Big Tech rigged the algorithm. Then they weaponized it.



The algorithm is its own “Animal Farm.” “Four legs good, two legs bad” may come in the form of binary code, but the tyranny is just as real. Most content in alternative media gets watered down to please the ruling digital overlords.

Unless you work for a company like Blaze Media — which has built talent lineups that can thrive outside the algorithm — odds are, you were made to be ruled.

Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Trans — they’ve all come for you once. They’ll do it again.

Ever wonder why some “conservative” hosts sound bold on a handful of safe topics but go quiet on election interference or the COVID jab? The algorithm spoke. They complied.

Pound for pound, my show may have taken the biggest hit among conservatives trying to monetize YouTube traffic since 2020. That we managed to hit seven-figure revenues without help from the world’s largest search engine is, frankly, a miracle.

Big Tech operates like a loaded gun, aimed and cocked by the federal government.

The Biden administration didn’t just whisper suggestions. It literally contacted YouTube and demanded the censorship of Alex Berenson. That’s bad enough.

But thanks to research by DataRepublican and DOGE, we now know the algorithm went a step further — using your tax dollars to boost regime-approved content across major tech platforms through USAID.

That’s not just outrageous. It’s an antitrust violation, plain and simple. And I don’t plan on taking it lying down.

For several months, I’ve worked with First Liberty in Dallas — one of the nation’s top constitutional conservative legal organizations. With their help, I filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission just before Memorial Day. Here’s a key excerpt:

YouTube’s metrics show that the "Steve Deace Show" experienced explosive growth on YouTube in 2020. The show continued strong in 2021, but toward the end of that year, his videos started being removed. And this precipitated a sharp fall in views and impressions in 2022. The sharp decline strongly suggests that YouTube shadow banned or otherwise limited the visibility of the "Steve Deace Show" in 2022 and possibly starting in the end of 2021. During the same period of time where YouTube views and impressions were sharply declining, the "Steve Deace Show" experienced significant growth on other platforms. The show's strong performance on Apple Podcasts maintained their upper trajectory throughout this period of time.

Consider the contrast: While YouTube buried the show in 2021, my podcast was outperforming on Apple — strong enough to earn me a three-year contract extension with Blaze Media. That same year, my book “Faucian Bargain” became a No. 1 bestseller in the United States.

It doesn’t add up — unless you account for censorship.

In 2021, 69% of our YouTube views came from subscribers, 31% from nonsubscribers. In 2022, that number skewed even further — 76% subscribers, only 24% nonsubscribers. That ratio should never tilt that far. Most YouTube traffic typically comes from recommendations, not regular followers.

RELATED: Congress has the power to crush Big Tech’s app monopoly

Photo Illustration by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

As we explained in our FTC complaint: “This trend line is clear evidence of suppression because it shows how YouTube refused to feature, refused to recommend, and otherwise decreased the visibility of the platform.”

Word is, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson takes Big Tech censorship seriously. I hope that’s true — because people likely died due to what YouTube did. Shows like mine were offering counternarratives to the COVID cult. And we were silenced.

Whoever controls language controls the debate. That’s why this isn’t just a tech policy fight. It’s a battle for the future of Western civilization.

The left has shown its hand: If they had the power, they’d disappear you. They already tried. Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Trans — they’ve all come for you once. They’ll do it again.

This isn’t a squabble over ad revenue or traffic metrics. It’s a battle against the deliberate unraveling of reality itself.

So fight we must. And with severe prejudice.

Stay tuned.

Speech foes face heat: Trump's FTC probes Media Matters, left-wing groups for possible antitrust violations



President Donald Trump's Federal Trade Commission has reportedly taken aim at leftist advertising cartels that allegedly coordinated a boycott to starve conservative media outlets and squash free speech online.

According to several reports, the FTC launched investigations into approximately a dozen media and advertising groups for potentially violating antitrust laws.

'These so-called "ratings outfits" are the left's latest attempt to silence conservatives.'

The agency's new chairman, Andrew Ferguson, previously expressed concerns about advertisers coordinating to ban certain ideas.

During an April antitrust conference, he said, "I am deeply concerned ... if advertisers either get in a room together and say, 'We're not going to do advertising next to this idea,' or they say, 'We're going to agree that this third party decides which ideas get advertisement and which don't.'"

"Drying up the advertising will dry up the idea. So the risk of an advertiser boycott is a pretty serious risk to the free exchange of ideas," he declared.

RELATED: 'Go f*** yourself!' Elon Musk rips into Disney and other advertisers dropping from X platform

Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images

Ferguson's concerns stem from an ongoing dispute between Media Matters and Elon Musk's X.

