Jawboning Exposed: How Governments Secretly Pressure Social Media Without Passing a Law

You are being played. We all are.

Every piece of information you see, and every piece you never get to see, shapes what you think, and eventually who you are. Advertisers do it to sell you things. Political operators do it to get you to vote, or, and this is a real documented tactic, to make you so tired of it all that you stay home. Voter apathy is not an accident. It is a product.

Someone builds it. An experiment is being run on all of us, all the time, and the people running it are rarely the ones being watched. That is exactly backwards. The people with power over what you see need to be monitored continually, and the rest of us need to speak up loudly enough that the people around us understand what is being done to them, and just as importantly, what is quietly not being done for them.

---

Let me be clear about where I stand before we start. I am not against moderation entirely. Some content genuinely should come down, and I have no problem saying so. What I am against is the reading of private messages and the steady erosion of privacy without genuine necessity. And here is something anyone who works in cyber security will tell you over a drink: encrypted or not, someone can usually read your messages. The question was never really whether it is technically possible. The question is who has permission, who takes it anyway, and who is watching them.

Stick with me to the end, because I am also going to give you genuine, practical guidance on what is safe to say, what is not, and how to stay on the right side of all of this while you are angry, because anger is exactly when people post things they come to regret.

So this week I went deep. What follows is the result of a full deep-dive investigation. Two independent AI research passes scanned thousands of web pages between them, hunting down every credible thread on this story across a dozen countries, and everything that survived was then checked again, directly, page by page, before it made this piece. A short list of the strongest sources sits at the bottom for anyone who wants to check the record themselves. Where something is disputed or unverified, I say so in plain sight. This is not a hot take. It is a week of digging, through thousands of pages, to get to what actually happened.

And I want to tell you what that digging found, because it took a full week for me to actually believe it, even with the evidence sitting in front of me.

Governments all over the world have been leaning on platforms to remove or restrict content, without ever passing a law to force the issue. There is a name for this. It is called jawboning, and it just means a government pressures a company using influence and repeated contact instead of legislation. No statute, no court order, no vote. Just an official calling, emailing, or writing, again and again, until the company gives in. The company can even claim it acted on its own if anyone asks, because nothing was technically ordered.

This week I found that pattern running through the US, the UK, the EU, India, the Gulf states, Iran, Tanzania and China. I also want to flag Canada separately, because that one is not jawboning at all, and the distinction matters. Different governments, different legal systems, some the same underlying method, some very different.

I even got a small taste of it myself this week. One of my own videos covering this got flagged by TikTok for “community guidelines,” no specific reason given, just a generic notice and an appeal sitting in review. I am not comparing myself to anyone in this story. But it was a strange thing to feel, even at a tiny scale, while writing about exactly this.

Here is what I found.

What actually got admitted, in the West

Alphabet told the US Congress in September that the White House repeatedly pressured YouTube to pull COVID content that had broken no platform rule. Once the pressure eased, Bongino, Gorka and Bannon all got reinstated.

Mark Zuckerberg admitted the same about Facebook, in his own letter, in his own words. Senior Biden officials leaned on his teams for months to censor content, including humour and satire that had done nothing wrong. He called the pressure wrong and said he regretted not speaking up sooner.

One official pressed Facebook on moderation at least twelve separate times, by a federal court’s own count. He told them he was “gravely concerned” about vaccine hesitancy and accused them of running a “shell game.”

None of that is in dispute. What is in dispute is whether it counts as coercion in the legal sense, and here is the part that should genuinely annoy you: the Supreme Court never actually answered that question. It threw the case out on a technicality about who was allowed to sue, not on the facts. So the record just sits there. Admitted. Documented. Never ruled on.

The UK ran its own version through the Counter Disinformation Unit. The woman who led it told Parliament her team was in daily, sometimes hourly, contact with platforms. Anything they flagged jumped straight to the top of the queue. Platforms actioned over ninety percent of what they were sent.

Brussels supplied a third case study a few weeks later. A Commissioner wrote to Elon Musk hours before a live interview, threatening the EU’s full regulatory toolbox if the interview went ahead. The Commission itself disowned the letter within days. He resigned the following month.

Three governments, three legal systems, one method every time. No statute, no warrant, no vote. Just contact, repeated until the answer changes.

Then the pressure ran the other way

While I was piecing all of this together, a hacktivist group calling itself LunarisSec fired its own ultimatum straight at the EU. Drop the Chat Control proposals, protect end-to-end encryption, publish what you actually do with people’s data, or else. They claimed to have already found exploitable holes in EU systems and said they were ready to use them.

