The Judge and Jury of Content

Why is it that the most dangerous organizations always have the most harmless-sounding names and altruistic missions?

Take The Center for AI Safety…

It’s hard to argue with “safety” right?

The goal of The Center for AI Safety is to keep everyone safe from the dangers of AI. What could be wrong with that? (We explored the true mission of The Center in my June 10 issue of Outer Limits.)

The naming and the language used are always intentional. It’s meant to be something that we wouldn’t object to. Stated goals are always generic and agreeable. They’re designed in such a way that you’d be criticized and shamed for not agreeing with them.

After all, it’s too easy to draw attention with a name like The Center for Centralized Government Control Over AI Development, Economic Deceleration, and AI Doom. While a far more accurate and descriptive name, most rational people would know it was trouble.

This was a similar case with the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO).

The Intermediary

Who could argue with a name like the Stanford Internet Observatory?

With Stanford in the heart of Silicon Valley, and given it was Stanford’s research that contributed to the establishment of the internet itself, it must be a fantastic organization, right?

The Stanford Internet Observatory holds a “Trust & Safety Research” conference annually. And it historically has done a lot of work regarding online child abuse – certainly a worthy focus. All must be well… move along now.

And yet, the SIO – precisely due to its close ties to Silicon Valley and thus internet and social media companies – has been at the center of the largest, most systematic, and most structured censorship machine that the U.S. has ever seen.

I’m sure that many of us have never heard of the SIO. It was intended to be that way.

But make no mistake, whatever the original “altruistic” mission of the SIO was…

The actual actions of the SIO, and those governmental organizations that directed it, were anti-constitutional and a complete violation of our First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech.

Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that the organization was established in 2019, just before the 2020 elections…

And it was rarely ever mentioned by the press in the last five years, despite the SIO’s massive role in policing the internet and social media for mis- and disinformation – determined by the government’s desired narrative.

It was almost forgotten entirely, until a couple of weeks ago, when there was a major shakeup at the SIO.

Through the release of the Twitter files in late 2022 and the subsequent congressional hearings that followed last year, it became known that the goal of the SIO – and two of its key projects – was to suppress information that countered the desired political narrative of those in charge.

Elon Musk, of course, knew that something was seriously wrong before 2022, as many of us did. And he spent $44 billion to acquire Twitter (now X) to get the truth out and restore freedom of speech… at least on one platform.

It was only then that the world discovered how intertwined the web of online censorship was. And as we’ve come to discover since, the SIO was used as an intermediary between government agencies (the White House, FBI, CIA, CDC, NIH, FDA, etc.) and internet/social media companies.

And it was used explicitly to control what information was seen by users.

The SIO’s primary focus over the last five years was on information concerning the 2020 elections… and the pandemic.

This public-private partnership established two projects: the Election Integrity Partnership and the Virality Project, which was related to the pandemic. Notice anything suspicious? Two harmless-sounding names.

Only they weren’t.

Many Said It Was Far-Fetched. Now It’s Proven.

It’s one thing to remove information that is 100% untrue or in violation of the law. It’s another thing to remove factually true information regarding elections, the pandemic, virology, epidemiology, vaccine injuries, and death.

The latter is a horrible violation of freedom of speech. And its an attempt to manipulate and control the way an entire population thinks. And it’s precisely what the SIO did.

Many of us suspected something like this. But it almost seemed too far-fetched to believe.

I know it can be hard to imagine such a systemic government program that violates a fundamental right. Massive online censorship, driven by the U.S. government?

How could the U.S. government, known for being disorganized and inefficient, pull something like this off at such a scale?

We now know that the SIO’s designated “job” was to flag content it – or government agencies that it served – objected to. SIO staff policed content on Twitter, Google, YouTube, Medium, Pinterest, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok.

The Twitter files first revealed that the SIO was very open about its objective to censor and remove content that was known to be true. One of the e-mails from the file revealed the explicit direction given by the SIO Virality Project, shown below. It’s quite unbelievable:

This is just one example – of too many to list – of how it became possible for the U.S. government and its agencies to work through intermediaries like the SIO to censor, ban, shadowban, delist, and suppress opinions, thoughts, and even peer-reviewed scientific research from all of us for such an extended period.

