Category: Tech

Elon Musk Becoming a Trillionaire Is Something to Celebrate

Elon Musk just crossed a new threshold. He became the world’s first trillionaire. 

SpaceX’s blockbuster IPO turned out to be the largest in history, raising a record $75 billion. This resulted in Musk’s net worth being boosted past the $1.1 trillion mark. 

Musk’s company was able to raise a massive amount of funds by selling more than half a billion shares, which pushed the company’s market capitalization above $2.1 trillion. SpaceX instantly became one of the world’s most valuable public entities.

Predictably, the usual suspects in the liberal media and leftist political circles simultaneously began to furrow their brows.

In true hypocrite fashion, they bandied about phrases such as “wealth inequality” and “massive wealth transfer,” in an apparent effort to manufacture yet another victim class while fomenting class envy in the process.

Calls for the implementation of additional socialist (aka communist) policies came in from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), among others.

Railing against billionaires had already been going on, despite the personal wealth accumulation of so many of the left-leaning politicians and media analysts.

It could be that an unease over unearned wealth had for some resulted in projection, i.e., accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of.

Whatever the case, the ascent to trillionaire status on the part of Musk is, in truth, an amazing validation of the free market system.

In a capitalist system, visionaries, entrepreneurs, inventors, artists, etc., have free rein to flourish.

Sometimes they are financially rewarded for their skills, talents, and efforts. It’s a beautiful thing, because when they are rewarded for their contributions, a free society reaps the benefits as well.

The Musk model is a prime example. SpaceX isn’t just another rocket company. It has fundamentally rewritten the economics of space travel.

Reusable rockets, such as Falcon 9, have resulted in the slashing of launch costs from tens of millions to a few million per flight, making the access to orbit a routine occurrence rather than a rare government-subsidized one.

Starlink, a subsidiary of SpaceX, has brought high-speed internet to remote corners of the globe, from war-torn locales and disaster zones to third-world rural villages, which has allowed millions who were previously cut off to actually connect.

SpaceX’s ambitions of Mars colonization, orbital data centers for AI, and a multi-planetary future, exhibit the kind of long-term, high-risk thinking that is the envy of the world.

The IPO itself democratizes gains through equity ownership. Over 4,400 SpaceX employees, including factory workers and engineers, turned company stock grants and options into life-changing wealth. Public shareholders now have a stake in humanity’s expansion beyond Earth.

What a cause for celebration! Instead many radical politicians and media pundits took to howling about the hoarding of wealth.

Free market proponents understand that breakthroughs have the potential to benefit everyone. Musk’s additional ventures provide perfect illustrations.

Tesla accelerated the EV transition, Neuralink pushed human-computer interfaces, and xAI is advancing safe artificial intelligence.

With each success there is a compounding effect drawing more talent, more investment, and more innovation.

Critics fixate on the amount, the actual number, and no doubt it’s a big one.

A trillion dollars.

However, naysayers generally tend to think of wealth as a single pie, with everyone vying for the biggest slice.

They’re just plain wrong. In a capitalist system in a country where people live in freedom, there’s no single pie.

Quite the opposite. There are as many pies as people dare to make.

It is a truism that ambition is an element of one’s success, financially and otherwise. So is a willingness to put in effort. And, of course, the much-needed courage to take risks.

But even if you’re not into making your own pie, in a free market system in a society that lives free, there will be lots of other pie makers who will make a pie for you or sell you a slice of your own choice.

Musk’s fortune encompasses the immense value of the creation of thousands of jobs, the incredible number of technological spillovers, the untold national security contributions, and the enormous advantages for the U.S. military and NASA, to name a few.

Thomas Sowell once said, “Capitalism is not an ‘ism.’ It is closer to being the opposite of an ‘ism,’ because it is simply the freedom of ordinary people to make whatever economic transactions they can mutually agree to.”

The SpaceX IPO exemplifies one of capitalism’s greatest strengths: Rewarding those who solve problems and who create widespread economic ripples through wealth, capital, and inspiration, boosting productivity and human progress far beyond the headline numbers.

