The article raises a number of interesting points about censorship. However, I think it goes astray when it starts trying to use the Big Lie as a lens through which one can better understand the forces at play.

"After the storming of the Capitol building on Jan. 6, we heard a lot about the “Big Lie” perpetrated by Trump and his allies that the election was “stolen.” In reality, this narrative never got far. It was rejected by the media (including Fox News), thrown out by the courts, labeled by social networks as “disputed,” and dismissed by politicians, including Trump’s own vice president. Yes, some far-right groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers came to Washington to commit acts of violence, but they were roundly denounced. For a Big Lie to be successful, it has to have buy-in from the people in power, moneyed interests, the narrative-framers in the media generally, all of whom have to benefit from the lie and therefore repeat it."

This analysis is unconvincing; at best, it significantly exaggerates the extent to which the narrative "never got far." I would suggest that the Big Lie of election fraud instead is an argument against Mr. Sacks' thesis: despite the dearth of buy-in by the elites, better than two thirds of the Republican party believed the lie. So many believed the Big Lie that the elites at the top of the Republican party were unwilling to gainsay their outsiders -- they *listened* to the outsiders. They listened to the outsiders and not the insiders, the moneyed interests and the media.

Further, I'm no expert on the full breadth of Fox News' content, but outside their news division, it didn't seem like they "rejected" the Big Lie. The most popular parts of Fox -- the opinion content, not the news -- was very sympathetic to the Big Lie (when they weren't outright amplifying it). Far from not listening to the outsiders, Fox frequently pandered to them.

The more I think about this, the more I think the Big Lie simply doesn't reflect the insider vs. outsider theory that Mr. Sacks uses to focus on censorship, to connect the GameStop manipulation by Robin Hood et al to the censoring reaction of social media to the Big Lie because they are not analogous. The Big Lie very much did enjoy powerful insider support; perhaps not from social media (eventually), and not from news media (mostly), but it certainly did from some popular news media, from over 100 congresspeople, and from the President of the US. I would hardly call the Big Lie an outsider.

For what it's worth, I share much of the trepidation about the kind of power those who run our social media have; yes, they own it, so they are free to manage it as they please. However, they are also natural monopolies with the attendant network effects, and should be regulated as such. I'm not sure what I think the limits of censorship should be.