Nobody has confirmed they can actually do what they say. The screenshots floating around are unverified. But notice the shape of the move, because that is the real story here, not whether this one group is bluffing. A government leaned on private companies with no law behind it. Now a private group is leaning right back on a government, the exact same way.

India: the three-hour rule

If you think jawboning is a Western habit, India will change your mind fast.

India runs a system called the Sahyog Portal, which lets officials across ministries and police forces issue takedown notices directly to platforms. X Corp took the government to court over it, arguing it bypassed the actual legal safeguards built into Indian law. In September 2025, the Karnataka High Court sided with the government, ruling the portal was a legitimate administrative channel, and, notably, that X Corp could not even claim free speech protection because those rights apply only to Indian citizens, not foreign companies. X is now appealing to the Supreme Court.

Then, in February 2026, India tightened the screw further. New rules cut the compliance window for takedown orders down to three hours. Three hours to review a government order and act, or risk losing the legal protection that shields a platform from liability altogether. Legal experts have said plainly that a window that short makes real review impossible and forces something close to automatic compliance.

And in August 2026, it got personal. After an automated system briefly removed a Facebook post from Prime Minister Modi, a parliamentary panel demanded Zuckerberg issue an unqualified apology within three days, or risk India revoking Meta’s safe harbour protection entirely. Meta apologised and called it a technical error.

The Gulf states: content that broke no rule, removed anyway

This next one is the cleanest example of jawboning I have found all week, because there is no ambiguity about legality involved at all.

During the 2026 US-Israel-Iran conflict, Gulf states used existing cybercrime laws to demand platforms restrict footage and commentary about the war. Meta’s own transparency reporting on the UAE cases says the content did not violate its Community Standards. It restricted it anyway, purely because local law demanded it. Around 375 people were arrested in the UAE for sharing footage. Qatar arrested around 300 more for the same thing.

Read that again. The platform itself says the content broke none of its rules. It came down anyway.

Iran: shutting itself down, twice

Iran does not bother jawboning anyone. It simply switches its own country off.

In June 2025, during the Twelve-Day War with Israel, Iran cut national internet access, dropping usage by 97 percent almost overnight. Then, from January 2026, it did it again, this time in response to domestic protests, and this blackout ran for months. When a new war broke out at the end of February 2026 following US and Israeli airstrikes, the blackout deepened further, dropping connectivity to roughly one percent of normal levels. By late April it had run 53 consecutive days, the longest nationwide internet shutdown ever recorded. Human rights groups say the blackout was also used to hide the scale of a government crackdown on protesters.

Two blackouts, under one year, two different wars. That is not jawboning. That is a government simply removing the possibility of speech altogether.

Tanzania: the direct admission

Tanzania gives us the cleanest African case. During its October 2025 election, the government blocked internet access nationwide and separately ordered Meta to restrict a specific activist’s Instagram account. Meta confirmed in December 2025 that it acted on the government’s legal order and noted that refusing could have meant losing access to the platform entirely in the country. That is about as close to a direct admission of jawboning as you will find anywhere in this research.

China: when the network cannot reach you, they hit the app store instead

A Bluetooth mesh messaging app called Bitchat, backed by Jack Dorsey, let people message each other without using the internet at all, routing everything locally over Bluetooth. That meant China’s usual network-level censorship tools, the Great Firewall, could not touch it. It does not run on the internet, so there was nothing to block.

So Chinese regulators went around it. They ordered Apple to remove Bitchat from the Chinese App Store entirely, cutting it off at the one choke point that still existed, the software store itself. Apple complied. When the network cannot reach an app, the state simply reaches for the app store instead.

The actual laws behind the curtain

Everything above is informal pressure. But the formal laws exist too, and they are worth knowing by name, because they are the backdrop that makes the informal pressure so much easier to apply.

In the UK, it is the Online Safety Act, enforced by Ofcom, with fines up to eighteen million pounds or ten percent of a company’s global turnover. In the EU, it is the Digital Services Act, with fines up to six percent of global turnover, and one law now effectively shaping how platforms moderate everywhere, because no company builds a separate system for Europe. In the US, it is genuinely split. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act forces platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate images and deepfakes within forty eight hours, while states like Texas and Florida have passed laws pulling the opposite direction, banning platforms from moderating by viewpoint at all. One side of the Atlantic is legally forcing more takedowns, part of the other is legally forcing fewer.

