The Disinformation Campaign That Has Effectively Destroyed The Ability To Combat Disinformation

Rumors, Conspiracies, etc.

from the disinfo-about-disinfo dept

We already covered the oral arguments in the Murthy v. Missouri case earlier this week, showing that the Supreme Court appears to be quite skeptical of the arguments by the states regarding the federal government “jawboning” to convince social media to take down certain content. For months now, we’ve been pointing out that the factual record in that case is a mess, driven by conspiracy theorists pushing nonsense. Unfortunately, a few Judges both believed the nonsense and then when they couldn’t rely on it to make their point had to misquote people, quote things out of context, or entirely fabricate parts of quotes in their rulings.

What became abundantly clear in the oral arguments Monday was that multiple justices, including Trump-appointed ones, found the factual record to be suspect and problematic. The crux of the case was effectively (1) the White House made a few public statements in which they were angry about how social media moderated, (2) the companies regularly met with government agencies about a variety of things (cybersecurity, COVID misinformation, election integrity), and (3) therefore we can assume that any content moderation that occurred on the platforms was at the government’s command.

It was a weak argument, and multiple justices pointed out how tenuous the connection was between the government and the actions of the companies.

Over the last few months, we’ve pointed out a few times how this and some related campaigns have been weaponized by proxies to try to stifle any effort to respond to (not block!) disinformation campaigns and election interference, including the misleading publication of “The Twitter Files,” by pretend journalists who didn’t understand what they were looking at (nor bother to speak to any experts who might have explained it to them).

The media is slowly, but surely, putting the underlying story together of how a bunch of nonsense peddlers concocted a full blown conspiracy theory full of disinformation, all targeted at destroying the ability of disinformation researchers to counter disinformation by attacking them as censors. Last September, the Washington Post had a big story on this:

Academics, universities and government agencies are overhauling or ending research programs designed to counter the spread of online misinformation amid a legal campaign from conservative politicians and activists who accuse them of colluding with tech companies to censor right-wing views.

The escalating campaign — led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other Republicans in Congress and state government — has cast a pall over programs that study not just political falsehoodsbut also the quality of medical information online.

In November, NBC had a big story that went a bit further in highlighting how this effort had basically killed off perfectly reasonable information sharing (of the nature that Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh noted happen all the time in government).

The most recent setback camewhen the FBI put an indefinite hold on most briefings to social media companies about Russian, Iranian and Chinese influence campaigns. Employees at two U.S. tech companies who used to receive regular briefings from the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force told NBC News that it has been months since the bureau reached out. 

And, just before the Murthy hearing, the NY Times put out a big piece tying together some of the loose ends about all this, and detailing the nature of the campaign. The whole effort was, in short, a made up conspiracy theory by a group of operatives seeking to kneecap any research into disinformation or how to counter it, perhaps recognizing how such efforts would harm Donald Trump. As the article notes, much of it seems to have been orchestrated by Trump advisor Stephen Miller:

The counteroffensive was led by former Trump aides and allies who had also pushed to overturn the 2020 election. They include Stephen Miller, the White House policy adviser; the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, both Republicans; and lawmakers in Congress like Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, who since last year has led a House subcommittee to investigate what it calls “the weaponization of government.”

Those involved draw financial support from conservative donors who have backed groups that promoted lies about voting in 2020. They have worked alongside an eclectic cast of characters, including Elon Musk, the billionaire who bought Twitter and vowed to make it a bastion of free speech, and Mike Benz, a former Trump administration official who previously produced content for a social media account that trafficked in posts about “white ethnic displacement.” (More recently, Mr. Benz originated the false assertion that Taylor Swift was a “psychological operation” asset for the Pentagon.)

Benz is a bizarre character. As an anonymous troll online, he pushed blatantly bigoted nonsense about the “great replacement theory” and “white genocide.” Now he presents himself as a former State Department official and a cybersecurity expert. His name shows up repeatedly in all of this, including in efforts by Jim Jordan to attack disinformation research. The reality was that he was a low-level speechwriter in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, who then helped Stephen Miller as a speechwriter, and only joined the State Department in November of 2020 after Trump lost the election.

It was only then that he suddenly remade himself as a “cyber expert,” despite having no real qualifications or experience in the space. And he continued to leverage that brief couple of months in the State Department to suggest he has some sort of deep knowledge or expertise of government censorship. The NY Times notes how Benz’s conspiracy theory nonsense (in which he’s either never actually understood, or deliberately misunderstands, the nature of disinformation research) became the fuel that powered both the Missouri case and Jim Jordan’s weaponization committee:

In late November 2020, Mr. Benz was abruptly moved to the State Department as a deputy assistant secretary for international communications and information policy. It is unclear precisely what he did in the role. Mr. Benz has since claimed that the job, which he held for less than two months, gave him his expertise in cyberpolicy.

