1. TWITTER FILES: Internal documents from @Twitter find Brown University's @cward1e provides research that helps censor.
2. After years of working with disinformation researchers, reporters ignore that these "academics" aid in censoring. How do we know these campus employees censor?
They sometimes admit it.
3. Before the 2020 election, Stanford's Alex Stamos said at the Commonwealth Fund, "Our goal is to operationalise our work."
Seriously, he said this out loud.
4. Like University of Washington professor Kate Starbird, Stamos serves on the advisory committee of the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency or CISA--a DHS agency
5. In fact, Stanford's Stamos formed the Krebs Stamos Group with the former head of CISA, Chris Krebs.
I'm not joking. It's right there on the website.
5. The Chair of CISA's advisory committee is Tom Fanning, the CEO of Southern Company. @SenWhitehouse called out Southern Company for funding climate change disinformation.
So why is he ignoring this today?
6. A central figure in Big Disinformation is researcher Claire Wardle. With Google money in 2015, Wardle formed First Draft which claimed to be “the world’s foremost non-profit organisation focused on research and practice to tackle misinformation and disinformation.”
7. Guess who came calling? I tripped over this document marked “for official use only” that finds Wardle had also been chosen to brief CISA’s advisory committee.
CISA says they will get back to explain how often Wardle briefed them.
8. Wardle was also involved in this Ted event on vaccines. The invite to Twitter was sent by Alexios Mantzarlis. A former fact checker, Mantzarlis has since joined Google where he focuses on misinformation.
9. “This is too important a topic to not share lessons,” Mantzarlis emailed, stating that goals were to create a list of relevant information on vaccines that could be converted into advice for social media platforms.
QUESTION: What is Big Disinformation's obsession w/ vaccines?
10. But when a Twitter official asked for more information, Wardle responded, “Sorry you weren’t able to attend the event on the 30th. It ended up being a really great conversation, with real emphasis on quality information around vaccines.”
11. Shortly after Trump lost in 2020, Pfizer released initial, preliminary findings for their COVID vaccine.
This was November 9, 2020.
12. Days later, Wardle rushes out a report on vaccine misinformation. She sends Twitter a looky-look the day before she releases the report.
13. “Hello my lovely friends,” Wardle emailed. “I had hoped this week would be full of relaxing massages and cupcakes. Instead it’s more election nonsense and a Pfizer announcement that forced us to push up our planned release of new research on online vaccine narratives.”
14. “Hello my lovely friends,” Wardle emailed. “I had hoped this week would be full of relaxing massages and cupcakes. Instead it’s more election nonsense and a Pfizer announcement that forced us to push up our planned release of new research on online vaccine narratives.”
15. QUESTION: How often do academics put out white papers like this to promote a corporate product?
Does this seem scholarly? But wait, the report on "misinformation" contains misinformation, of course.
16. Wardle claimed in her report that vaccine mandates are “one of the prominent anti-vaccination narratives”—a narrative which, oddly enough, proved to be accurate when US companies as well as state and federal agencies began mandating COVID vaccines.
17. Did Wardle's First Draft correct their report. Nope.
They just lurched forward in support of vaccine mandates, by publishing blog posts with headlines that described discussions around mandated vaccinations as “disinformation” as well.
18. Since Wardle released her report, one authors joined the global PR firm M&C Saatchi as an analyst.
Surprise! M&C Saatchi has a contract w/ the Australian government to censor its citizens.
19. M&C Saatchi's contract came out in an Australian Senate hearing weeks back.
20. Meanwhile, one of Wardle's researchers joined the British government in 2021 as a “counter-disinformation product lead.”
Have you been reading the British press?
Surprise! More censorship.
21. BTW, as people investigate these campus employees for censorship, guess who's stepping in to stop FOIA disclosure of documents?
1) EXCLUSIVE DOCUMENTS: Working w/ @mtaibbi we report on @CCDHate documents showing the Labour Party's political front's objective is "Kill Musk's Twitter" thru "Advertising focus" meaning harass his advertisers.
See internal documents provided by a whistleblower.
2) Internal Center for Countering Digital Hate document shows their annual objective is "Kill Musk's Twitter"
This is their internal monthly planner. Their goal is to also trigger regulatory action, although they are a tax-exempt nonprofit.
3) CCDH held a private conference w/ a slew of liberal groups organizing against Musk including Biden White House, Congressman Adam Schiff's office, Biden/Harris State Department officials, Canadian MP Peter Julian & Media Matters for America
1) Twitter Files: Democrats & media claimed Twitter 1.0 was a “private company” that made its own decisions, despite Biden Administration pressure to censor.
But new emails show Twitter hired a lobby shop staffed w/ Biden loyalists & then coordinated w/ Biden State Dept.
2) “This is John Hughes from Albright Stonebridge Group, the commercial diplomacy firm founded by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,” wrote Twitter’s lobbyist to a senior official at State.
Twitter was seeking “advice” and help.
3) Politico reported around this same time that 10 of Biden’s top foreign policy crowd came from Albright Stonebridge.
2) Cochrane's Karla Soares-Weiser put out a statement attacking Cochrane's own mask review due to pressure from Zeynep Tufekci:
“Lisa, I have been back and forth with NYT about the mask review. CAN I GET YOUR VIEWS ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS?”
3) Several days later, Tufekci published a "masks work" essay in the NY Times and Karla Soares-Weiser rushed out a statement claiming problems with the mask review.
Soares-Weiser did this w/o consulting the scientists who wrote the mask review.
1) Going through hundreds of emails, it's clear @zeynep bullied Cochrane into publishing a statement against their own review and twisted the words of Cochrane editor Michael Brown.
2) After Cochrane published their 2023 mask review update, Bret Stephens wrote a NYT column ridiculing mask mandate activists--people like Zeynep Tufekci.
3 days later on Feb 24, Zeynep contacted Cochrane, but not the scientists. She went around them to the editors.
3) Zeynep introdued herself to Cochrane editor Michael Brown as an "academic" working on a review "in my own field."
Zeynep has published 0 in the academic literature this year, and one article in 2023--an opinion piece. As for that review, it has never appeared.