‘A deranged ploy’: how Republicans are fueling the disinformation wars

[aubiefifty 18,259]

 

yahoo.com

 

‘A deranged ploy’: how Republicans are fueling the disinformation wars

Nick Robins-Early

8–10 minutes

---

 

Photograph: José Luis Magaña/AP

 

A federal judge in Louisiana ruled last week that a wide range of Biden administration officials could not communicate with social media companies about content moderation issues, and in a lengthy opinion described the White House’s outreach to platforms as “almost dystopian” and reminiscent of “an Orwellian ministry of truth”.

The ruling, which was delivered by the Trump-appointed judge Terry Doughty, was a significant milestone in a case that Republicans have pushed as proof that the Biden administration is attempting to silence conservative voices. It is also the latest in a wider rightwing campaign to weaken attempts at stopping false information and conspiracy theories from proliferating online, one that has included framing disinformation researchers and their efforts as part of a wide-reaching censorship regime.

Related: The Age of Insurrection review: how the far right rose – and found Trump

Republican attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana have sued Biden administration officials, the GOP-controlled House judiciary committee has demanded extensive documents from researchers studying disinformation, and rightwing media has attacked academics and officials who monitor social media platforms. Many of the researchers involved have faced significant harassment, leading to fears of a chilling effect on speaking out against disinformation ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

The Republican pushback against anti-disinformation campaigns has existed for years, alleging that content moderation on major platforms has unfairly targeted conservative voices. Many tech platforms have instituted policies against misinformation or hateful speech that have resulted in content such as election denial, anti-vaccine falsehoods and far-right conspiracy theories being removed – all which tend to skew Republican. But research has found that allegations of anti-conservative bias at social media companies have little empirical evidence, with a 2021 New York University study showing that these platforms’ algorithms instead often work to amplify rightwing content.

The rightwing narrative of tech platform censorship persisted, however, intensifying as companies prohibited medical misinformation about Covid-19. It gained additional momentum last year after the Department of Homeland Security rolled out a disinformation governance board aimed at researching ways to stop malicious online influence campaigns and harmful misinformation. Republican politicians and rightwing media immediately seized on the board as proof of a leftist authoritarian plot.

Fox News hosts specifically singled out researcher Nina Jankowicz, who was tapped to be the board’s executive director, and ran numerous segments viciously mocking her. A year-long harassment campaign followed, leading to Jankowicz receiving death threats, having deepfake pornography made of her and seeing her personal information released online against her will.

The disinformation governance board suspended its operations only a month after its debut, in what Jankowicz told the Guardian earlier this week was the start of a larger rightwing campaign aimed at rolling back checks on disinformation. “They got a win in shutting us down, so why would they stop there?” said Jankowicz, who was originally named in the Louisiana lawsuit but removed on account of no longer being a government official.

The GOP takes aim at researchers

In addition to the lawsuit in Louisiana, Republicans have put pressure on researchers through a House select subcommittee investigation that launched in January and claims it will look into the “weaponization of the federal government”. House judiciary committee chair Jim Jordan earlier this year issued a wide-ranging request for information and documents to multiple universities with programs aimed at researching disinformation, and has so far sent dozens of subpoenas.

Among the institutions and officials that Jordan requested emails and documents from were the Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public and the nonprofit Election Integrity Partnership. Jordan last month threatened Stanford University with legal action if it did not turn over additional records. (Stanford released communications with government officials but did not send some internal records, including ones that involved students, the university told the Washington Post.)

The Stanford Internet Observatory, the Center for an Informed Public and the Election Integrity Partnership did not return requests for comment.

Democratic representatives decried the committee’a activities as an attempts to harangue researchers and institutions that its members viewed as political enemies, likening it to McCarthyism and the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

This committee is nothing more than a deranged ploy by the Maga extremists who have hijacked the Republican party

Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts

“This committee is nothing more than a deranged ploy by the Maga extremists who have hijacked the Republican party and now want to use taxpayer money to push their far-right conspiracy nonsense,” Jim McGovern, a Democratic representative from Massachusetts, said during the formation of the committee.

