If you’re wondering why, when JD Vance was asked if he’d certify the 2024 election, he (weirdly) pivoted to allege “Kamala Harris is engaged in censorship at an industrial scale,” I gotchu. 1/
Over the past 2.5 years, the Republican party (and some on the far left) have manufactured a crisis that claims Americans’ right to free speech is under attack. 2/
They have ripped quotes from their context to sound scary; tonight Vance invoked Walz once saying “there’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation”. Except that Walz was speaking *explicitly* about voter intimidation, which is not protected speech! 3/mediaite.com/news/viral-vid…
They have claimed, without evidence, that anyone who:
-does research about rumors online
-implements social media platform rules that protect safety and health
-talks about either of the above to public or private partners
...is engaging in censorship. 4/
This simply isn’t true. We @AmericanSunProj have unpacked the past two and a half years of attacks on academics, government entities and beyond, and shown that the claims Vance just elevated to the VP debate stage are baseless. 5/ americansunlight.org/ilc-report
@AmericanSunProj We’re not the only ones who have highlighted the lack of evidence here; the Supreme Court—with Amy Coney Barrett leading the majority—dismissed a case on this very topic! 6/msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-…
@AmericanSunProj “Censorship” is a dogwhistle to voters who have been told, over and over again, that Democrats are communists, fascists, or worse. It’s easy shorthand to solidify an enemy. 7/
@AmericanSunProj Not surprising, because violence is a feature for this party, not a bug. Claims like these have put people in physical danger: I’ve dealt with credible threats because people believe I was, am, or would like to be engaged in censorship. (I did not, am not, would not.) 8/
@AmericanSunProj “Censorship,” apparently, is what Vance believes is a threat to democracy akin to an armed mob storming the Capitol Building. But the glaring difference between the two is that one of them actually happened. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Waking up to this news in Australia, which hits upon a theme I've been repeating throughout my presentations here:
Information laundering is alive and well, and one of the most powerful tools disinformation actors have in their arsenals as we careen toward November. 1/
What is information laundering? It's when bad actors obscure the initial source of information through another individual or organization to make it seem more trustworthy or get around restrictions (like, for instance, FARA, or political ad disclosures on social media). 2/
(I wrote a little tongue in cheek parody about it in 2021 that the right wing endlessly ridiculed, but I stand by every word: It's how you hide a little lie. 3/)
Let’s talk about Mark Zuckerberg’s letter to the House Judiciary Committee, in which he alleges that he felt that the White House “repeatedly pressured his teams to censor” content.
This is nothing more than a cynical political ploy at self preservation. 1/
Jim Jordan and the right have been alleging censorship for years. Why does Zuckerberg release this letter now, three months before the election? To signal to Congressional republicans that he’s not against them. It worked for Musk- why shouldn’t Zuckerberg try it out now too? 2/
Interestingly, if these allegations were real, Jordan could have made them himself. He has in his possession dozens of interviews and depositions with tech workers, including Facebook employees, who say they did not feel coerced by the White House. 3/
Spoke with @Channel4News about the changes on this platform since it got a new owner.
Lots of the replies challenging the quote here asking me to name a single example of offline violence after Musk amplified disinfo. Challenge accepted. Here's just a few: 1/
Former Twitter executive Yoel Roth was forced to leave his home after credible threats of violence when Musk enabled the Twitter filed and falsely alleged Roth was sympathetic to pedophilia 2/
Australian eSafety Regulator Julie Inman Grant's children were doxxed after Musk tweeted about her for *doing her job* and requesting that Twitter remove a video of a stabbing that had the potential to generate follow-on attacks 3/
In 2020 I led a study on gendered abuse and disinfo against women political candidates. We found 336k pieces of abuse & disinfo targeting 13 candidates; 78% of that targeted Kamala Harris. After Biden’s endorsement, here are some narratives and tropes we should look out for: (1/)
1. Sexualized narratives, claiming Harris “slept her way to the top,” or that she is sexually promiscuous. In 2020 we found that users engaging with this narrative were more likely to engage with other abuse and disinfo. They attempted to undermine her fitness for office (2/)
2. Transphobic narratives are also often employed against women in public life; in 2020, users claimed Harris couldn’t have risen to a position of power without having secretly been a man. They falsely alleged she had been a man named “Kamal Aroush” before transitioning. (3/)
I didn’t want to have to send a letter like this, which is why I wasted hours last week answering Shellenberger’s inane questions in hopes he’d do actual reporting. Instead he shoved my quotes next to allegations for which he has no source but his own overactive imagination. 1/
Not to be outdone, Taibbi also made sweeping & false statements of fact. I guess when you have nearly half a million subscribers frothing at the mouth for your next tall tale you have to keep them paying their subscription fee somehow. Gotta keep that Substack $$ flowing! 2/
IMO, there are at least 2 other motives here
1: these fine gentlemen are trying to keep the folks who work on disinformation occupied with anything but their actual research. Long lists of absurd questions, the answers to which they do not care about, are a great way to do so. 3/
1. As we found in our #MalignCreativity report @TheWilsonCenter, there is an entire movement on Twitter and other sites by abusers to evade detection from AI / content moderators, so a list of "300 commonly used English-language slurs" ain't conna cut it. wilsoncenter.org/publication/ma…
2. @Twitter's focus on impressions shows they are not interested in actually reducing harm, just reducing how it *looks.* It doesn't matter if a tweet calling for your rape and hanging gets 10 impressions or 10000, they both are harmful to the target.