Hold onto your keyboards, folks- former President Barack Obama just dropped a bombshell by pushing for government control over what’s “fact” on social media, as LifeZette reports.

This week, Obama stirred the pot at a forum on media and technology, advocating for federal regulations on social media platforms to combat misinformation, while Rep. Thomas Massie introduced a bill to curb government propaganda at home.

Let’s rewind a bit: Obama’s comments came during a discussion on the future of media, where he suggested it’s time to experiment with journalism and reshape how social media handles information. His idea? Use government power to draw a line between opinion and fact.

Obama's Call for Regulatory Constraints

“Part of what we’re going to have to do is to start experimenting with new forms of journalism and how we use social media in ways that reaffirm facts and separate facts from opinion,” Obama stated at the forum. With all due respect, Mr. President, isn’t the line between fact and opinion often drawn by whoever holds the biggest megaphone? Handing that megaphone to bureaucrats seems like a recipe for stifling debate, not enhancing it.

Obama didn’t stop there -- he doubled down by suggesting regulatory constraints on the business models of these platforms. He argued for a framework that balances free speech with curbing voices deemed too polarizing or dangerous. But who decides what’s “dangerous” when political winds shift faster than a trending hashtag?

This isn’t a new fight, though; Obama’s history with media policy dates back to 2012 when he signed the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act into law. That legislation, tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, reversed a 1948 ban on domestic government propaganda. It’s a move that still raises eyebrows among those wary of federal overreach.

Critics Question Federal Speech Control

Critics of Obama’s latest stance aren’t mincing words, warning that such regulations could easily morph into tools for silencing dissent. The fear is real: government oversight might prioritize politically convenient narratives over genuine discourse. It’s a slippery slope from “protecting facts” to curbing free thought.

The timing of Obama’s remarks couldn’t be more charged, as they coincide with a growing divide over the government’s role in shaping online speech.

Many conservatives argue that tech giants already lean left—add federal muscle to that mix, and you’ve got a potential chokehold on opposing views. It’s a concern worth chewing on, even if you don’t buy every conspiracy theory out there.

Meanwhile, Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, is pushing back hard with HR 5704, titled the Repeal the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2013. His bill aims to reinstate the old ban on federal agencies spreading propaganda within U.S. borders. It’s a direct counterpunch to the 2012 change Obama endorsed.

Massie's Bill Targets Domestic Propaganda

“Today, Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced HR 5704, the Repeal the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2013, to protect American audiences from the domestic dissemination of federally funded propaganda by the State Department, the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), and their component networks,” Massie’s office announced. If that doesn’t scream “we’ve had enough,” what does? It’s a bold move to slam the brakes on government spin at home.

Massie’s proposal doesn’t just stop at a ban -- it’s packed with safeguards like restoring a firewall against domestic propaganda and creating a secure system for Congress and accredited media to review overseas content. It also bars the State Department and USAGM from running covert online operations targeting Americans. These are concrete steps to keep Uncle Sam’s storytelling in check.

Further, the bill mandates archiving propaganda materials at the National Archives, embargoed for 20 years, and requires clear disclaimers identifying the government as the source. It’s a transparency push that’s hard to argue against, unless you’re fond of shadowy influence campaigns.

Deepening Divisions Over Speech Regulation

The clash between Obama’s vision and Massie’s pushback highlights a broader rift in how we handle information in the digital age. On one side, there’s a call for guardrails to stop misinformation; on the other, a fierce defense of unfettered speech against government meddling. Both sides have points worth pondering, but the risk of overreach looms large.

As this debate heats up, the Biden administration has stayed mum on Massie’s bill, leaving us to wonder where the current leadership stands. Meanwhile, the public square -- online and off -- remains a battleground over who gets to define truth. It’s a fight that’s not going away anytime soon, and every click, share, and post keeps it alive.