In 2023, X sued Media Matters for defamation, claiming the site released a report that misrepresented the user experience to push advertisers to boycott the social media platform. The report warned advertisers that their content would appear next to white supremacist hashtags, causing many to pull their ads from X.

The FTC's investigation, as reported by the New York Times, seeks to determine whether the media and advertising groups, including Media Matters and Ad Fontes Media, coordinated to prompt an advertiser boycott.

Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Logan Spena told Blaze News, "Antitrust laws are important tools for countering coordinated censorship. Individual businesses can decide what to say or what not to say — the First Amendment protects them too. But it does not protect coordinated conduct in restraint of trade, including trade that involves speech."

"As the Supreme Court said back in 1945, 'Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not,'" Spena continued. "We hope the FTC will ensure that antitrust laws are vigorously enforced to the fullest extent consistent with the Constitution."

Dan Schneider, the vice president of the Media Research Center's Free Speech America, told Blaze News that he is hopeful Ferguson's appointment will lead to positive change.

"These so-called 'ratings outfits' are the left's latest attempt to silence conservatives," Schneider stated. "They collude with and conspire against advertisers, media outlets, and advertising firms to eliminate conservative media. It's not just wrong and un-American; it is illegal. Fortunately, we finally have an FTC chairman who believes in the rule of law and is prepared to stop colluders."

The FTC declined a request for comment from the NYT.

RELATED: Elon Musk vows to file 'thermonuclear lawsuit' against left-wing Media Matters for 'fraudulent attack' and major X boycott

Photo by MAURO PIMENTEL/AFP via Getty Images

Adweek confirmed the Times' reporting, stating that the FTC sent the groups Civil Investigative Demand letters requiring them to turn over documents and respond to inquiries.

Ad Fontes Media CEO Vanessa Otero told the outlet, "They're requesting pretty much anything pertinent to our business since we started."

She claimed the FTC's demands were "excessive" and "overzealous."

"Businesses have rights to not advertise next to stuff they find crappy," Otero continued. "And no one is colluding with anybody about this."

Otero stated that Ad Fontes Media will comply with the agency's requests.

Media Matters confirmed to Adweek that it is currently under investigation.

Media Matters President Angelo Carusone stated, "The Trump administration has been defined by naming right-wing media figures to key posts and abusing the power of the federal government to bully political opponents and silence critics."

"It's clear that's exactly what's happening here, given Media Matters' history of holding those same figures to account. These threats won't work; we remain steadfast to our mission," Carusone added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Pharmacy middlemen didn’t break health care — the feds did



Let’s stop pretending the government can fix the health care system it wrecked — by wrecking it even more.

For years, Americans have endured rising health care costs, shrinking access, and mounting frustration. Now, senators from both parties, the Federal Trade Commission, and several states want to blame pharmacy benefit managers. Before they do, it’s worth asking: Who actually caused this mess?

It wasn’t PBMs. It was Washington, D.C.

I’ve spent decades studying health care and economic systems. Central planning always fails. Yet here we go again — federal regulators scapegoating private players for a system government distorted over generations.

PBMs aren’t flawless, but they’re not the villains. They emerged as one of the few market-based responses to a government-created crisis. They operate within a system twisted by 80 years of policy failures — starting with World War II wage controls that incentivized employer-sponsored insurance. That led to the third-party payer model, which removed patients from pricing decisions.

Layer on Medicare, Medicaid, and a blizzard of mandates, and the result is clear: Government made sure health care would never again resemble a functioning market.

If we’re serious about fixing health care, we must stop repeating the failed policies that broke it in the first place.

PBMs didn’t invent this system. They were born into it. Congress established Medicare Part D, which subsidized prescription drugs without fixing the underlying distortions. PBMs stepped in to negotiate with manufacturers, manage formularies, push generics, and introduce cost controls into an otherwise bloated and opaque drug market.

They’re not perfect. But they didn’t start the fire. Government did.

Here’s the kicker: PBMs work better than almost anything else in the health care system.

University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan recently published research for the National Bureau of Economic Research showing PBMs create $145 billion in net annual value. Even after accounting for their costs, PBMs lower drug prices, help patients stick to medications, reduce hospitalizations, and cut non-drug health costs by about $40 billion each year. They also drive pharmaceutical innovation — improving uptake of new treatments and adding another $13 billion annually in future drug development.

Now compare that to the government’s record. Medicaid and Medicare leak hundreds of billions through improper payments, bloated administration, and price manipulation. Mulligan doesn’t put a figure on the waste, but other studies estimate government health care inefficiencies cost more than $1 trillion every year.

Still, no one talks about that. Instead, the FTC is grandstanding, blaming PBMs for prices the government made uncontrollable in the first place.

Washington’s real problem? It keeps designing a health care system around bureaucrats instead of patients. PBMs aren’t the issue. Bureaucracy is. The solution isn’t more scapegoating — it’s restoring freedom and responsibility to the people who use and deliver care.

