Outsourced censorship: Feds used private entity to target millions of social posts

Senile Biden administration gave millions in tax dollars to groups after election, records show. Election Integrity Partnership says it had 35% success rate getting tech platforms to label, remove or restrict content.

A consortium of four private groups worked with the departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and State to censor massive numbers of social media posts they considered misinformation during the 2020 election, and its members then got rewarded with millions of federal dollars from the Biden administration afterwards, according to interviews and documents obtained by Just the News.

The Election Integrity Partnership is back in action again for the 2022 midterm elections, raising concerns among civil libertarians that a chilling new form of public-private partnership to evade the First Amendment's prohibition of government censorship may be expanding.

The consortium is comprised of four member organizations: Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), the University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, and social media analytics firm Graphika. It set up a concierge-like service in 2020 that allowed federal agencies like Homeland's Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and State's Global Engagement Center to file "tickets" requesting that online story links and social media posts be censored or flagged by Big Tech.

Three liberal groups — the Democratic National Committee, Common Cause and the NAACP — were also empowered like the federal agencies to file tickets seeking censorship of content. A Homeland-funded collaboration, the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, also had access.

In its own after-action report on the 2020 election, the consortium boasted it flagged more than 4,800 URLs — shared nearly 22 million times on Twitter alone — for social media platforms. Their staff worked 12-20 hour shifts from September through mid-November 2020, with "monitoring intensif[ying] significantly" the week before and after Election Day.

The tickets sought removal, throttling and labeling of content that raised questions about mail-in ballot integrity, Arizona's "Sharpiegate," and other election integrity issues of concern to conservatives.

The consortium achieved a success rate in 2020 that would be enviable for baseball batters: Platforms took action on 35% of flagged URLs, with 21% labeled, 13% removed and 1% soft-blocked, meaning users had to reject a warning to see them. The partnership couldn't determine how many were downranked.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any laws that abridge free speech, and courts have ruled that prohibition extends to federal agencies funded by the legislative branch. Participants were acutely aware that federal agencies' role in the effort strayed into uncharted legal territory.

For instance, SIO's Renee DiResta said in a CISA Cybersecurity Summit video in 2021 that the operation faced "unclear legal authorities" and "very real First Amendment questions." She joined SIO from a firm exposed by The New York Times for creating "a 'false flag' operation" against Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore.
.
.
.
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, called the revelations "stunning" and said the 2020 operation amounted to the federal government sanctioning and outsourcing censorship.

"The government knows that they cannot do it by themselves because of the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits it," Clyde told the "Just the News, Not Noise" television show. "And then they decide to partner with another entity, a private entity. a social media platform or university.

"And then they say, 'Hey, we're going to feed you information that we think is disinformation, or we want to be disinformation. And then you go ahead and you do the de-platforming. You label it as misinformation, or disinformation.'"

https://justthenews.com/government/f...-2020-election

Senile Biden's Enemies list? His Fed-backed censorship machine targeted 20 news sites

Just the News, New York Post, Fox News, Epoch Times and Breitbart were identified among the "most prominent domains" whose election coverage was cited in tweets flagged by the Election Integrity Partnership and its libtard collaborators.

https://justthenews.com/accountabili...ship-stamp-out

Great source.

Senile Biden's Enemies list? His Fed-backed censorship machine targeted 20 news sites

Just the News, New York Post, Fox News, Epoch Times and Breitbart were identified among the "most prominent domains" whose election coverage was cited in tweets flagged by the Election Integrity Partnership and its libtard collaborators.

https://justthenews.com/accountabili...ship-stamp-out Originally Posted by berryberry

Far-right bullshit news sources. They are completely lacking in truthfulness and integrity. Yet tRumptards and the mega-maggots get there news sources from here. No wonder they are so misinformed. So it's calling out the news sources for what they are... total bullshit.

Senile Biden's Enemies list? His Fed-backed censorship machine targeted 20 news sites

Just the News, New York Post, Fox News, Epoch Times and Breitbart were identified among the "most prominent domains" whose election coverage was cited in tweets flagged by the Election Integrity Partnership and its libtard collaborators.

https://justthenews.com/accountabili...ship-stamp-out Originally Posted by berryberry

Far-right bullshit news sources. They are completely lacking in truthfulness and integrity. Yet tRumptards and the mega-maggots get there news sources from here. No wonder they are so misinformed. So it's calling out the news sources for what they are... total bullshit.

Hooray for censorship!!! Authoritarianism is great! Stamp out all news sources I don't like!!!

So rmg_35... we'll put you down in favor of govt censorship... by outsourcing the dirty work to Big Tech!

And we'll also put you down in favor of using taxpayer dollars to fund and reward those unbiased guardians of truth who carry out the censorship!

As long as the left is in charge, no worries about violating anyone's First Amendment rights, eh? The First Amendment doesn't apply to people you disagree with, right?

Hmmm... I wonder how much of my taxes went to pay off those 50-odd current and former US intelligence officers who warned us that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation? Just in time to suppress the truth and keep it from swaying voters in the 2020 election!

In your opinion... were they shameless liars or proud patriots?

Please explain, rmg_35!

Hooray for censorship!!! Authoritarianism is great! Stamp out all news sources I don't like!!! Originally Posted by snoopy75

Far-right bullshit news sources. They are completely lacking in truthfulness and integrity. Yet tRumptards and the mega-maggots get there news sources from here. No wonder they are so misinformed. So it's calling out the news sources for what they are... total bullshit. Originally Posted by rmg_35

As far as stamping out- nahh, but you realize that Facts vs. news is what is being discussed. The right uses innuendo, and accusations of conclusions that either haven't happened, havent' been proven, or are outright baloney is many cases. Now, if there was the fairness doctrine and not just Rupert Murdochs' sensationalizing of "news"- there would be a better discussion happening. The result of what is being fed from all the opinion "news" sources, is that you simply have all these emotional driven false conclusions that just are not accurate. They usually fall short on facts and heavy on innuendo or false narratives and conclusions.

