December 27, 2024 • 16 mins
Can governments really wield power over what we see online? Today, we unpack the emerging "censorship industrial complex" and the delicate dance between combating disinformation and silencing dissenting voices. Starting from the post-2016 election concerns, we trace how initiatives like the Election Integrity Partnership, backed by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), have influenced the moderation of social media content, especially during critical moments like the COVID-19 pandemic. Through thought-provoking examples such as the Hunter Biden laptop saga, we illustrate the challenges social media platforms face in balancing free speech with the demand to curb misinformation.
The conversation doesn't stop there. We scrutinize a global trend where even democracies like the US and Brazil appear to flex their muscles online under broad claims of addressing national security or tackling fake news. As pressure mounts on tech companies to act as gatekeepers, questions arise about their accountability and their role in preserving an open Internet. Yet, there’s hope on the horizon. With increasing transparency, a resurgence in investigative journalism, and voices from within the tech industry advocating for change, the power of collective action becomes apparent. It's time to reclaim our digital space and ensure that the Internet remains a platform for free expression.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, so you brought us a ton of stuff about the
government trying to censorstuff online.
Yeah, Congressional hearingsreports.
You even found some courtfilings.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
And even internal communications from the social
media companies themselves.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Wow, yeah, it's quite a lot to go through.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
This is going to be an intense, deep dive it really
is.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
it feels like.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Buckle up everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
You're going behind the scenes, kind of pulling back
the curtain and seeing how thisall works.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Yeah, and that's what we're trying to do here figure
out what's really going on.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Right.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Is the government really trying to control what we
see online?
Yeah, and if so, I mean, whatdoes that mean for us?
You know everyday people.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Yeah, it's a huge question.
I think to answer that we haveto kind of go back, go back to
2016,.
Right after the election,there's this big narrative that
emerged about foreigngovernments, especially Russia,
spreading fake news to try toinfluence the election.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Yeah, everyone was talking about Russian bots and
fake news and all that.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
Right, exactly.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Sounds like that was just the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
That's right.
Yeah, so that initial focus onforeign interference.
It quickly expanded to includedomestic speech.
Oh, interesting Things thateveryday Americans were saying
online.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
So instead of just focusing on, you know, foreign
actors, it became aboutcontrolling what all of us were
saying.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
That's exactly what we see happening, yeah.
Wow, that's exactly what we seehappening.
Yeah, and as this narrativegained traction, we saw the
emergence of this whole networkdedicated to combating quote
unquote, disinformation.
Some people call it acensorship industrial complex.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Hold on Censorship industrial complex.
That sounds kind of scary.
What does that actually mean?
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Well, think about it.
You've got think tanks,so-called experts, government
task forces, university centers,all focused on fighting
disinformation.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
And many of them are funded by guess what?
Taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Okay, so our tax dollars are going to these
groups to like police speech,even though the government's not
supposed to be able to do that.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
That's the irony Right.
The government can't directlycensor speech because of the
First Amendment, but by fundingthese outside groups they can
kind of influence what getstaken down or suppressed online.
Wow, that's sneaky.
It's like outsourcingcensorship, you could say.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Oh, I like that Outsourcing censorship.
Yeah, you also highlighted agroup called the Election
Integrity Partnership, eip, as amajor player in all this.
What's so important about them?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Yeah, so the EIP was formed right before the 2020
election.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
And here's the key thing they were formed at the
request of CISA.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
CISA yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Yeah, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency, a governmentagency.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
So the government basically created a group to
flag information.
They didn't like to get itremoved from social media.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
So this wasn't just like a suggestion box, right?
Speaker 2 (02:48):
No, it went deeper than that.
We actually have internalcommunications showing that CISA
officials, even high rankingones like Chris Krebs, you know
the former director.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Were in regular contact with the EIP's
leadership.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
So it was like an active collaboration?
Yeah, definitely.
What kind of information werethey flagging?
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Well, sometimes it was genuine misinformation stuff
that was demonstrably false.
Right, but not always.
Ok, there were cases where theyflag what they called true, but
shocking stories.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Oh, so even if something was true, it could get
flagged.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Yeah, If they deemed it too shocking or and we saw
this a lot during the pandemicthey would flag posts that.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
So even if it wasn't technically false, if it went
against the preferred narrative,that's right.
Yeah, it could still get takendown.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
And the pressure on social media companies to comply
with these requests.