RELATED: Congress must resist Big Pharma’s scheme to dismantle drug cost watchdogs

zhuweiyi49 via iStock/Getty Images

That’s why we need unlimited health savings accounts, especially for low-income Americans on Medicaid. Don’t micromanage their health care. Give them agency. Pair it with work requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients — not to punish them, but to promote responsibility and reduce dependency, while still supporting those in genuine need.

The result: smarter decisions, stronger competition, lower costs, and fewer true middlemen — starting with the federal regulators and compliance officers who helped create this mess.

In a real market, PBMs will sink or swim based on value. If they deliver, they’ll thrive. If not, they’ll fail — and be replaced. That’s the beauty of market discipline. And right now, PBMs are one of the only players in health care remotely subject to it.

This assault on PBMs isn’t about health care. It’s about power. Regulators and politicians want a scapegoat for a system they helped break.

But facts still matter. PBMs reduce costs, improve access, and drive innovation. Government programs promise the same — and deliver the opposite.

If we’re serious about fixing health care, we must stop repeating the failed policies that broke it in the first place. Scrap the mandates, cut the bureaucracy, and shift power back to patients and providers. Real reform means transparency, personal responsibility, and the freedom to choose what’s best — not what Washington prescribes.

Despite PR Pivot, Meta Is Still A Monopoly And A Threat To A Free Society

The FTC is not suing Meta for its past leftism or current MAGA-ism but for its longstanding, documented monopolism.

Senators Urge Colleagues, Trump To Disregard Far-Left American Bar Association

'Unfortunately, the ABA has shown itself to be an ideologically captured, leftist institution,' the letter charges.

Trump Gives SCOTUS A Chance To Make ‘Independent’ Agencies Accountable Again

The Trump administration is targeting court interpretations that have stripped the president of full control over personnel, and policy, within federal agencies.

App Store Accountability Act aims to put parents back in the driver’s seat



Families with young children face a daunting challenge: navigating app stores controlled by large companies that place profit over safety. The lack of age verification, privacy protections, and simplified parental tools puts children at serious risk. Fortunately, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. John James (R-Mich.) are working to keep kids safe online.

Although the Senate and House versions differ slightly, the App Store Accountability Act includes vital reforms. The measure would require app stores to securely verify users’ ages, mandate parental approval for new downloads, and increase parents’ access to accurate app-specific information. These features would help families understand and control access to apps that jeopardize children’s digital health.

The bill does not prohibit any form of speech. It merely establishes guardrails such as requiring age verification.

Ensuring that this system works requires accountability from the companies that own major app stores. Currently, Google and Apple operate their platforms with minimal oversight, making and arbitrarily enforcing rules for maximum profit. In the absence of accountability, these digital giants leave families and children vulnerable to toxic and disturbing content.

Crucially, the bills include provisions for holding violators responsible through private rights of action (Senate) or by enforcing Federal Trade Commission laws on unfair and deceptive practices (House), each with corresponding penalties. Companies could no longer hide behind opaque app store systems that distribute malicious or poorly vetted apps, exposing children to explicit, violent, or otherwise harmful material. This legislation would protect children and hold violators liable.

Opponents of the measure misleadingly claim these common-sense protections violate the First Amendment. As the executive director of the ACLJ and a strong supporter of free speech rights, I take the First Amendment seriously and advocate for its proper interpretation. Generally, the Constitution protects free speech, but it recognizes long-standing exceptions.

The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity lacks constitutional protection, and certain sexually explicit content can be deemed obscene for minors. In Ginsberg v. New York, the court upheld a state law restricting the distribution of offensive material to young people. Supreme Court jurisprudence is clear: Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, and minors warrant special protection from sexually inappropriate content.

Yet, to be clear, the App Store Accountability Act does not prohibit any form of speech. It merely establishes guardrails such as requiring age verification for app stores to protect young people from inappropriate and harmful content. Far from censoring specific content, this proposal empowers parents to have better tools to make their own decisions about what apps are appropriate for their children.

Further, the burden on companies that oversee app stores would be minimal; the data needed to verify user ages is already in their possession. Apple and Google both offer parental approval controls if parents decide to turn this feature on. Lee and James’ bill would simply make this optional feature required, taking the burden off parents to navigate a vast web of optional parental consent tools.

In the modern online age, children spend significant time online. Parents deserve to be given streamlined tools to ensure that the content their children access is safe, transparent, and protective of their well-being.

Congress should pass the App Store Accountability Act to provide families with the key tools and information necessary to protect their children’s access to online enrichment while keeping them safe from unseen dangers. Our children’s online welfare and safety depend on it.