The committee has struggled to be seen as legitimate, with a Washington Post-ABC News poll released in February showing that a majority of Americans view it as a partisan attempt to score political points. But it has nonetheless put pressure on academic institutions and emboldened attacks against researchers, including University of Washington disinformation expert Kate Starbird, who told the Washington Post that she has faced political intimidation and cut back on public engagement.

Starbird and other researchers are directly named in the Louisiana lawsuit for their role as advisers to a now-disbanded Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency subcommittee on disinformation. Starbird, who did not return a request for comment, has previously stated that the Republican-led lawsuit egregiously misrepresents her work.

The Louisiana lawsuit

Republicans filed the lawsuit against Biden last year, and were joined by other plaintiffs that included the conspiracy site the Gateway Pundit and a Louisiana group opposed to vaccine mandates.

The case was notably filed in a Louisiana district court where Judge Terry Doughty presides. Doughty, who was appointed by Trump and previously ruled against Biden administration mask and vaccine mandates, is a jurist Republicans specifically seek out when shopping for a favorable forum. He has overseen more multistate challenges to the Biden administration than any other judge, Bloomberg Law reported, despite previously being a little-known justice based in a small city of less than 50,000 people.

Legal experts questioned Doughty’s injunction against the Biden administration this week, the Associated Press reported, saying that the wide scope of the ruling meant that public health officials could be prevented from sharing their expertise. Meanwhile, disinformation researchers have stated that Republican efforts to push back against content moderation and safeguards against misinformation threaten to open the floodgates for conspiracy theories and falsehoods ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Amid the rightwing campaign against content moderation and disinformation researchers, numerous social media platforms have also been peeling back restrictions. Twitter under Elon Musk, who last year engineered the release of some internal communications between Twitter and government officials, has hollowed out its content moderation teams. Meanwhile, YouTube has reversed a policy banning election denialism and Instagram allowed prominent anti-vaccine activist Robert F Kennedy Jr back on the platform.

The Biden administration stated this week that it objected to Doughty’s injunction in the Louisiana case, and would be considering its options. The justice department is seeking to appeal the ruling.

[KansasTiger 3,261]

20 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

 

yahoo.com

 

‘A deranged ploy’: how Republicans are fueling the disinformation wars

Nick Robins-Early

8–10 minutes

---

 

Photograph: José Luis Magaña/AP

 

A federal judge in Louisiana ruled last week that a wide range of Biden administration officials could not communicate with social media companies about content moderation issues, and in a lengthy opinion described the White House’s outreach to platforms as “almost dystopian” and reminiscent of “an Orwellian ministry of truth”.

The ruling, which was delivered by the Trump-appointed judge Terry Doughty, was a significant milestone in a case that Republicans have pushed as proof that the Biden administration is attempting to silence conservative voices. It is also the latest in a wider rightwing campaign to weaken attempts at stopping false information and conspiracy theories from proliferating online, one that has included framing disinformation researchers and their efforts as part of a wide-reaching censorship regime.

Related: The Age of Insurrection review: how the far right rose – and found Trump

Republican attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana have sued Biden administration officials, the GOP-controlled House judiciary committee has demanded extensive documents from researchers studying disinformation, and rightwing media has attacked academics and officials who monitor social media platforms. Many of the researchers involved have faced significant harassment, leading to fears of a chilling effect on speaking out against disinformation ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

The Republican pushback against anti-disinformation campaigns has existed for years, alleging that content moderation on major platforms has unfairly targeted conservative voices. Many tech platforms have instituted policies against misinformation or hateful speech that have resulted in content such as election denial, anti-vaccine falsehoods and far-right conspiracy theories being removed – all which tend to skew Republican. But research has found that allegations of anti-conservative bias at social media companies have little empirical evidence, with a 2021 New York University study showing that these platforms’ algorithms instead often work to amplify rightwing content.

