At Stanford University the announcement was made that after five years of operation the school was disbanding its research group called the Stanford Internet Observatory. This decision was reached following lawsuits as well as becoming part of the focus of a House subcommittee investigation. After incurring significant legal fees and fears over the exposure this could cause for students the SIO is being shut down.
This was one of numerous such groups that charge themselves with the responsibility of combating what they declare to be misinformation, and what has ultimately led to its demise is the double-edged reality behind far too many of these groups. While the effort to beat back against false claims, narratives, and news items is understandable and even laudable, what also becomes attached inevitably is the desire to shut down free speech. Combating fraudulent stories with the facts is a worthy practice, but there is usually the next step in pushing to silence those deemed improper.
The stated need for these organizations is a desperate desire to address misinformation that races out of control. What the claim does is justify the wealth of groups looking to silence free expression. In the universe of misinformation organizations, there are several layers, sporting dozens of groups that pose a threat to free speech. To go along with independent outfits, such as the newly sprung American Sunlight Project, there are numerous similar groups founded on university campuses, and these are operating under similar frameworks to the fact-checkers at news outlets, of course.
In other words, there is no shortage of outlets targeting what is being said in the public commons. The SIO was similar in its goals, and this caught the attention of the House subcommittee, headed by Jim Jordan. The common trait in these misinformation outlets is that they - by the lone claim of being arbiters of truth - are above criticism. This also means they avoid introspection, and they bristle at any inference that they operate with a level of hostility.
This mindset is seen at the news outlet Platformer which, in covering this story out of Stanford reveals a similar level of bias. It describes the dissolution of the Internet Observatory as part of “a sustained and increasingly successful campaign among Republicans to discredit research institutions and discourage academics from investigating political speech and influence campaigns." There is little effort in looking into the practices of the SIO and seeking out if these investigations were valid. It is all positioned as an affront by dastardly Republicans.
The purpose of the Jim Jordan-led Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is to look into the matter of the state impeding the 1st Amendment rights and liberty of the citizenry. To see the stunted thinking by the writers at Platformer, they have described the House looking into the matter of possible state-sponsored censorship as “Orwellian.”
There is also a lack of insightful thinking from these institutions as well, evidenced in this WaPo piece from last summer on the subcommittee’s focus. After initial outreach to the school, the lawyers and professors at Stanford took action to be sure they were not giving Jordan and his committee grist for their investigations.
After an earlier Jordan letter to Stanford, lawyers at the institution warned researchers to be more thoughtful about what they said in emails. “It makes me more careful in my communications with colleagues and collaborators,” said professor Jeff Hancock, the faculty director of the Stanford Internet Observatory.
Why would there be a need to exercise caution in their correspondence if what they were doing and saying was completely above board and valid work? This thinking that misinformation police are without error and bias is reflected throughout that Washington Post piece as well. Jordan, the Republicans, and any conservatives opposing these research groups, are branded as extremists.
The push caps years of pressure from conservative activists who have harangued such academics online and in person. / The study of online disinformation turned into a political lightning rod, with partisan groups sparring over who determines what is true and what the consequences should be, if any, for those who persistently spread lies. / The deluge of bad information about disinformation researchers’ work also has led to a torrent of digital harassment, threats and smears.
We are now very familiar with the dangers of the dictates from these groups who claim to operate only from a position of rectitude and pose as if their work is unimpeachable. After the proliferation of these outfits over the past six years topics such as masking questions, vaccine efficacy, Corona virus lab origination – and of course the veracity of the Hunter Biden laptop - have been declared topics that were not just fraudulent, but off-limits. These groups have shown their above-reproach reports to be error-prone, and the actions to stifle expression on these topics, and many others deliver results that are (to use a preferred term of theirs) chilling.
Jim Jordan stated pretty clearly what the intent of his committee investigations has been. Looking into the actions and connections of one of the other disinformation investigation outfits he explains the concerns and the need to decouple these groups and the government, in some cases.
In one letter obtained by The Post, Jordan alleges strong ties between the Virality Project and federal government agencies, most notable being the Office of the Surgeon General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The entanglement of Executive Branch agencies, third-party organizations, and technology companies to moderate speech-related content online raises questions about the extent to which these actions affected the civil liberties of American citizens,” Jordan wrote.
Therein lies the threats to our basic rights. If these groups are truly interested in correcting the messaging with facts and showing themselves adroit enough to combat the false information, there should be no complaint. It is when they cross the line into the curtailing of free expression that the problems emerge, and the fact that at the same time they do so with either government assistance, or worse, government direction to do so, it becomes a dark issue.
That these groups and the supporting news outlets do not see a problem with encouraging state-sponsored silencing of citizens turns things far darker.