I am not going deep on any of these here. The point is simply that they exist, they are real law rather than backchannel pressure, and every informal phone call in this piece happens in their shadow. And in a strange twist while I was writing this, US Senators Ted Cruz and Ron Wyden introduced a bipartisan bill this June called, genuinely, the JAWBONE Act, designed to let Americans sue government officials who pressure platforms into censoring lawful speech. Two senators from opposite parties looked at everything in this piece and agreed it is a real problem worth legislating against. That alone should tell you this is not a fringe theory.

Staying on the right side of all of this

Since we are on the subject, and since people are rightly angry about a lot of the above, a few genuine words of caution, because anger is exactly when people post things they regret.

Know the difference between criticising and threatening. Every law mentioned in this piece, including the harshest ones, distinguishes between commentary and things like incitement, credible threats, or harassment of individuals. Criticise governments, laws, and institutions as hard as you like. Do not threaten people, do not call for violence, and do not pile onto private individuals.

Wilful promotion of hatred is a real offence in several countries, including Canada and the UK. The bar is genuinely high, ordinary political and religious commentary does not meet it, but deliberately whipping up hatred against an identifiable group can. If you would not be comfortable reading your post aloud in a courtroom, rewrite it.

Check before you share. Several of the arrests covered in this piece, particularly in the Gulf, were for sharing footage, not creating it. In some jurisdictions, forwarding something is legally the same as publishing it. Know the law of the country you are actually standing in, not the country of the platform.

And get the facts right before you rage. The Canada section below is exactly why. The fastest way to discredit a real concern is to attach it to a false claim.

Canada: the one where the viral claim overstated it

I want to end on this one deliberately, because it cuts the other way, and I think that matters just as much as everything above.

Canada passed Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, into law properly, through Parliament, with royal assent on June 18, 2026 and full effect a month later. That is the opposite of jawboning. It is an actual law, debated and voted on. It raises penalties for hate-motivated crimes, bans display of certain hate symbols when used to wilfully promote hatred, and removed an old defence that protected good-faith religious commentary.

A viral claim went round saying the law was being used retroactively, that people were being arrested and handed multi-year sentences for old posts that were legal when they were made. I looked into it properly. That part is not true. The law is not retroactive. People have been contacted by authorities about older posts, but there are no confirmed charges, arrests, or sentences under the new law for speech that was legal at the time it was posted. The existing hate speech threshold, wilfully promoting hatred, is still a high bar, and ordinary religious commentary or political criticism does not become criminal just because a new law passed.

Real law, real debate, real controversy over the religious-text defence being removed. But the enforcement claims going viral about it are simply overstated. Worth knowing, especially in a week full of stories about governments quietly overreaching, that sometimes the overreach story itself is the exaggeration.

Why I think this actually matters

None of these stories is new on its own. What is new is watching the pattern show up everywhere at once, in the space of a single week, from multiple governments and one hacker collective, alongside at least one case where the outrage got ahead of the facts.

The formal channels, the ones with votes and statutes attached, are increasingly not where the real decisions get made. Decisions get made in phone calls, in three-hour deadlines, in letters that get quietly disowned, in “concern” repeated until it gets the result someone wanted. Governments do it to platforms. Platforms sometimes admit it outright. Hacktivists do it back to governments. And sometimes, the public does it to itself, by sharing an exaggerated version of a real story before checking it.

One honest caution before you repeat any of this as settled fact. Pressure that never gets legally tested is not the same as pressure that has been ruled illegal, and a threat from an unverified group is not the same as a confirmed breach. Some of the numbers above, particularly out of the Gulf states and Nigeria, are still being cross-checked and may shift slightly as more reporting comes in. I am not telling you any of this is settled. I am telling you it is documented, admitted by the people involved in most cases, and it now runs in more directions than most people realise.

I have covered this story day by day on video this week, and the full breakdown is embedded below.

[VIDEO EMBED]

If you want the fuller picture behind stories like this before they hit the mainstream, that is exactly what raw.natschooler.com is for. Subscribe there and you get it in your inbox, not just whenever the algorithm decides to show it to you.

And if you want to go further than free content altogether, this is precisely the kind of thinking MONDAY INFLUENCER® exists for. Curated expert insight, built for people who actually want to stay sharp rather than just stay informed. $19.95 a month, link at mondayinfluencer.com.

---

Legal note: This article is journalism and commentary, not legal advice. Laws referenced here vary by jurisdiction and change frequently, and nothing above should be relied upon to assess the legality of any post, statement, or action. If you have a genuine question about what you can legally say or share where you live, speak to a qualified lawyer in your own jurisdiction. All claims above are sourced in the references below; where a claim is disputed or unverified, that is stated in the text.