The rightwing narrative of tech platform censorship persisted, however, intensifying as companies prohibited medical misinformation about Covid-19. It gained additional momentum last year after the Department of Homeland Security rolled out a disinformation governance board aimed at researching ways to stop malicious online influence campaigns and harmful misinformation. Republican politicians and rightwing media immediately seized on the board as proof of a leftist authoritarian plot.

Fox News hosts specifically singled out researcher Nina Jankowicz, who was tapped to be the board’s executive director, and ran numerous segments viciously mocking her. A year-long harassment campaign followed, leading to Jankowicz receiving death threats, having deepfake pornography made of her and seeing her personal information released online against her will.

The disinformation governance board suspended its operations only a month after its debut, in what Jankowicz told the Guardian earlier this week was the start of a larger rightwing campaign aimed at rolling back checks on disinformation. “They got a win in shutting us down, so why would they stop there?” said Jankowicz, who was originally named in the Louisiana lawsuit but removed on account of no longer being a government official.

The GOP takes aim at researchers

In addition to the lawsuit in Louisiana, Republicans have put pressure on researchers through a House select subcommittee investigation that launched in January and claims it will look into the “weaponization of the federal government”. House judiciary committee chair Jim Jordan earlier this year issued a wide-ranging request for information and documents to multiple universities with programs aimed at researching disinformation, and has so far sent dozens of subpoenas.

Among the institutions and officials that Jordan requested emails and documents from were the Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public and the nonprofit Election Integrity Partnership. Jordan last month threatened Stanford University with legal action if it did not turn over additional records. (Stanford released communications with government officials but did not send some internal records, including ones that involved students, the university told the Washington Post.)

The Stanford Internet Observatory, the Center for an Informed Public and the Election Integrity Partnership did not return requests for comment.

Democratic representatives decried the committee’a activities as an attempts to harangue researchers and institutions that its members viewed as political enemies, likening it to McCarthyism and the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

This committee is nothing more than a deranged ploy by the Maga extremists who have hijacked the Republican party

Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts

“This committee is nothing more than a deranged ploy by the Maga extremists who have hijacked the Republican party and now want to use taxpayer money to push their far-right conspiracy nonsense,” Jim McGovern, a Democratic representative from Massachusetts, said during the formation of the committee.

The committee has struggled to be seen as legitimate, with a Washington Post-ABC News poll released in February showing that a majority of Americans view it as a partisan attempt to score political points. But it has nonetheless put pressure on academic institutions and emboldened attacks against researchers, including University of Washington disinformation expert Kate Starbird, who told the Washington Post that she has faced political intimidation and cut back on public engagement.

Starbird and other researchers are directly named in the Louisiana lawsuit for their role as advisers to a now-disbanded Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency subcommittee on disinformation. Starbird, who did not return a request for comment, has previously stated that the Republican-led lawsuit egregiously misrepresents her work.

The Louisiana lawsuit

Republicans filed the lawsuit against Biden last year, and were joined by other plaintiffs that included the conspiracy site the Gateway Pundit and a Louisiana group opposed to vaccine mandates.

The case was notably filed in a Louisiana district court where Judge Terry Doughty presides. Doughty, who was appointed by Trump and previously ruled against Biden administration mask and vaccine mandates, is a jurist Republicans specifically seek out when shopping for a favorable forum. He has overseen more multistate challenges to the Biden administration than any other judge, Bloomberg Law reported, despite previously being a little-known justice based in a small city of less than 50,000 people.

Legal experts questioned Doughty’s injunction against the Biden administration this week, the Associated Press reported, saying that the wide scope of the ruling meant that public health officials could be prevented from sharing their expertise. Meanwhile, disinformation researchers have stated that Republican efforts to push back against content moderation and safeguards against misinformation threaten to open the floodgates for conspiracy theories and falsehoods ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Amid the rightwing campaign against content moderation and disinformation researchers, numerous social media platforms have also been peeling back restrictions. Twitter under Elon Musk, who last year engineered the release of some internal communications between Twitter and government officials, has hollowed out its content moderation teams. Meanwhile, YouTube has reversed a policy banning election denialism and Instagram allowed prominent anti-vaccine activist Robert F Kennedy Jr back on the platform.