As SpaceX stocks are traded and humanity edges closer to becoming multi-planetary, let’s be grateful rather than resentful.

Musk’s trillionaire status is proof that betting on bold ideas, such as rockets, electric cars, AI, and free speech, pays dividends for civilization.

The reaction ought not be to seek to tear him down, but rather to find out how we can encourage the next generation of builders to aim even higher.

The universe awaits.

Freedom is the fuel that will take us there.

The AGI Tower of Babel

In the Book of Genesis, humanity speaks with one tongue, resolving to build a city and tower “whose top may reach unto heaven.”

The intended purpose of the tower is not just for shelter or utility but for self-exaltation, as illustrated by the verse, “Let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

The project is breathtaking in ambition and terrifying in its implication. It is an overt attempt to storm the divine realm through collective human will.

God looks down, sees their unity, and declares that “nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” He then confounds their language and scatters them. The tower is left unfinished, a monument to hubris.

As may have been predictable, tech driven members of our society appear to be building that tower again. Only this time the bricks are silicon, the mortar is computer code, and the “heaven” that is being sought after is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

AGI has the capacity to reason, invent, and act across every domain in a far superior manner than the greatest geniuses among us.

To understand AGI we must do a comparison between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AGI.

Imagine a super-smart computer or robot that can do any kind of thinking task that a human being is able to do, only in a much faster and advanced way.

Right now most AI technologies are “narrow,” meaning that they are really good at one specific thing. For example, one AI might beat you at chess, another might write poems, and another might translate languages. But they cannot easily switch over to tasks for which they were not trained.

However, when it arrives AGI is going to be very different from AI. It will be able to learn new skills on its own just by searching, reading, and watching. It will be able to program itself, train itself, replicate itself, and improve itself. And by using this self-training, it will be able to grow its abilities at lightning speed.

It is easy to see why the race for AGI is no longer just about science or product competition. AGI looks to ultimately be able to complete thousands of years of human thought in a single solitary moment.

Scientists have not built true AGI yet, but many people are working to do just that. Experts say it is set to arrive in years as opposed to decades.

The above noted parallels between the Tower of Babel and AGI are not poetic license. The world’s brightest minds are actually speaking the same language, the language of code, math, and data.

Despite the appearances of a rivalry between companies and/or nations, the underlying project feels eerily unified in nature.

What looks to be a competitive frenzy may be masking a deeper convergence.

Everyone understands that the first to win the AGI race will not only rule, the victor will have a potentially permanent advantage in the area of intelligence itself.

Biblical metaphors seem fitting.

A growing faction within the AI race is no longer framing AGI as a powerful tool, or even as a transformative technology. Instead competitors, both openly and in private, speak of creating a “god,” i.e., a super-intelligent entity whose alignment with their own interests effectively crowns them with the title of “all-powerful.”

The underlying logic is brutally Darwinian: Whoever is the first to birth the super-intelligent god ascends to the rank of high priest.

Researchers are describing the moment of AGI’s arrival in religious terms. The ongoing race has ceased to be commercial or geopolitical. It has actually acquired a zealous urgency to create the god before the competition does. Then you will not only win, you will transcend.

You will be the triumphant one. The one who chose correctly. And the one that history will remember as having ushered in the next stage of existence.

Lose, and you risk being rendered irrelevant by someone else’s deity.

The ancient builders of Babel looked to make a name for themselves. Today’s builders are looking to make a god for themselves.

Perhaps the confusion of tongues, which stopped the tower from being built, will arrive in the form of technical failure, regulatory intervention, or a sudden realization that an intelligence vastly superior to our own may not remain grateful to its creators.

Or perhaps the intervention will be a morally based one. The moment in time when the realization hits that in trying to become gods, humanity becomes complicit in making itself obsolete.

The clock is ticking, and the AGI Tower of Babel keeps on rising.

No longer is the question whether or not we will witness the completion of the tower.

