In the Capitol and in courts, Republican lawmakers and activists have denounced universities, think tanks, and private companies that study the spread of disinformation, accusing them of colluding with governments to suppress conservative speech online. We are running a legal campaign.
The effort has plagued targets with extensive information requests and, in some cases, subpoenas dating back to 2015, asking for memos, emails, and other information related to social media companies and governments. Compliance takes time and resources and is already impacting groups. It has the ability to conduct research and raise funds, according to multiple sources.
They and others believe that this campaign will undermine the fight against disinformation in American society at a time when, by most accounts, the problem of disinformation is on the rise and the next presidential election is on the horizon. warned that. Many of those who support the Republican effort, along with former President Donald J. Trump, falsely challenged the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Jameel Jafar, executive director of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, which works to protect free speech and the press, said, “It’s clearly cynical, and you could say it’s pretty partisan, but it’s not the kind of research that’s going to do it.” I think it’s an attempt to cool off,” he said.
The House Judiciary Committee, which came under Republican control in January, sent researchers dozens of letters and subpoenas, only a few of which have been made public. It threatens legal action against those who do not respond quickly or adequately.
A conservative advocacy group led by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller filed a class action lawsuit in Louisiana District Court last month that echoes many of the commission’s allegations and focuses on some of the same defendants. is guessing
Targets include Stanford University, Clemson University, New York University, and the University of Washington. The Atlantic Council, the German Marshall Foundation, and the National Citizens Congress are all bipartisan non-governmental organizations in Washington. Wikimedia Foundation of San Francisco. And Graphika is a company that studies online disinformation.
In a related investigation, the Commission also issued subpoenas to the industry association, the Global Federation of Advertisers, and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media established by the Commission. Republican leaders on the commission have accused the group of violating antitrust laws by conspiring to cut off advertising revenue for content researchers and tech companies deemed harmful.
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, chairman of the committee and a close ally of Mr. Trump, criticized the issues that fueled the Republican Party: policy and national integrity around the COVID-19 pandemic. He accused the organizations of conducting “disgraceful censorship of speech” on such issues. The American political system, including the results of the 2020 election.
Much of the disinformation on both issues comes from the right. Many Republicans believe disinformation researchers have put pressure on social media platforms to discriminate against conservative voices.
These complaints are further fueled by Twitter’s decision to release some internal communications between government officials and Twitter employees under new owner Elon Musk. According to the communication, government officials have asked Twitter to take action against accounts that spread disinformation, but it fell short of ordering action, as some critics claimed. rice field.
Clemson University associate professor Patrick L. Warren said Clemson researchers provided documents to the committee and made a short presentation to some staff members. “I think most of this issue was facilitated by our appearance on the Twitter files, which gave people a pretty distorted sense of our mission and work,” he said. Told.
Last year, Republican attorneys general for Missouri and Louisiana brought the Biden administration to Louisiana district court, accusing government officials of effectively coaxing or coercing Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms by threatening law changes. Appealed. Judge Terry A. Doughty rejected the defense’s motion to dismiss the case in March.
The focus of the current campaign is not on government officials, but on civilians working in universities and non-governmental organizations. They have their own First Amendment guarantees of free speech, including dealing with social media companies.
America First Legal, the group behind the class action lawsuit, has named two defendants, Stanford Internet Observatory researchers Alex Stamos and Renee DiResta. Kate Starbird, University of Washington professor. Graphica executive, Camille François. and Graham Brookie, senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab.
If the case progresses, it could face a trial, and if the charges are successful, it could also lead to a civil damages claim.
Miller, president of America First Legal, did not respond to a request for comment. In a statement last month, he said the lawsuit “strikes at the heart of the censorship and industrial complex.”
The researchers, whose e-mails and other records have been sought by House committees, are also defendants in lawsuits filed by the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana. Plaintiffs also include Jill Hines, director of the Louisiana Health Freedom Organization. accused of false information, Jim Hoft, founder of the right-wing news site Gateway Pandit. The Court of the Western District of Louisiana, under Judge Doughty, favorite venue For legal challenges to the Biden administration.
Jeff Hancock, founding director of the Stanford Social Media Lab, said the attack used “the same argument that starts with a false premise” but did not involve legal action. . “We see this in the media, in congressional committees, in lawsuits, but it’s the same central argument, with the false premise that the government is giving some direction to our research.”
The House Judiciary Committee focused much of its inquiry on two joint projects. One, Stanford University and the University of Washington, before the 2020 election, to identify attempts to “suppress votes, reduce attendance, confuse voters, and outlaw election results without evidence.” Formed Election Integrity Partnership. The other, also organized by Stanford University, called the “Virality Project,” focused on spreading disinformation about the coronavirus vaccine.
Both subjects have become political lightning rods, subjecting researchers to online partisan attacks and, at times, eerily personal.
In the case of the Stanford University Internet Observatory, requests for information, including any emails, extended to students who volunteered to work as interns. electoral integrity partnership.
A central premise of the Commission’s investigation, and other censorship complaints, is that researchers and government officials had the power or ability to shut down accounts on social media. Former employees of Twitter and Meta, which own Facebook and Instagram, said the decision to punish users who violated platform rules belonged solely to them, and they did not.
Even though the group has issued warnings about questionable content, there is no evidence that government officials have compelled companies to take action against their accounts.
“Not only do we have the academic freedom to conduct this research as researchers, but we also have the freedom of speech to direct Twitter and other companies to investigate tweets that we believe violate their rules,” Hancock said. said Mr.
Universities and research institutes have tried to comply with the committee’s requests, but years of collecting emails has been a time-consuming task, partly because of privacy concerns. They face mounting legal costs and questions from board members and donors about the risks posed by disinformation research. Online attacks can also demoralize and in some cases frighten students away.
In May, the committee’s chairman, Jordan, previously accused Stanford University of law, even as the university’s attorneys continued to negotiate with the committee’s attorneys about how to protect student privacy. threatened unspecified legal action for not complying with a subpoena issued to (Some of the students who volunteered were identified in the America First Court case.)
The commission declined to provide details of the investigation, including how many requests or subpoenas it had filed in total. It also did not disclose how the investigation is expected to develop, whether there will be a final report or criminal referral, and if so, when. But that statement seems to have already reached a broad conclusion.
“Twitter files and information from private lawsuits show how the federal government worked with social media companies and other groups to silence adverse speech online,” spokesman Russell Dye said in a statement. ‘ said. “The Commission is working hard to get to the bottom of this censorship to protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans.”
The partisan debate has affected not only researchers but also social media giants.
Under Musk, Twitter has focused on lifting restrictions and restoring suspended accounts, including Gateway Fundit. YouTube recently announced It said it would no longer ban videos promoting “false claims that widespread fraud, error or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past U.S. presidential elections.”