The Biden administration stated this week that it objected to Doughty’s injunction in the Louisiana case, and would be considering its options. The justice department is seeking to appeal the ruling.

Hot garbage. Misinformation exists. The regulation of it, especially before all the facts are known, is nothing but controlling the narrative. COVID lab leak was once misinformation and is now credible. Hunter biden's laptop was disinformation and is now proven. COVID lockdowns being ineffective and doing more damage than good was misinformation and is now widely accepted. I could keep going. Would we even know about ANY of these things if we didn't have people calling it out? 

We should all be against the govt having the ability to censor its people and control free speech, no matter what. It blows my mind people are actually rooting for the govt here, just because it might silence your critics? Any power you give them can and will eventually be used against you.

[auburnatl1 6,182]

Great time to be a lawyer

[KansasTiger 3,261]

[AU9377 6,037]

50 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

I used to agree with this completely.  However, there once was a thing we could rely on that is sorely missing in many circles today.  That thing is honor.  Too many people today justify misinformation as a means to an end.  There is still a difference between something being factually accurate and it being a lie.  As long as people justify lies to support what they incorrectly believe, finding a consensus will be impossible.

I hear that "everybody does it", but what I see is one group making the practice mainstream.  When you see arguments based on nothing more than supposition and conclusions made without any proof necessary, there is a problem.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

53 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Many aren't intelligent enough to understand the meaning and, implications of a rapidly spreading novel virus, including doctors.

Spreading misinformation is propagating stupidity.

[KansasTiger 3,261]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I used to agree with this completely.  However, there once was a thing we could rely on that is sorely missing in many circles today.  That thing is honor.  Too many people today justify misinformation as a means to an end.  There is still a difference between something being factually accurate and it being a lie.  As long as people justify lies to support what they incorrectly believe, finding a consensus will be impossible.

I hear that "everybody does it", but what I see is one group making the practice mainstream.  When you see arguments based on nothing more than supposition and conclusions made without any proof necessary, there is a problem.

This response has little to do with what I posted. I dont even know where you got 'everybody does it' from my posts. MSM has turned lying and narrative control into mainstream, and then people wonder why alternate information sources pop up? To you, factually accurate is what MSM tells you it is, until that magically changes a year later when it turns out they were wrong. Yet despite this happening MANY times, we're still that crazy ones lying to everyone with misinformation and everyone else ignores how many times MSM has lied to us all with no repercussions.

At the very least this should point out the need to take all information sources into account. Not silence all but the approved message.

[TexasTiger 14,310]

1 hour ago, KansasTiger said:

Overly simplistic to the point of stupidity.

[aubaseball 2,829]

11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Overly simplistic to the point of stupidity.

Of course it is in your eyes.   You’re the one for censorship of the people that are against how you think.   The simplicity of it is what makes it that much more believable.   

[Gowebb11 9,882]

2 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

We should all be against the govt having the ability to censor its people and control free speech, no matter what. It blows my mind people are actually rooting for the govt here, just because it might silence your critics? Any power you give them can and will eventually be used against you.

That’s why the book banning is always a scary thing. 

[Gowebb11 9,882]

30 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

MSM

What sources does the MSM consists of? A lot of people throw that term around but no one seems to be able to define it well. 

[KansasTiger 3,261]

11 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

That’s why the book banning is always a scary thing. 

I'd caveat this. Book banning and selective access so kids can't see graphic porn in schools is two different things. Sell the books all you want for all I care. Don't put then in my kids' school library. That's not book banning.

Edited July 10, 2023 by KansasTiger

[Gowebb11 9,882]

Just now, KansasTiger said:

I'd caveat this. Book banning and selective access so kids can't see graphic porn in schools is two different things. Sell the books all you want for all I care. Don't out then in my kids' school library. That's not book banning.