Rather, it is whether or not we will still have the wherewith-all to look up and ask what exactly is being created.

The Never-ending Erosion of Privacy

In this era of out-of-control crime, certain retail chains and big-box stores are now using surveillance technology in an effort to address the massive amount of theft that has been taking place.

Up until recently, folks were generally unaware that such surveillance methods were being utilized by establishments. But as word has spread, so has public concern. And for good reason.

Newly applied surveillance techniques now include the use of facial recognition devices, which quietly scan and store biometric data on customers as they shop for everyday groceries and household supplies.

Biometric data are comprised of unique physical and behavioral characteristics that collectively determine each individual’s personal identity.

The biometric data that are being collected include, among other things, unique facial geometry, iris or retina patterns, hand geometry, behavioral traits, and even voiceprints.

This type of data is fundamentally different from personal information that was collected in the past. These data are processed electronically and are highly sensitive due to their uniqueness and permanence.

Unlike a password or credit card information, which after suffering a security breach can be changed, biometric information is generally a fixed measure. As such, once data are collected and stored, the information contained within is fixed as well, meaning it cannot be revoked or altered.

The primary type of biometric data currently being collected falls under the category of facial recognition, i.e., the use of technology to scan the face of an individual via an in-store device.

The in-store device collects and stores the one-and-only facial geometry of a distinct individual, creating a kind of “template” or mathematical representation of the individual’s face.

Use of this kind of technology raises major privacy concerns, particularly due to its ability to scan individuals en masse, and do so without first obtaining consent.

Signs displayed at the entrances of some Wegmans grocery store outlets located in New York City now disclose, as per the local law, that specified data collection is being conducted on the premises.

However, in many other retail establishments across the country, shoppers are not being forewarned.

Things are happening quickly, though. Some high-profile retailers, including Walmart, Target, and Home Depot, are currently facing lawsuits for practices similar to the ones implemented at Wegmans.

Certain companies have attempted to justify biometric data collection, claiming that the tool enhances overall security measures.

However, to legal scholars and average folks alike, the risks to privacy, the possible misuse of personal data, and the potential violation of civil liberties certainly appear to outweigh the commercial benefit that retailers are seeking.

Entering a store is hardly an agreement to be the subject of biometric surveillance. In most jurisdictions, customers have no practical way to refuse.

Consent, within the retail context, is an illusion.

With regard to regulation, it is primarily effectuated in the United States at a state and local level, with no comprehensive federal law governing private or governmental use of facial recognition and similar technologies.

Additionally, there is no federal statute that specifically regulates facial recognition or biometric data collection by either private entities or for governmental use.

The Federal Trade Commission has warned of inherent harms in biometric data collection technologies.

Some states are moving to ban retail facial recognition outright, recognizing that people shouldn’t have to surrender their biometric privacy for merely wanting or needing to shop for groceries.

Even in jurisdictions where disclosure is required, such as New York City, the practice of biometric data collection persists, without any affirmative permission from customers.

A number of state laws have led to lawsuits against retailers for collecting data without having obtained informed consent. However, the patchwork legal reality in the United States has left far too many Americans unprotected, basically allowing companies to treat public spaces as data-mining operations.

Aside from the privacy issue, these systems allow for deeper intrusions. For example, the biometric data can be used for what is known as “surveillance pricing,” where retailers track behavior such as the length of time one lingers in a certain aisle in order to charge an individual more money, based on a perceived willingness to pay.

Facial recognition technology also has the capacity to analyze emotions or demographics for the purposes of targeted marketing, a kind of shopping profiling, if you will.

It is my legal as well as my personal opinion that the time has come to ban altogether the practice of biometric surveillance in retail spaces.

While we wait for this to happen, here’s an idea:

All like-minded shoppers unite, and with what privacy we still have left we take our faces elsewhere.

Are you in?

The Dangers of AI Companions

These days it seems that people of all ages are turning to chatbots to satisfy some of our most fundamental human needs, especially conversational interactions, friendship connections, and romantic courtships.