How did they do it?

The answer is simple: technology.

“It Is Our Recommendation…”

The SIO actually used project management software called Jira from tech company Atlassian (TEAM) – a $45 billion tech company out of Australia.

This software was integrated with the internet and social media companies to flag undesirable content and undesirable people, based on their opinions.

Here’s a snapshot of what the system looked like:

One thing to notice is the language. There are a lot of “recommendations” made in these flags.

It was the SIO staff making the recommendations… to internet and social media companies. Were they orders? Not technically. But if we’re content moderators at Facebook, and our boss tells us that she recommends we get something done, what would we think?

What would we do if the FBI “recommends” that some action be taken? What would we understand that to mean if we do not take that action?

Regardless of how we might interpret that, it was clear that these were marching orders. And the latest Supreme Court case Murthy v. Missouri revealed that about 50% of the time, the internet and social media platforms obeyed those “recommendations.”

I’d say that’s a material amount.

Given everything that has come to light, it seems obvious why, as of a few weeks ago, Stanford announced it would be closing down the Stanford Internet Observatory…

Alex Stamos, SIO founding director, already left in November 2023.

Renee DiResta (formerly CIA) left the SIO last month after her contract was not renewed.

Other staff members’ contracts “expired” last month, as well. And sources say others “have been told” to look for jobs elsewhere.

And just like that, one of the most nefarious organizations on the planet was quietly dismantled. It clearly served its purpose for some…

The Battle Isn’t Over

Despite the lack of fanfare, it feels like it should be a massive victory for those who believe in freedom of speech. And it is.

But only one of the internet and social media platforms previously named has re-established itself with unbiased freedom of speech principles, X (formerly known as Twitter). And we have Elon Musk and his team at X to thank for that.

And there was hope that the other social media and internet platforms would be forced to stop violating freedom of speech and actively suppressing information that “they” don’t want us to see. That hope was in the potential outcome of the Supreme Court decision of Murthy v. Missouri.

Sadly, and incredibly, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 last week, stating that “Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.”

Despite the voluminous evidence provided – including direct e-mail communications between government agencies, the White House, the SIO, social media, and internet companies – the Supreme Court took the easy way out and decided that there wasn’t enough proof to hear the case on its merits.

The Court’s argument for “lack of standing” centers around not being able to trace all communications and recommendations from individual government officials to media and internet companies. Of course, that’s the point of having a third-party entity like the Stanford Internet Observatory as an intermediary.

The other argument of the Court anchored on the assumption that the government agencies didn’t demonstrate total control over the media and internet platforms. If only about 50% of all “recommendations” were followed, then it wasn’t complete suppression of freedom of speech, now was it? And therefore they were just recommendations, not mandates.

It doesn’t take too much imagination to see how such a system can be manipulated intentionally to create this impression.

Those who were flagging people and research could simply file extra flags, recommendations, and requests from the government knowing they would be turned down.

It could be an easy tactic to give media and internet companies intentional “recommendations” that can be dismissed exactly for this purpose – to make it appear that they weren’t doing all of the government’s bidding.

The very unfortunate truth is that the Supreme Court’s ruling is a huge loss for those who believe in freedom of speech. And it’s a tacit “approval” for everyone other than X (Twitter) to continue to do what they have been doing.

They know they won’t get in trouble for it. And thanks to Murthy v. Missouri, they now have cover to push their biases and desired narratives.

The battle for freedom of speech isn’t over. Not by a long shot. But we’ll have to look at any content from Google and any social media platform with a very skeptical eye, especially anything that is politicized.

Understanding the company or individual behind information or research, where they get their money or their grants, how they are motivated, and if they have a heavy bias is critical to understanding the trustworthiness of that information. We spend an immense amount of time researching things like this at Brownstone Research, more than ever before.

And just because the SIO has gotten out of the “business” doesn’t mean it’s going to get any easier. Others will pop up in its absence. It’s like a game of Whack-a-Mole.

But for those who care, this battle for freedom of speech will continue.

And for those who believe that a central government should control what we see and what we don’t, I recommend reading or re-reading Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.

Regards,

Jeff Brown
Editor, The Bleeding Edge