My point is made. It’s not banning, but it is censorship. Dangerous Government censorship to one is sensible control for others. It becomes very complex but we are way too polarized to see it. To the original topic article, the media’s job used to be to report what happened. Then they morphed into 24/7 agenda driven preachers. That’s the origin of the misinformation. 

[jj3jordan 2,171]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

I used to agree with this completely.  However, there once was a thing we could rely on that is sorely missing in many circles today.  That thing is honor.  Too many people today justify misinformation as a means to an end.  There is still a difference between something being factually accurate and it being a lie.  As long as people justify lies to support what they incorrectly believe, finding a consensus will be impossible.

I hear that "everybody does it", but what I see is one group making the practice mainstream.  When you see arguments based on nothing more than supposition and conclusions made without any proof necessary, there is a problem.

At least you recognize the primary tactic of liberals and democrats. Welcome to the fold.

[KansasTiger 3,261]

Just now, Gowebb11 said:

What sources does the MSM consists of? A lot of people throw that term around but no one seems to be able to define it well. 

Usually they circular quote themselves if you dig into it. NYT quotes Time, who quoted WAPO, and by the time you track down the original source you're in the footnotes of some random publication you've never heard of. I did the trace for when they cited the COVID lab leak was debunked a year or more ago. It went through like 6 msm sources referencing one another and landed in some nature science magazine footnote. 

That or they cite their favorite 'anonymous sources familiar with the situation'. Which I'm half convinced is just their way of making up stuff.

If you go deeper, I think alot of their sources are strategic leaks from the WH, CIA, FBI, or state dept. It's a known fact that most of the media has active agents working in their organizations. That combined with the Smith mundt modernization act allows three letter agencies and the state dept to distribute propaganda through these MSM organizations using their agents working within them.

[KansasTiger 3,261]

33 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

My point is made. It’s not banning, but it is censorship. Dangerous Government censorship to one is sensible control for others. It becomes very complex but we are way too polarized to see it. To the original topic article, the media’s job used to be to report what happened. Then they morphed into 24/7 agenda driven preachers. That’s the origin of the misinformation. 

This argument is like the libertarian argument that the second amendment should allow private citizens access to machine guns, RPGs and nukes. Kids don't need access to porn in their school. They can access it with their parents help outside of school grounds if they and their parents really want to. Now if we are talking about LGBT books without sexually explicit details in it, that's a different story.

This article is about shutting down the discussion of dissenting thought on social media. It's different than restricting sexual material for minors. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by KansasTiger

[AuCivilEng1 12,204]

https://pen.org/report/banned-in-the-usa-state-laws-supercharge-book-suppression-in-schools/

This is an interesting find on the book banning question. Banning porn in schools is a no brainer. I think we can pretty much all agree on that. But 1. Who is defining porn? And 2. There are 100's of books that are getting banned, just for mentioning LGBT relationships, which isn't porn. Also, they seem to be trying to slowly erase any access that children may have to America's history with slavery and racism, which there is absolutely no reason to do.

Also, one may argue that exposing children to literature that speaks about abuse and literature that improves sex education, in a professional and clinical way, will help children better recognize abuse in their lives, while they grow up. Of course there is an age that becomes appropriate. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by AuCivilEng1

[Gowebb11 9,882]

17 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

This argument is like the libertarian argument that the second amendment should allow private citizens access to machine guns, RPGs and nukes. Kids don't need access to porn in their school. They can access it with their parents help outside of school grounds if they and their parents really want to. Now if we are talking about LGBT books without sexually explicit details in it, that's a different story.

This article is about shutting down the discussion of dissenting thought on social media. It's different than restricting sexual material for minors. 

Let me be clear that I have never and will never advocate inappropriate material to be accessible to children. Or nukes in the hands of citizens. I was pointing out that you made the comment we should all be against government having the power to censor the people, and finished with ‘no matter what’. I work in the health field and know for a fact that when science is misrepresented in the press it can have terrible consequences. It is a slippery slope on now much is too much, but there are cases where people pedaling misinformation need to be held accountable. 

