"White House" by Diego Cambiaso is marked with CC BY-SA 2.0., "Joe Biden" by Gage Skidmore is marked with CC BY-SA 2.0., "Hunter Biden" by Thomas Hawk is marked with CC BY-NC 2.0.
Wikipedia deleted its page on Rosemont Seneca Partners, a company founded by President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and U.S. Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz. The timing of the entry’s removal on Wednesday coincides with the increasingly publicized information about the company’s nefarious dealings across the world.
According to the New York Post, the entry was short and without anything that could be construed as “conspiracy theories.” But it did corroborate the partnership between the children of two powerful Democratic leaders, and tie them directly to an organization that is implicated in outrageous criminal activity that very well may have national security ramifications we haven’t even thought of.
A statement made by a representative of Wikipedia told reporters that the page was being removed due to the potential danger of it becoming a “magnet for conspiracy theories” about the president’s son. He did not, however, go into which “conspiracy theories” he was referring to; his laptop has resulted in so many, even the New York Times has printed “conspiracy theories” about Hunter at this point.
The online encyclopedia has been on the wrong side of history for a long time now. In May 2020, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger came out publicly against the blatant bias adopted by the organization in favor of liberal causes.
Sanger, who is now unaffiliated with Wikipedia, lamented the betrayal by the company, explaining that, “There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard of journalistic ‘false balance,’ which is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy.”
He also pointed to the blatant nature of the company’s curation of information, noting that examples of their editorial activism is “embarrassingly easy to find.”
It is a mask-off moment where a group claiming to offer you information is censoring vital aspects of the public debate, at a time when so many people have been trained to reflexively deny and dismiss anything negative about Democratic politicians as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or the time-tested “Russian propaganda” mantra. Deleting factual information, especially in these kinds of circumstances, is simply anti-democratic.
And this is a perfect example of why free speech online is such an important issue. If we can’t talk to each other to sort out what’s true and what’s not, then unethical Big Tech moderators will decide what’s true and what’s not, and remove, as is the case here, any information to the contrary. This is why Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and their followers are seeking to regulate communications online: they want to decide what’s true and what’s not.
For those insisting that they care deeply for “our democracy,” this is a hill that everyone should feel comfortable dying on. But for people who complained about a “despot” for four years, they certainly are happy to hold the door open for bureaucrats and Big Tech despots as they continue their war on the free flow of information in the United States.