On Friday, YouTube announced a significant decision to halt the removal of content that promotes false claims regarding fraud, errors, or glitches in the 2020 and previous U.S. Presidential elections.

“Two years, tens of thousands of video removals, and one election cycle later, we recognized it was time to re-evaluate the effects of this policy in today’s changed landscape,” the YouTube Team stated. 

The alteration specifically pertains to the removal of election-related content but does not alter YouTube’s rules concerning misinformation, hate speech, harassment, or incitement to violence.

YouTube has reversed its stance on blocking controversial content during this election season, arguing the ability to openly debate political ideas is vital to a functioning democratic society. YouTube has experienced massive pushback in recent years, as creators move to sites like Rumble to discuss “politically incorrect” subject matter, creating internal pressure to address the policy.

Advertisers are still required to adhere to YouTube’s advertising policies, which prohibit the dissemination of demonstrably false claims that could undermine participation or trust in electoral or democratic processes.

California is making progress on a proposal that could force big tech companies to pay a “journalism usage fee” to publishers, including local radio stations, every time they utilize local news content and sell advertising alongside it.

The California Assembly passed the proposed California Journalism Preservation Act last week with a significant majority of 46-6. The bill, now heading to the state Senate, would mandate news publishers to allocate 70% of the profits from the usage fee towards journalism jobs.

The bill has garnered support from the California Broadcasters Association (CBA), which has been collaborating with sponsors during the development of the legislation. CBA President Joe Berry emphasized the criticality of the issue for the survival of local journalism in California. The bill is expected to be taken up in the California Senate this month and, if passed, will proceed to Governor Newsom for final approval.

A potential threat from Meta looms heavy as the company suggests that it would remove news from Facebook and Instagram if the bill becomes law, instead of paying into what it describes as a “slush fund” primarily benefiting large out-of-state media companies.

“The bill fails to recognize that publishers and broadcasters put their content on our platform themselves and that substantial consolidation in California’s local news industry came over 15 years ago, well before Facebook was widely used,” Meta Policy Communications Director Andy Stone said in a post on social media.

Bill sponsor Buffy Wicks thinks that is an “empty threat” with the Oakland Democrat saying during debate on her bill that she was “not interested in a debate between Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg.”

The CBA and NAB are not alone in supporting the legislation, as other journalism organizations, including the News/Media Alliance and the California News Publishers Association, are also backing the bill. These trade groups argue that Google captures up to 70% of every advertising dollar, preventing news publishers from reinvesting in vital investigative journalism and community news.

At the federal level, the Journalism Competition & Preservation Act (JCPA) was reintroduced in the previous session of Congress and almost became law in December before the session ended. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) reintroduced the JCPA in the Senate in March, but no companion legislation has been introduced in the House thus far.

If passed, the federal JCPA (S. 1094) would establish a limited safe harbor from antitrust laws, enabling news publishers and broadcast news operations with fewer than 1,500 exclusive full-time employees to form joint negotiation entities. These entities would collectively bargain with covered platforms over the terms and conditions of access to digital news content. The bill would also require large online platforms to engage in good-faith negotiations with eligible news organizations.

On Thursday’s episode of his podcast, Fearless with Jason Whitlock, Whitlock discusses the recent mishap between Twitter and The Daily Wire over the airing of the documentary What is a Woman on Twitter Spaces in celebration of the film’s one-year anniversary.

Whitlock begins his show with a monologue discussing the beginning of pride month then moves on to the situation concerning The Daily Wire and Twitter, “Now, this thing between The Daily Wire and Twitter, and the not allowing What is a Woman to be shown, Jeremy Boreing wrote a really compelling thread on social media about his exchange and seems very fair, and it seems very transparent about how they had agreed and then it got ixnayed and now it’s over, and he doesn’t know how Elon musk is going to react, but all of this makes me skeptical.”

Boreing Tweeted, “With Twitter’s recent commitments to free speech, we thought it would be the perfect place to distribute the film and drive the conversation forward on one of the most important topics of our day.”

As Whitlock and his panel continued to discuss the controversy, Elon tweeted his response, saying the decision “was a mistake by many people at Twitter” and permitted the film to she shown, though there continue to be reports of the video shadow banned from mass view. 

Whitlock then expressed some understanding of Elon’s decision-making and his choice to hire Linda Yaccarino as CEO, enabling him to play the corporate game, “Do you not cut the guy any grace? He invested $44 billion, that’s a big chunk of change, and he doesn’t want to lose it all, so he’s playing a game, and that’s why I think he hired this Linda woman from the WEF, he is trying to thread the needle of not losing his shirt.”

The new leadership of Twitter is under massive scrutiny, notably from free-speech-oriented outlets and media organizations such as The Daily Wire, which look to Elon’s Twitter as a safe haven for their content. With this recent upheaval, the platform will continue to be the battleground for what ideas are allowed to be freely shared, and which ones are censored.