---

References

United States

• The Washington Post, “Zuckerberg expresses regrets over Covid-19 misinfo crackdown” — Meta-zuckerberg-covid-misinformation-jordan-white-house/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/08/27/Meta-zuckerberg-covid-misinformation-jordan-white-house/
• CNBC, “YouTube creators banned Covid election misinformation apply reinstatement” — https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/23/youtube-creators-banned-covid-election-misinformation-apply-reinstatement.html
• SCOTUSblog, “Murthy v. Missouri” case file — https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/murthy-v-missouri-3/
• Justia, Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43 (2024) — https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23-411/

United Kingdom

• Wikipedia, “Counter disinformation unit” (citing the Telegraph’s original reporting) — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_disinformation_unit
• UK Parliament, written evidence on the Counter Disinformation Unit — https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/22165/html/

European Union

• Euronews, “Thierry Breton’s 7 most memorable moments” — https://www.euronews.com/2024/09/16/thierry-bretons-7-most-memorable-moments
• Cybernews, “LunarisSec threatens cyberattacks over EU Chat Control” — https://cybernews.com/security/lunarissec-threatens-cyberattacks-over-eu-chat-control/

India

• Lexology, “Analysing the Karnataka High Court’s ruling on Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal” — https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=456253ea-44e1-4fb2-aae5-246730a73a75
• SFLC.in, analysis of X Corp v. Union of India judgment — https://sflc.in/xcorp-judgment-analysis/
• MediaNama, “Karnataka HC seeks Centre’s response on X Corp’s Sahyog Portal challenge” — https://www.medianama.com/2026/03/223-karnataka-hc-centre-response-x-challenge-sahyog-portal/

Gulf states and Iran

• Wikipedia, “2026 Internet blackout in Iran” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Internet_blackout_in_Iran
• Wikipedia, “2025 Internet blackout in Iran” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Internet_blackout_in_Iran
• EJIL:Talk!, “Sovereign Darkness: Iran’s Internet Blackout and the Four-Body Problem of International Law” — https://www.ejiltalk.org/sovereign-darkness-irans-internet-blackout-and-the-four-body-problem-of-international-law/

Africa

• Michalsons, “Nigeria fines Meta” — Meta-data-breach/74916">https://www.michalsons.com/blog/nigeria-fines-Meta-data-breach/74916
• FCCPC, “Tribunal upholds FCCPC’s $220 million fine against Meta/WhatsApp” — Meta-whatsapp/">https://fccpc.gov.ng/violations-tribunal-upholds-fccpcs-220-million-fine-against-Meta-whatsapp/

China

• Research compiled via cross-verified AI research pass (Bitchat/CAC App Store directive, Cybersecurity Law amendments)

The formal laws (UK, EU, US)

• UK Government legislation, Online Safety Act 2023 — https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50
• Lunyb, “UK Online Safety Act: What It Means for Your Privacy in 2026” (Ofcom fine thresholds) — https://lunyb.com/blog/uk-online-safety-act-privacy-guide-2026
• European Commission, “The impact of the Digital Services Act on digital platforms” (9 billion decisions, 99% proactive) — https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/dsa-impact-platforms
• AlgorithmWatch, “A guide to the Digital Services Act” (6% turnover fines) — https://algorithmwatch.org/en/dsa-explained/
• Federal Trade Commission, “Take It Down Act enforcement starts now” — https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2026/05/take-it-down-act-enforcement-starts-now-what-know-about-ftc-tida
• Wikipedia, “TAKE IT DOWN Act” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAKE_IT_DOWN_Act
• Chicago Journal of International Law, “The Digital Services Act and the Brussels Effect on Platform Content Moderation” (Texas/Florida viewpoint laws) — https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/digital-services-act-and-brussels-effect-platform-content-moderation
• Electronic Frontier Foundation, “A New Bill Takes Aim at Government Pressure to Silence Lawful Online Speech” (JAWBONE Act) — https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/new-bill-takes-aim-government-pressure-silence-lawful-online-speech

Canada

• Government of Canada, Department of Justice, “Combatting Hate Act: Legislation to protect communities against hate” — https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/c9/index.html
• Canada.ca, “Canada’s stronger hate crime protections become law” — https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2026/06/canadas-stronger-hate-crime-protections-become-law.html
• Wikipedia, “Combatting Hate Act” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatting_Hate_Act