[KansasTiger 3,261]

1 minute ago, Gowebb11 said:

Let me be clear that I have never and will never advocate inappropriate material to be accessible to children. Or nukes in the hands of citizens. I was pointing out that you made the comment we should all be against government having the power to censor the people, and finished with ‘no matter what’. I work in the health field and know for a fact that when science is misrepresented in the press it can have terrible consequences. It is a slippery slope on now much is too much, but there are cases where people pedaling misinformation need to be held accountable. 

That's tricky. And requires lots of faith in whoever is labeling things as misinformation. Otherwise it just comes across as silencing dissenting opinions. COVID personally destroyed many people's faith in the health care system. We saw experts lie about lockdowns, lie about death rates, lie about vaccine effectiveness, lie about the safety of drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloriquin (not effectiveness against COVID), and so on. That could be forgiven in most circumstances due to the highly changing and evolving nature of pandemics, like maybe they weren't 100% sure. But they came down so hard with the misinformation hammer for anyone that disagreed that many people saw their credibility crumble.

[Gowebb11 9,882]

35 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Usually they circular quote themselves if you dig into it. NYT quotes Time, who quoted WAPO, and by the time you track down the original source you're in the footnotes of some random publication you've never heard of. I did the trace for when they cited the COVID lab leak was debunked a year or more ago. It went through like 6 msm sources referencing one another and landed in some nature science magazine footnote. 

That or they cite their favorite 'anonymous sources familiar with the situation'. Which I'm half convinced is just their way of making up stuff.

If you go deeper, I think alot of their sources are strategic leaks from the WH, CIA, FBI, or state dept. It's a known fact that most of the media has active agents working in their organizations. That combined with the Smith mundt modernization act allows three letter agencies and the state dept to distribute propaganda through these MSM organizations using their agents working within them.

I ask that question because the number one name in news right now is Fox. They dominate on air, digitally, and radio but they still refer to all the others as MSM. I consider all of the major networks as the MSM; Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, etc… Unfortunately I think they’ve all became surrogates for their respective political parties and entertainment mediums. It’s hard to find good news anywhere. 

[TexasTiger 14,310]

1 hour ago, aubaseball said:

Of course it is in your eyes.   You’re the one for censorship of the people that are against how you think.   The simplicity of it is what makes it that much more believable.   

Got a link that shows me advocating this? Or just more moronic ranting from you?

[KansasTiger 3,261]

3 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

I ask that question because the number one name in news right now is Fox. They dominate on air, digitally, and radio but they still refer to all the others as MSM. I consider all of the major networks as the MSM; Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, etc… Unfortunately I think they’ve all became surrogates for their respective political parties and entertainment mediums. It’s hard to find good news anywhere. 

You certainly won't find it on Fox. It's as MSM as the rest.

[Gowebb11 9,882]

1 minute ago, KansasTiger said:

That's tricky. And requires lots of faith in whoever is labeling things as misinformation.

And that is the issue. We are polarized to the point that truth to you is misinformation to me and vice versa. I know people who only watch one news network or follow one show host and believe everything they say. Independent reading and thinking has gone out the window. 

[AU9377 6,037]

2 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

I'd caveat this. Book banning and selective access so kids can't see graphic porn in schools is two different things. Sell the books all you want for all I care. Don't put then in my kids' school library. That's not book banning.

I  have never seen a library or met a librarian that promoted having graphic porn in schools.

[AU9377 6,037]

Misinformation, at its core, is the fault of the American public that is so eager to buy self affirming nonsense that many are so willing to sell.  That is different from opinion driven programming.  I have no issue with people looking at the same set of facts and concluding different paths as being the best way to proceed.  The danger comes about when some entity, like Fox, reports something like an election being stolen, although they knew that nothing of the sort had occurred.  That kind of purposeful misrepresentation is powerful enough to destroy everything.