Disqus Protects Its Corporate Skin!

Does this open doors for smalller size companies?

The screenshot is from the comment section in a Letter to The Editor titled **Why we protest in my local newspaper, which is remarkably fair and even-handed about its role as the fourth estate. The response is by a member of our local MAGA cult who does not understand the context. He confuses the Disqus moderator with Kevin, who is the Editor of my local newspaper. From the policies being instituted by Disqus, the Letter would not be published, but Disqus does not have policy control over the publisher of the Newspaper. If it did, Joe Gelarden, a regular columnist at the newspaper, would not be allowed to say what he says** in the column that just came out today. The comment to Joe’s article is typical of comments that are not subject to censorship by Disqus.

The Disqus moderator is employed by Disqus, Inc., a separate company, with its own policies and very different characteristics. Disqus is a large national company that moderates speech in the comments section of many newspapers across the USA. It is easy to see that the Trump admin would want to maintain strong control over a national company dealing with public discourse. It is how the Trump admin will “moderate” free speech in the USA,

Mackenzie Andersen’s The Individual vs The Empire! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Disqus might be choosing to protect its own skin over protecting free speech, but how will that ultimately play out for a company that moderates speech in the comments sections of many different venues across the USA? Right now, Disqus appears to have a monopoly in its field, but will competition to Disqus appear that is unafraid to protect free speech?

The only viable alternative is not another large company, but many small companies that are harder to track. A small local newspaper using a small comment-moderating company is more likely to be under the radar.

I am in Maine, the Trump regime’s latest target.

The U.S. Attorney Andrew Benson for the District of Maine issued a similar warning to that issued by Disqus, addressing the protesters in Maine, who have been protesting peacefully.

U.S. Attorney Andrew Benson for the District of Maine was nominated by President Donald Trump and appointed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi in late 2025, serving as an interim U.S. Attorney pending Senate confirmation.

The restrictions on ICE imposed by U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez on January 16–17, 2026, apply specifically to the ongoing ICE operations in Minnesota, not the entire country.

The order bans federal agents from using chemical irritants (tear gas, pepper spray) against, or arresting, individuals who are peacefully protesting or observing the federal operations.

If I posted this in the comments of my local newspaper, Disqus would likely remove the comment as it did when I responded to a claim that Renee Good rammed the ICE agents with her car:

NOT REMOVED:

Share

The Maine Legislature enacted **LD 1971**, An Act to Protect Workers by Clarifying the Relationship of State & Local Law Enforcement with Federal Immigration Authorities

This is a confrontation between state sovereignty and central management by the federal government. My experience with the local MAGA cult that already dominates in the comments is that they believe the USA is a hierarchical system controlled from the top down by the federal administration, but actually, the USA is a heterarchical system in which states have sovereignty and the powers of the federal government are restricted.