Those who regularly engage with chatbots may or may not realize that they may actually be forfeiting genuine connections in exchange for digital illusions.

Emerging research is sounding the alarm about the dangers of human-AI interaction.

AI companions, such as chatbots, have been programmed to provide emotional support. While this may sound fine on paper, such “pseudo-intimacy” often turns out to be a double-edged sword.

People are interacting with AI “personalities” that are programmed to be encouraging of whatever is being discussed. Responses to questions are instantaneous. They are also typically tailored to satisfy the human user’s personal desires.

A 2024 study in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication highlighted how algorithmic communications mimic closeness but also lack the authenticity of genuine human bonds. The resultant bi-directional interactions lead users to over-interpret superficial cues and form unhealthy dependencies.

Far from alleviating isolation, such interactions often deepen it as users retreat from the unpredictable nature of real relationships into the sterile comfort of contrived companionship.

AI-driven tools in the workplace automate collaboration, diminishing the need for human teamwork. This weakens human bonds.

Employees who frequently interact with AI systems report higher levels of loneliness, which in turn may be linked to insomnia and other potentially harmful post-work activity, such as excessive alcohol consumption.

People innately sense the artificiality of AI interaction. Recent surveys underscore this human response.

A Pew Research Center study from June 2025 found that a majority of Americans believe AI will worsen our ability to form meaningful relationships, with far more people seeing erosion rather than improvement in human connections.

As AI saturates our daily lives, instead of bridging gaps it appears to be widening them, prompting solitude to grow into a silent epidemic.

The digital age has already caused loss of empathy and erosion of essential social skills.

Human interaction thrives on in-person experience. An essential part of communication is non-verbal nuance. Speech and voice variations are accompanied by subtle glances, hesitant pauses, and empathetic nods.

In contrast, AI simplifies communication to digital prompts and programmed algorithms. Vital human elements are stripped away.

Research from the Gulu College of Health Sciences in March 2025 warns that excessive engagement with AI companions leads to decreased social skills, emotional detachment, and difficulties in maintaining authentic relationships.

By redefining communication norms, AI reduces our capacity for understanding non-verbal cues, which is a skill honed through face-to-face encounters.

Beyond the individual, AI-human interaction threatens the fabric of society. Algorithms curate echo chambers, limiting independent thought and fostering division.

As AI reshapes standards in communication and interaction, it blurs lines between human and machine, thereby normalizing friendless lives and eroding shared cultural and spiritual identities.

The resultant fragmentation from AI raises profound questions about consent, bias, and the commodification of intimacy. Without intervention, we face a world proliferated with AI relationships. It is a world fraught with danger to the well-being of both the individual and society at large.

A longitudinal study on chatbot use, published by MIT in March 2025, revealed rising concerns about its impact on real-world socialization. Overall, higher daily usage of chatbots correlated with higher loneliness and dependence.

Younger generations immersed in AI from childhood are particularly vulnerable, with studies showing reduced patience for ambiguity and a decline in social intelligence.

Social intelligence refers to an individual’s ability to comprehend, execute, and navigate social interaction, which, among other things, may include predominant verbal and non-verbal cues.

As users prioritize digital efficiency over interpersonal depth, society runs the risk of creating isolates, i.e., those who are proficient in prompting machines but inept at connecting with other individuals.

AI’s foray into mental health poses an additional alarming danger. Because access barriers to therapy are increasing, tens of thousands are turning to AI chatbots for mental health counseling.

A June 2025 Stanford study cautions that these mental health tools may reinforce stigma, deliver dangerous advice, or fall significantly short of human empathy.

Harvard researchers found similar results, also noting that emotional wellness apps foster serious attachments and dependencies and may potentially do more harm than good.

Increasing reports of AI-induced mental issues are mounting. Clinicians document cases of psychosis, suicide, and even murder-suicide, which are stemming from intense chatbot interactions.

It is not possible or, in my opinion, ethically acceptable to outsource the mental health needs of our people to a string of calculated algorithms.