Mr. Benz’s report gained national attention when a conservative website, Just the News, wrote about it in September 2022. Four days later, Mr. Schmitt’s office sent requests for records to the University of Washington and others demanding information about their contacts with the government.

Mr. Schmitt soon amended his lawsuit to include nearly five pages detailing Mr. Benz’s work and asserting a new, broader claim: Not only was the government exerting pressure on the platforms, but it was also effectively deputizing the private researchers “to evade First Amendment and other legal restrictions.”

Benz was also one of the originators of the bogus “22 million tweets” claims that completely tripped up Matt Taibbi (the number was how many tweets the Election Integrity Partnership reviewed as discussing the mis- and disinfo topics they covered after the election, and had nothing to do with how many tweets the EIP reported to Twitter: just a few thousand). As the NY Times details, Taibbi’s partner in the Twitter Files, Mike Shellenberger, credits Benz with helping him understand what he had “uncovered” with the Twitter Files:

In March 2023, Mr. Benz joined the fray. Both Mr. Taibbi and Mr. Benz participated in a live discussion on Twitter, which was co-hosted by Jennifer Lynn Lawrence, an organizer of the Trump rally that preceded the riot on Jan. 6.

As Mr. Taibbi described his work, Mr. Benz jumped in: “I believe I have all of the missing pieces of the puzzle.”

There was a far broader “scale of censorship the world has never experienced before,” he told Mr. Taibbi, who made plans to follow up.

Later, Mr. Shellenberger said that connecting with Mr. Benz had led to “a big aha moment.”

“The clouds parted, and the sunlight burst through the sky,” he said on a podcast. “It’s like, oh, my gosh, this guy is way, way farther down the rabbit hole than we even knew the rabbit hole went.”

As we’ve detailed, Taibbi and Shellenberger never seemed to understand what they were looking at and flailed around embarrassingly for months. They needed help from someone who actually understood stuff to pull together the pieces (which would have shown the mostly boring, ho-hum nature of what Twitter’s trust & safety team was actually doing). Instead, they got suckered in by a nonsense-peddling conspiracy theorist who told a story that played right into the confirmation bias they needed to convince themselves that they had been gifted a huge story of government censorship (which is just not supported by any of the evidence).

The Times report also suggests that Jim Jordan’s “Weaponization” subcommittee appears to have leaked private deposition information to Stephen Miller to help him file even more sketchy lawsuits.

Mr. Miller followed with his own federal lawsuit on behalf of private plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, filing with D. John Sauer, the former solicitor general of Missouri who had led that case. (More recently, Mr. Sauer has represented Mr. Trump at the Supreme Court.)

Democrats in the House and legal experts questioned the collaboration as potentially unethical. Lawyers involved in the case have claimed that the subcommittee leaked selective parts of interviews conducted behind closed doors to America First Legal for use in its private lawsuits.

An amicus brief filed by the committee misrepresented facts and omitted evidence in ways that may have violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York wrote in a 46-page letter to Mr. Jordan.

However, all of this adds up to a pretty straightforward path: a bunch of Trumpist operatives in the form of Stephen Miller, Jim Jordan, Mike Benz and some others have plotted out a nonsense conspiracy theory — either deliberately or by simply misunderstanding what they were looking at — to present an entirely fictional story of a “censorship industrial complex,” and the only real purpose of this effort is to kneecap researchers and experts in disinformation from studying how disinformation flows and how to best counter it.

The organizations involved in the Election Integrity Partnership faced an avalanche of requests and, if they balked, subpoenas for any emails, text messages or other information involving the government or social media companies dating to 2015.

Complying consumed time and money. The threat of legal action dried up funding from donors — which had included philanthropies, corporations and the government — and struck fear in researchers worried about facing legal action and political threats online for the work.

“You had a lot of organizations doing this research,” a senior analyst at one of them said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of fear of legal retribution. “Now, there are none.”

Having watched all of this play out over the past two years, and feeling like I was yelling into the wind about it (especially as someone who has actually spent years calling out actual attempts by the government to censor content), it was at least comforting to see multiple Justices (mainly Kavanaugh, Barrett, Sotomayor and Kagan) see through all of this and recognize the emptiness at the heart of the Murthy lawsuit, which almost entirely consists of sand being deliberately thrown around by a bunch of bullshit peddlers.

Filed Under: cisa, disinformation, disinformation research, eip, jim jordan, mike benz, murthy v. missouri, research, stephen miller