FTC Opens Up Bullshit Investigation Into Media Matters For Highlighting Ads Next To Nazi Content On ExTwitter
The timing here is incredible. The very same day that the FTC’s “public inquiry” into “big tech censorship” closes, that very same FTC opens an investigation not into “big tech,” but rather Media Matters. Yes, the very same Media Matters that Elon Musk has been trying to silence through the censorial abuse of the court systems in multiple countries because the non-profit dared to… write an article showing ads from big companies appearing next to neo-Nazi content on ExTwitter.
The Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday opened an investigation into Media Matters, a liberal advocacy organization that has published research on hateful and antisemitic content on X, according to two people familiar with the inquiry.
The regulator said in a letter sent to the organization that it was investigating the group, which is aligned with Democrats, over whether it illegally colluded with advertisers, according to the people. The letter, a copy of which was seen by The New York Times, required the organization to share copies of its budgets, documents showing the effects of “harmful” online content on advertisers, and communications with other watchdog groups.
So let me get this straight: the FTC just spent months soliciting comments about “big tech censorship,” and its immediate follow-up is to… investigate the speech of a nonprofit that criticized big tech, and is being punished already through a series of civil SLAPP suits in multiple countries designed to chill its speech? Nothing says “fighting censorship” like launching a federal investigation into a nonprofit’s journalism.
This isn’t speculation or hyperbole — courts have already called this exact playbook against the same organization over the identical issue exactly what it is: censorial retaliation. After Elon got mad, the suck-up attorneys general of Texas and Missouri both tried to launch fishing expedition investigations into Media Matters, but a court shut that shit down. And the judge didn’t mince many words in calling out what abusive nonsense this was:
Defendant’s investigation of Media Matters is “retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness in plaintiff’s position from speaking again[.]” … “[T]he threat of invoking legal sanctions” is sufficient to deter protected speech. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67 (1963). So, too, is the “threat of administrative and judicial intrusion into newsgathering and editorial process” that arises from official process and its possible enforcement. … These potential punitive consequences, as well as possible judicial intervention to enforce the CID, make Plaintiffs’ claim of chilled expression objectively reasonable.
There is more. “The compelled production of a reporter’s resource materials can constitute a significant intrusion … [that] may substantially undercut the public policy in favor of the free flow of information to the public[.]”
Ferguson apparently read this judicial smackdown and thought, “hold my beer.”
To be fair, Ferguson did telegraph this move. When he was auditioning for the FTC chair job, he specifically promised to “investigate and prosecute collusion on… advertiser boycotts.” The irony is that this promise appears directly above his pledge to end “politically motivated investigations.”

You almost have to admire the efficiency here. Ferguson manages to launch a politically motivated investigation while simultaneously promising to end politically motivated investigations. He’s using government power to silence criticism while pretending to be crusading against censorship.
It is, of course, the way of MAGA, where every false accusation is actually a confession of what they intend to do.
Anyway, where are all those people who claimed that an angry email from a Biden administration official was the greatest censorship threat ever? You’d think an actual government investigation targeting a nonprofit’s journalism might merit at least a tweet. But apparently, censorship is only bad when it happens to people you like.
Related Knowledge Center: The White House vs. the press
Whether it’s the Des Moines Register’s publication of an unfavorable election poll, a routine edit of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, or the Associated Press’s decision in its authoritative stylebook to continue to use “Gulf of Mexico,” Donald Trump and the White House have used executive authority and legal reprisals in an effort to punish and suppress press coverage that runs contrary to the administration’s preferred narratives.
Democracy and politics | Signalgate | The CBS submission | Voiceless America
Related Knowledge Center: Free speech and public protest
The First Amendment is facing challenging times: Crackdowns on campus protests prompted both-sides claims of intolerance. Attempts to head off dangerous health misinformation have been characterized as violations of free speech. Donald Trump is publicly punishing news outlets that deviate from his administration’s version of events while privately suing some outlets into submission.
The White House vs. the press | Voiceless America
Related Knowledge Center: Media and the law
Toxic politics and vast shifts in the technology landscape have created a plethora of thorny issues — both legal and ethical — for newsrooms, courts, and regulators.
The Meta-FTC trial | Section 230