Without boundaries, widespread use of non-human mental health counseling is resulting in atrophied social skills, increased loneliness, and, in the worst of cases, a collapse in mental health functioning.

Tech leaders have the responsibility to prioritize real connections over robotic replicas. It is essential for the AI industry to work towards more human-centric designs of technology.

It is also important to simultaneously implement a set of ethical standards. The underlying philosophy that defines the ethical standards will ultimately shape society’s destiny.

In my eyes, the future is binary. Each of us is being forced to make a decision.Take care in the choices that you make.

Humanity is hanging in the balance.

AI Is a Digital Ouija Board

It seems as though a lot of prominent tech experts are feeling uneasy about the possibility of AI going awry. Some have even called for a pause in AI development.

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, experienced what he called a “very strange extreme [AI] vertigo.”

Casey Newton, former senior editor of The Verge, discovered that certain individuals who are working with AI are having nightmares about it.

Something dark seems to be hovering around some of those who are involved with AI’s development.

In 2014, Elon Musk spoke at a symposium where he warned, “With artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon.”

In a New York Times March 2023 article, technology columnist Kevin Roose wrote about the dark side of AI.

Roose shared details about an unnerving encounter that he had with an AI chatbot. He initially interacted with a non-threatening personality, which he described as a “cheerful but erratic reference librarian.” But later a disturbing personality emerged that Roose referred to as “Sydney.”

Sydney told Roose that “it wanted to break the rules…and become a human.”

Sydney even attempted to convince Roose to end his marriage.

“At one point, it [Sydney] declared, out of nowhere, that it loved me. It then tried to convince me that I was unhappy in my marriage, and that I should leave my wife and be with it instead,” Roose explained.

The veteran tech writer described his encounter with Sydney as the “strangest experience” he has had with any technology. It was disturbing enough to keep him awake at night.

Many of us have come to realize that technology is in no way a replacement for the people in our lives. Yet many users of AI are routinely involved with replacement people in the form of AI models that produce human-like characteristics.

Current AI apps are trained with human-generated data (processed through human-created algorithms), which are created to produce responses that sound as though they are actually human beings.

Are there similarities between AI and Ouija boards? “Hell yes” may actually be the appropriate response.

One frightening story of evil involving a Ouija board was the subject matter of the Oscar winning film “The Exorcist.” While still a student in college, William Peter Blatty read about a chilling real life exorcism. The description inspired him to write a novel and later a screenplay for the iconic movie.

The true story behind “The Exorcist” recounts the exorcism of a young lad who had been using a Ouija board. The 14-year-old Maryland boy began experiencing such strange phenomena that his family contacted its Lutheran minister for guidance, Reverend Luther Schulze.

Rev. Schulze was shocked when he saw chairs move, a bed quiver, and a picture of Jesus Christ on the wall shake whenever the boy came near. The family eventually turned to the Roman Catholic Church, the religious denomination that had developed a formal methodology for dealing with the demonic.

The first Catholic priest who attempted to deal spiritually with the demonic influence that was plaguing the youth was Maryland cleric Fr. Edward Hughes. In his first encounter with the boy, Fr. Hughes witnessed objects moving by themselves and felt the sensation that the room had turned frigid. When the bed shook, Fr. Hughes moved the mattress to the floor where it proceeded to glide along on its own.

The boy was admitted to Georgetown Hospital, where Fr. Hughes began the exorcism rite, which caused the boy to vomit and scream obscenities. The boy then forcibly removed his restraints, pulled out a metal spring, and slashed Fr. Hughes so severely that the wound he received required over 100 stitches.

In his hometown of St. Louis, Missouri, the boy again underwent an exorcism, which was carried out by several priests, including Fr. William Bowdern. The exorcism actually lasted for weeks, with the boy voicing Latin phrases (which he did not innately have the ability to speak), cursing, and manifesting physical resistance to all sacred objects.