Should someone be allowed to yell fire in a movie theater as declaration of 1st amendment rights, or does creating chaos and perhaps inciting of situations that cause harm, directly because of that language, be allowed?

I'm not saying you cannot claim a perspective, but there needs to be more than just the daily drip of false narratives; the results is clowns beating down door knockers, or running over kids, or...a jan 6 event.

It's a shitty clown show by anyone who deliberately spreads "alternative facts" that would support a false narrative. Just total lies or horseshit- just like the claim of the border being secure.

The right uses innuendo, and accusations of conclusions that either haven't happened, haven't been proven, or are outright baloney is many cases... The result... is that you simply have all these emotional (sic) driven false conclusions that just are not accurate. They usually fall short on facts and heavy on innuendo or false narratives and conclusions. Originally Posted by eyecu2

Sounds kinda like the Trump-Russia collusion lie to me!

Did they find the pee tape yet?

But hey, only "the right" spreads disinformation, right eye?

WaPo, CNN, the Guardian, Atlantic, NPR and the like are all completely trustworthy.

They never use innuendo, spread false narratives or feed their libtard readers and viewers "outright baloney"!

Sounds kinda like the Trump-Russia collusion lie to me!

Did they find the pee tape yet?

But hey, only "the right" spreads disinformation, right eye?

WaPo, CNN, the Guardian, Atlantic, NPR and the like are all completely trustworthy.

They never use innuendo, spread false narratives or feed their libtard readers and viewers "outright baloney"! Originally Posted by lustylad

No Lusty...I included the left and the terrible border is secure- claim. I try to point out absurd shit when it's glaring like that. I really think the whole gaslighting is old...it's just lost it's function of inciting action...it has really just sowed distrust. I'll tip my hat to Trump and his fake news mantra for a majority of it, but other shit is deserved on both sides

Its legal to say fire in a crowded theater, bad example.

So rmg_35... we'll put you down in favor of govt censorship... by outsourcing the dirty work to Big Tech!

And we'll also put you down in favor of using taxpayer dollars to fund and reward those unbiased guardians of truth who carry out the censorship!

As long as the left is in charge, no worries about violating anyone's First Amendment rights, eh? The First Amendment doesn't apply to people you disagree with, right?

Hmmm... I wonder how much of my taxes went to pay off those 50-odd current and former US intelligence officers who warned us that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation? Just in time to suppress the truth and keep it from swaying voters in the 2020 election!

In your opinion... were they shameless liars or proud patriots?

Please explain, rmg_35! Originally Posted by lustylad

I just love how people like rmg_35 expose themselves with his support for government censorship and total disregard for the first amendment

It's clear that for libtards, they don't believe the first amendment applies to people who disagree with them or to media who present actual facts they don't want to hear. That is how disgusting libtards have become.

As far as stamping out- nahh, but you realize that Facts vs. news is what is being discussed. The right uses innuendo, and accusations of conclusions that either haven't happened, havent' been proven, or are outright baloney is many cases. Now, if there was the fairness doctrine and not just Rupert Murdochs' sensationalizing of "news"- there would be a better discussion happening. The result of what is being fed from all the opinion "news" sources, is that you simply have all these emotional driven false conclusions that just are not accurate. They usually fall short on facts and heavy on innuendo or false narratives and conclusions.

Should someone be allowed to yell fire in a movie theater as declaration of 1st amendment rights, or does creating chaos and perhaps inciting of situations that cause harm, directly because of that language, be allowed?

I'm not saying you cannot claim a perspective, but there needs to be more than just the daily drip of false narratives; the results is clowns beating down door knockers, or running over kids, or...a jan 6 event.

It's a shitty clown show by anyone who deliberately spreads "alternative facts" that would support a false narrative. Just total lies or horseshit- just like the claim of the border being secure. Originally Posted by eyecu2

I guess you missed the fact that there is this little thing call the first amendment in this country.

And specifically - The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any laws that abridge free speech, and courts have ruled that prohibition extends to federal agencies funded by the legislative branch.

In this case, participants were acutely aware that federal agencies' role in the effort strayed into uncharted legal territory. SIO's Renee DiResta said in a CISA Cybersecurity Summit video in 2021 that the operation faced "unclear legal authorities" and "very real First Amendment questions."

So you excuse and support that ?

Its legal to say fire in a crowded theater, bad example. Originally Posted by Devo

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1]

Devo- why don't you say where you know that this is the legal thing to be able to shout? All of my experience points to the fact that you're not allowed to say things that would create a panic and incite violence as protected speech.

NEW: Missouri and Louisiana plan to request depositions of top-ranking officials and have filed a 2nd Amended Complaint adding 47 new defendants to our lawsuit against the fed government for allegedly colluding with social media giants to censor speech.

Included on the list of new defendants are top White House officials Andy Slavitt and Rob Flaherty and WH Counsel Dana Remus, FBI Section Chief for the Foreign Influence Task Force Laura Dehmlow, CDC Deputy Communications Director Kate Galatas, and other top-ranking officials.

The complaint reads, “Pursuant to the third-party subpoena, Meta has identified the FBI’s FITF, as supervised by Laura Dehmlow, and Elvis Chan as involved in the communications between the FBI and Meta that led to Facebook’s suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.”