false information from corrupting democratic processes. However, even within this group, some express unease over the potential for government abuse.

The Role of Misinformation

The minority position emphasizes curbing “misinformation” to protect public trust in elections. Supporters say, though parody and memes are included in free expression, they can also undermine democratic integrity by pedaling deceptive narratives. This group believes the bill strikes a balance between free speech and public safety. They acknowledge that unchecked falsehoods have the potential to cause real harm. Despite this perspective, they struggle to gain traction in a conversation dominated by opposition to government censorship.

Public Distrust in Government

The conversation surfaces recurring American feelings of distrust toward government institutions. Musk’s framing of the debate—portraying Newsom as attacking free speech—resonates with those already skeptical of governmental power.

Many see the bill as part of a broader pattern of government interference in individual rights. They say censorship laws places public discourse in the hands of those in power, allowing them to determine what is considered “misinformation” or “deceptive.” This perception of government power grabs strengthens Musk's position as a defender of the people’s rights against an overbearing state.

Especially on X, voters view Musk as a champion of free speech. Their distrust fuels the debate and amplifies feelings of anger against government censorship and speech crackdowns akin to those seen in Europe.

Neutral and Undecided Voices

While the conversation is highly polarized, around 9.5% remain neutral or nuanced. This group either expresses uncertainty about the implications of Newsom's bill or attempt to frame the debate in more measured terms.

Some believe that while the bill has flaws, its intention may have merit. These voices suggest there is still room for debate and constructive discourse, though they are largely overshadowed by the more extreme rhetoric from both sides.

Mark Zuckerberg’s recent acknowledgment of Facebook censoring information under pressure from the Biden-Harris administration is sparking fiery debate about media influence and election integrity. As more Americans get their news online, the revelations lead many to question whether censorship could have swayed the outcome of the 2020 election.

Zuckerberg’s statement acknowledged Meta received and complied with pressure from the Biden-Harris administration to censor certain content. He highlighted two specific topics Facebook censored—COVID-19 information and the Hunter Biden laptop story. Zuckerberg admitted this censorship, demanded by the government, might have infringed on users' First Amendment rights. He expressed regret and made promises not to interfere with U.S. elections in the future.

JUST IN - Zuckerberg regrets working with the Biden-Harris administration to censor Covid era information online. pic.twitter.com/vD4Ug5ebqh

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) August 26, 2024

MIG Reports analysis of voter reactions to Zuckerberg's statement highlight growing skepticism towards government, social media, and information suppression:

• 60% of Americans discussing election integrity express negative sentiment toward institutions like the media and government.
• 20% express positive sentiments, typically focusing on hopes for reform and increased transparency in electoral processes.
• 70% of conservatives discuss allegations of election manipulation, suggesting a strong belief in corrupted elections.
• 15% of liberals focus on allegations of fraud, with the majority preferring to discuss trust in the system.

Voters View Censorship as a Game-Changer

Voter conversations reacting to Zuckerberg’s statement reveal concerns that social media censorship may have altered the 2020 election outcome—in which Trump lost to Biden.

MIG Reports data suggest 34% of Americans are discussing a belief that information suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story likely tipped the scales in favor of Joe Biden.

Further bolstering this belief, Rep. Lauren Boebert reported that 71% of Americans think honest reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop story would have changed the election results.

71% of Americans believe accurate reporting of Hunter Biden’s laptop would have changed the 2020 election outcome.

This isn’t some nothing story.

This coverup altered the history of our nation forever.

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) February 9, 2023

Rep. Elise Stefanik also points out that 53% of Americans would have changed their vote, including 61% of Democrats, had they known the full extent of Hunter laptop story. These themes suggest a broad consensus that censorship, especially when it involves politically sensitive topics, can significantly impact voter behavior.

"Of the people that were made aware of the Hunter Biden laptop story, 53% would have changed their vote, including 61% of Democrats...this is the definition of election meddling...it's collusion, it's corruption, and it's unconstitutional." -@EliseStefanikpic.twitter.com/zpm3yLISwe

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 9, 2023

Social Media Shaping Political Narratives

The discussion of media suppression dovetails into a broader conversation about where Americans get their news. According to Pew Research, 18% of U.S. adults in 2020 primarily turned to social media for political and election news. This figure is higher than the 16% who relied on cable television for their news at the time.

Since 2020, that number has grown, with 2024 Pew Research showing:

• 65% of X users go there primarily for news
• 37% of Facebook users go to Facebook for news

Meanwhile, among users who do not use social media primarily for news:

• 92% on X still see news-related content
• 91% on Facebook still see news-related content

MIG Reports analysis previously confirmed the trend, showing 65% of Americans distrust legacy news outlets, turning instead to platforms like X for information. These reports underscore the influence of social platforms in shaping public opinion, making Zuckerberg’s admission more consequential.

The fact that Americans increasingly get news from social media platforms, combined with evidence of government-influenced censorship, raises critical questions about the fairness and transparency of election outcomes. As more voters become aware of the extent of censorship during the 2020 election, negativity rises.

Censorship and Election Integrity

Americans were already concerned about election integrity prior to Zuckerberg’s statement, which has only served to deepen fears. Many voters, particularly conservatives, equate censorship with voter suppression.

Many say the government’s involvement in content moderation undermines the democratic process. The notion of a "deep state" manipulating information to favor certain political outcomes is a recurring theme, fueling beliefs that the 2020 election was compromised as well as fears about the upcoming 2024 election.

Progressive voters, however, tend to argue "content moderation” and “combating misinformation” is necessary, downplaying the concept of censorship. They view Zuckerberg’s admission as a call for stricter oversight of social media platforms. This group continues to advocate for preventing false information from proliferating.

The dichotomy between views of free speech and the need for accurate information reflects broader tensions in the current political landscape.

Speculation About Zuckerberg’s Motives

Voters present various theories about Zuckerberg's motivations for making a statement. Some speculate the timing aligns strategically with ongoing scrutiny of social media's role in shaping public opinion, particularly as elections approach.

Some suggest Zuckerberg may seek to deflect blame for censorship onto the government. People see this as an attempt to reposition Meta as responding to external political dynamics rather than making autonomous decisions about content moderation. This interpretation implies a calculated move to preserve the platform’s credibility and mitigate backlash.

Others posit Zuckerberg's remarks are a genuine response to pushes for transparency from tech giants amid mounting demands for reform. Ongoing discussions of free speech, censorship, and tech monopolies may be driving Zuckerberg’s motivations. This interpretation presents him as aligning Meta’s interests with those advocating for clearer guidelines, hinting at a willingness to cooperate with regulatory frameworks.

Polarized Voters and the Future of Free Speech

Zuckerberg’s statement is fostering critical debate about the role of social media in elections and the potential consequences of government-influenced censorship. While Americans see this as evidence of election manipulation, others believe oversight is necessary to protect the integrity of democratic processes.

Overall, voters are increasingly wary of the power social media platforms hold over public discourse. There is a growing demand for transparency and accountability. As the country grapples with 2024 election integrity, the lessons learned from 2020 will undoubtedly shape voter views and motivations.