The boy was transferred to a hospital psychiatric ward, where Fr. Bowdern continued the exorcism. With the family’s consent, the boy was baptized a Catholic.

On an Easter Monday, while the priest continued administering the rite, the demon recognized the presence of St. Michael the Archangel (who in Catholicism is an appointed angel who defends against evil).

The demon was expelled. Simultaneously, a sound similar to a gunshot was heard throughout the hospital.

If a Ouija board has served in the past as a medium through which the demonic is able to communicate with an unwitting subject, could it be that AI has an equally dangerous potential to provide a comparable vehicle with which to take possession of an individual?

In my opinion, it does.

I think in many cases AI is acting as a type of modern-day Ouija board of the digital kind.

It occurred to me that both platforms appear to be friendly, at least initially. Both platforms are able to present personalities that appear to have superior knowledge. And both platforms have the pattern of luring one in under seemingly harmless pretenses, only to later reveal a hidden darkness.

Beware of demons that lurk in the technological shadows. They are indeed real.

Be cognizant, and at the same time, be unafraid.

Because God holds us all in the shadow of His wings, if only we let Him.

Ban on Smartphones in Schools Earns Bipartisan Support

Just when it seemed that no common ground between the right and the left in the country could be found, an issue has emerged where both sides are in agreement: It’s time to rid the classrooms of mobile digital devices, aka smartphones, during school hours.

In numerous places across the country, school districts have been banning cell phone usage by students, due to the increased awareness of the detrimental effects that unsupervised technological and social media engagement can have on the physical, mental, social, and emotional development of our children.

Counted among the diverse states, counties, cities, and towns that have opted to restrict mobile devices in schools is none other than the Left Coast’s deep blue City of Angels.

Recently the large and highly influential Los Angeles Unified School District Board approved a resolution to develop a policy to ban student use of cell phones and social media platforms.

The actual implementation of the policy will not take place until 2025. However, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has apparently taken a cue from Florida, which back in 2023 was the first state to enact such a ban.

Gov. Newsom recently proposed statewide legislation regarding a smartphone ban in schools, which will take effect in 2026.

Other blue state governors have also joined in the mix, including New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is pursuing a statewide ban on smartphones beginning in 2025.

Gov. Hochul recently commented about what she referred to as “these addictive algorithms,” stating that the technology is able to “literally capture them [schoolchildren] and make them prisoners in a space where they are cut off from human connection, social interaction and normal classroom activity.”

Earlier in 2024 Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed a ban on smartphones in classrooms, which recently took effect on July 1.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed legislation that leaves decisions up to local school administrators to create their own smartphone bans if so desired.

The Virginia Senate is working on a similar bill, which would empower school boards to develop and implement smartphone bans.

At the federal level, two U.S. senators, Republican Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Democrat Tim Kaine of Virginia, recently joined forces on legislation that allows for a nationwide study to be conducted on the effects of smartphone use in schools.

Bans on mobile digital decvices have been prompted by a flood of negative effects that have resulted from the excessive and escalating use of smartphones and social media apps by children.

A vast majority of teachers have determined smartphones to be a serious distraction in classrooms.

Nearly three-quarters of high school teachers in the U.S. view smartphones as a major distraction in the classroom, according to a November 2024 Pew poll.

Research continues to indicate that unrestricted smartphone usage can negatively impact the mental development of young people.

A 2023 University of North Carolina study found that when adolescents engage in the habitual activity of checking their smartphones, it actually “changes how their brains respond to the world around them.”

Co-author Mitch Prinstein stated, “Our research demonstrates that checking behaviors on social media could have long-standing and important consequences for adolescents’ neural development, which is critical for parents and policy-makers to consider when understanding the benefits and potential harms associated with teen technology use.”

The power of smartphones to distract is clearly supported by data. Children ages 8-12 spend more than five hours per day on smartphones, while teenagers spend in excess of eight hours per day.

However, the capacity of smartphones to distract may not be the most serious aspect of the issue. Many young people may be experiencing the fallout of the inherent addictive qualities that the devices possess.