It was intense.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Really.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Oh yeah, we have internal Facebook communications
that reveal their concernsabout potential retaliation from
the Biden White House if theydidn't remove the content that
was being flagged by the EIP.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
So they felt like they had to censor certain
information or they would faceconsequences from the government
.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Yeah, that's how it appears.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
That's kind of scary.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
And it gets even more chilling when you look at some
of these CISA emails.
Okay, they explicitly statedthat information flagged by the
EIP could be shared with lawenforcement.
Wow, so imagine you're a socialmedia company.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Right.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
You're being told to remove content by a group that's
tied to the government, and ifyou don't, you could face legal
trouble.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
That's a tough spot to be in.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Yeah, it's a real dilemma for these companies.
They're trying to balance theirresponsibilities to moderate
content with protecting freespeech rights, but they're also
facing this immense pressurefrom powerful government
entities.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
And this pressure didn't just stop with
election-related content right.
What happened during COVID.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Oh, during the pandemic we saw these efforts to
control information really rampup.
Those internal Facebookcommunications we talked about.
They really shed light on whatwas happening.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
What did they show?
Speaker 2 (04:55):
They show that the Biden White House was putting a
lot of pressure on Facebook toremove content related to COVID
and the vaccines, and it wasn'tjust about blatant
misinformation.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Right.
They wanted to get rid ofanything that could potentially
promote vaccine hesitancy.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Even if it wasn't false.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Exactly yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
So the goal wasn't just to protect people from lies
, it was about controlling theentire narrative around the
pandemic.
That seems to be the case, andthat raises a big question when
do we draw the line betweencombating genuinely harmful
content and allowing opendiscussion, even if it's
controversial?
That's a tough question, evenif it's controversial.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
That's a tough question and it's something we
need to keep in mind as wecontinue this deep dive.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Yeah, definitely, and it's a question that came up
again with the Hunter Bidenlaptop story.
Right, you pointed to that as aprime example of how the
government blurred the linesbetween fighting quote
disinformation and justsilencing inconvenient truths.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
The Hunter Biden laptop story.
That's a crucial case.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
OK.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Because it shows the government actively working to
discredit a story that, whilepotentially embarrassing for a
political figure, wasdemonstrably true.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
And the FBI was involved in this too, right.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Deeply involved.
Yeah, even though they knew thelaptop was authentic.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
They actively worked to discredit the story and they
encouraged social mediaplatforms to treatredit the
story.
Wow, and they encouraged socialmedia platforms to treat it as
Russian disinformation.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Hold on.
So they knew it was real, butthey still tried to get it
censored.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
That's what the evidence suggests.
Yes, wow, we even havetestimony from an FBI analyst
who, in a meeting with Twitter,confirmed that the laptop was
authentic.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
OK.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
But then another participant in that meeting just
shut down any furtherdiscussion of it.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
It sounds like something out of a movie.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
It really does.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
The government trying to suppress a true story just
because it didn't fit theirnarrative.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Yeah, and it wasn't just a few rogue agents.
This went all the way to thetop.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
That's really scary.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
It's a stark reminder that the fight against quote
unquote disinformation can beweaponized for political
purposes, and that has seriousimplications for free speech.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
And this isn't just an American thing, right?
You talked about some prettyalarming examples from Brazil.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Oh yeah, brazil is a case study in how government
censorship, under the guise ofcombating disinformation, can
get out of control.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Who was the main player there?
Speaker 2 (07:12):
It was the Supreme Court justice, Alexander DeMoros
.
He basically used thejustification of fighting
disinformation to issue thesesweeping orders that completely
bypassed any kind of normallegal process.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Wow, what kind of orders are we talking about?
Speaker 2 (07:28):
He ordered social media accounts to be blocked,
online content to be removed.
He even had people arrested forcriticizing him or the election
process.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Wow, so he was basically a one-man censorship
machine.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Pretty much, yeah, and it wasn't like these orders
were just suggestions, right.
He issued them directly tosocial media companies,
demanding immediate compliance.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
And threatening them with massive fines if they
didn't obey.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
So these companies were basically stuck between a
rock and a hard place, right.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Either they comply with these potentially
unconstitutional orders or theyface financial ruin.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Exactly, and it highlights another disturbing
trend.
We're seeing Governmentsputting immense pressure on
private companies to basicallyact as arms of state censorship.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
So, just to recap, we've seen how governments are
increasingly influencing what wesee online, both directly
through agencies like CISA, andindirectly through pressure on
these social media companies.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
And the justifications for this control
are often very vague andsubjective.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
What counts as disinformation or a threat to
national security.
Well, that seems to be in theeye of the beholder, doesn't it?
That's the core issue here,yeah it's really about who gets
to decide what we can and can'tsee online absolutely.
That's where the real dangerlies yeah, that's a bit scary it
is it feels like we've justscratched the surface here yeah,
(08:47):
it's a much bigger issue thanpeople realize this isn't just
about a few isolated incidents.
This is a fundamental shift inhow we think about, you know,
free speech in the digital age.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Right.
The Internet has essentiallybecome like the new town square.
Yeah, it's where we exchangeideas, debate.
You know, it's like the publicforum now.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
And, as that's happened, governments around the
world are like OK, how do wecontrol this?
Speaker 2 (09:10):
Exactly.
They want to figure out how toregulate this new space.
The problem is that they'reoverstepping and blurring the
lines between legitimate content, moderation and outright
censorship.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
And it's not just happening in countries with a
history of censorship right.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
No, that's the thing.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
We're seeing it in democracies like the US and
Brazil.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Where the government is putting pressure on these
companies to remove stuff thatmight be controversial but is
still protected speech.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
That's right.
That's a key point.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
So where do these social media companies fit into?
All of?
Speaker 2 (09:43):
this.
Yeah, it's a tough spot forthem.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
They have a lot of power, but they're also being
pressured by governments.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Right, it's this constant balancing act.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
What are their responsibilities when it comes
to moderating content?
Are they even equipped to bemaking these decisions?
Speaker 2 (09:58):
That's the big question, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (09:59):
And then, how do we hold them accountable?
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Right, because they're not neutral players.
Let's be honest.
They have their own interestsand biases.
They're often influenced bymoney and politics.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
So they have their own agenda.
And then when you addgovernment pressure on top of
that, it gets really messy.
Yeah, it creates a situationwhere certain viewpoints are
just systematically silenced.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
That's right and that's dangerous for everybody.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
No matter what your political beliefs are.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
It doesn't matter yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
A healthy democracy needs open debate, even about
tough topics.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Exactly, and when we start silencing dissenting
voices, we're actuallyundermining the foundations of
our society.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Okay, so we've laid out the problem.
What can we do about it?
It feels kind of overwhelming,to be honest.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
I know it can definitely feel that way.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Like we're up against these giant forces.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
There are things we can do, though.
Okay, I think the first andmost important step is being
informed.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
The more we understand about how these
systems work and the tacticsthat are being used to censor
content, the better equipped weare to push back against it.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
So it's about being more aware of what we're reading
and watching online, not justtaking everything at face value.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Exactly, don't just passively consume information.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Question the sources.
Look for different perspectives.
Be wary of narratives that seemto be pushing a specific agenda
.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
What about holding these social media companies
accountable?
Is there anything we can dothere?
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Yeah, I think we need to demand more transparency
from them.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
About.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
About how they make decisions, about what to remove
and why.
Okay, we need to know whattheir policies are, how they're
being applied.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
And if we don't agree with their decisions?
Speaker 2 (11:37):
We need to let them know, be vocal, make it clear
that we're paying attention thatwe won't tolerate censorship
and we can support organizationsthat are fighting for free
speech online.
There are groups out theredoing great work, holding these
companies accountable,advocating for policies that
protect our rights in thedigital age.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
You've given us a lot to think about.
It's easy to feel helpless inall of this.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Yeah, I understand that, but I think you've made
some good points.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
We can't just sit back and let this happen.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
No, we have to be active, engaged.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
We have to fight for a free and open Internet
Absolutely.
I think that's a good takeaway.
We can't just be passivebystanders.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
We have a role to play.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
And we have to be willing to speak out.
Yes, okay, let's take a minuteto process all of this, and then
we'll move on to the final partof our deep dive, where we'll
try to put it all together andhopefully offer some reasons for
optimism.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Okay, so we've covered a lot of ground here,
yeah we have.
And it's easy to get kind ofoverwhelmed by, like the sheer
scale of this problem.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
I know what you mean.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
But I'm hoping we can end this deep dive on a more
hopeful note.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
I think we can, yeah, despite how serious this is.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Okay cut.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
There are actually some reasons to be optimistic.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Tell me more, because I could definitely use some
good news after all of that.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Well, one of the most encouraging things is that
there's more awareness of thisnow than ever before.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
Yeah, like investigative journalists are
really digging into this everbefore.