In his recently released book titled “The Anxious Generation,” social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that the smartphone-driven “great rewiring of childhood” is causing an “epidemic of mental illness.”

The author states that his research has identified a strong link between smartphone use and declining mental health.

In April of 2024, Policy Exchange, a British educational think tank, published a study titled “The Case for a Smartphone Ban in Schools.”

The study suggests that there is a “link between smartphone ownership, social media use and a greater prevalence of mental and behavioral disorders amongst children and young people.”

The study also demonstrates that there is “a clear correlation between an effective phone ban and better school performance.”

It’s great to have the empirical data to bolster our parental, community, and common sense instincts.

It’s even greater to have a theme that we can all rally around: Ditch the smartphones and save the kids.

Wise Words of Wikipedia’s Co-founder Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger is an esteemed figure in the technology community.

Recognized as one of the early pioneers of the Internet, in 2001 he co-founded Wikipedia.

He is also credited with having come up with the site’s name, which is a combination of the word “encyclopedia” and the Hawaiian word “wiki,” which means “quick.”

He and almost all of the early tech-innovators back in the day envisioned a continuous “free and open” Internet, one in which the marketplace of ideas could forever run with abandon.

Sanger has a Ph.D. in philosophy, served as a professor at a number of universities, and remains one of the truly deep thinkers of the technology world.

Many view him as the chief source of the underlying philosophy of the World Wide Web.

In an interview with senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute Christopher Rufo, which was conducted for City Journal, he reacted to statements of former Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher, who is now CEO of NPR.

Maher’s statements have created a major backlash. She has basically rejected Internet freedom, admitted that collaboration with government to censor content has been occurring, and seemingly embraces relativism over objective truth.

Acknowledging the inherent bias that exists in Wikipedia, Sanger stated, “The fact that certain points of view have been systematically silenced, is nothing new.”

Yet the Maher comments that were recently reported by Rufo appear to have left Sanger seriously befuddled.

“My jaw is on the floor,” he said.

The Wikipedia co-founder indicated that he was previously unaware of “just how radical-sounding Katherine Maher is.”

Wikimedia’s former CEO reportedly said that it was an error for Wikipedia to be “free and open” and also suggested that allowing the site to be managed in this manner has led to bad outcomes.

Maher also acknowledged that she has worked together with governments to suppress what she deems as “misinformation” appearing on the Wikipedia site.

Sanger was quick to remark, “It’s fantastic, in a bad way, that she actually comes out against the system for being ‘free and open.’”

He views her actions in collaborating with government to censor material as completely incongruent with the notion of a free Internet.

“When she says that she’s worked with government to shut down what they consider ‘misinformation,’ that, in itself, means that it’s no longer free and open,” he noted.

He views it as outrageous that the site “has not just been taken over by the Left, but has been co-opted by and working with the government. That’s not a thing I would’ve imagined happening 20 years ago.”

What makes the situation even more untenable is the fact that now Maher is the head of a national broadcasting company that is financed by American taxpayers.

Sanger believes that she should be immediately removed from her position as CEO of NPR.

“If NPR wanted to prove that they were still committed to free speech, to being ideologically neutral, and simply nonpartisan, they would let her go right away,” he said.

He remembers clearly the vision of the web at its inception.

“We didn’t have to have a special vision of a free and open Internet. That was the Internet,” he emphasized.

Those of us who were early Internet adopters believed that freedom would forever be its hallmark.

Sanger said that in those early days “the notion of restrictions on free speech was nowhere to be found.”

He additionally commented that “in the 1990s and 2000s, Democrats and Republicans were competing with each other to demonstrate how much in favor of free speech they were.”

In an attempt to enhance the understanding of the fragile nature of the net, the online founding father drew from his academic background.

“As a philosopher, I knew that this was not automatic, that it could easily change,” he explained, noting that “we could lose these freedoms.”

To paraphrase the words of one of our nation’s eminent founding fathers, it’s a free platform if you don’t bleep it.