Yeah, yeah, like investigativejournalists are really digging
into this Right.
Congressional committees areholding hearings, ok, and even
people within these techcompanies.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
They're starting to speak out against this kind of
censorship, so it feels likemaybe the tide is tuning.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
I think it is yeah, ok, the more people know about
this problem, the more likely weare to see some meaningful
action.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
And remember we, the people, we have the power Right.
If we demand change, if werefuse to be silenced, if we
keep fighting for our freedoms,we can make a difference.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
So it's about taking back our agency, taking back our
voices.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
And not just, you know, passively accepting the
information that we're given.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
That's a great way to put it.
It's about being active,engaged.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
You engaged shaping the digital world.
We have the tools to amplifythe voices that are being
silenced.
Challenge those falsenarratives.
Hold those in power accountable.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
It's like a form of digital activism, almost.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Yeah, you could call it that.
We need to be proactive indefending our freedoms online.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
So what does that look like?
What can we actually do?
Speaker 2 (14:09):
Well, it means speaking out against censorship,
supporting those organizationsthat are fighting for free
speech.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
And demanding transparency from these
companies, from the government.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
And that means going beyond, just like you know,
liking a post on social media orsharing something.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Right.
It's about getting informed,understanding the issues and
then taking action.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
What kind of action?
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Well, you could support legal challenges to
these censorship laws Right.
Contact your elected officials.
Demand that they protect freespeech online.
You could even boycottplatforms that engage in
censorship, or explore andsupport alternative platforms
that are prioritizing freespeech.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
And just talking about it.
Yeah Right, absolutely Friends,family.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Yeah, raising awareness, encouraging critical
thinking, that's huge.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Yeah, ok, I like that .
So it sounds like, even thoughthis is a really complex issue
and we've gone through somepretty dark territory here.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
It is a serious situation.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
You've given us some real reasons to be hopeful.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
I believe there is hope.
Yeah, we just can't give up thefight.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
We have to remember that this fight for free speech,
it's never really over.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
It's a constant struggle.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
But it's one worth having Absolutely.
I mean, the future of theinternet, maybe even the future
of democracy itself, kind ofdepends on it, doesn't it?
I believe it does.
Yeah Well, looks like we'vereached the end of our deep dive
.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Yeah, it's been a long one.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
You've given us a lot to think about, a lot to do.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
I hope so.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
We'll leave our listeners with this.
Don't be afraid to question,challenge.
Speak your mind.
The internet was designed to bea space for free expression,
and it's up to us to keep itthat way.
That's right.
We can't be complacent.
All right, thanks for joiningus on this deep dive and we'll
see you next time.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Thanks for having me.
Okay, so you brought us a ton of stuff about the
government trying to censorstuff online.
Yeah, Congressional hearingsreports.
You even found some courtfilings.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
And even internal communications from the social
media companies themselves.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Wow, yeah, it's quite a lot to go through.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
This is going to be an intense, deep dive it really
is.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
it feels like.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Buckle up everybody.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
You're going behind the scenes, kind of pulling back
the curtain and seeing how thisall works.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Yeah, and that's what we're trying to do here figure
out what's really going on.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Right.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Is the government really trying to control what we
see online?
Yeah, and if so, I mean, whatdoes that mean for us?
You know everyday people.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Yeah, it's a huge question.
I think to answer that we haveto kind of go back, go back to
2016,.
Right after the election,there's this big narrative that
emerged about foreigngovernments, especially Russia,
spreading fake news to try toinfluence the election.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Yeah, everyone was talking about Russian bots and
fake news and all that.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
Right, exactly.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Sounds like that was just the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
That's right.
Yeah, so that initial focus onforeign interference.
It quickly expanded to includedomestic speech.
Oh, interesting Things thateveryday Americans were saying
online.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
So instead of just focusing on, you know, foreign
actors, it became aboutcontrolling what all of us were
saying.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
That's exactly what we see happening, yeah.
Wow, that's exactly what we seehappening.
Yeah, and as this narrativegained traction, we saw the
emergence of this whole networkdedicated to combating quote
unquote, disinformation.
Some people call it acensorship industrial complex.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Hold on Censorship industrial complex.
That sounds kind of scary.
What does that actually mean?
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Well, think about it.
You've got think tanks,so-called experts, government
task forces, university centers,all focused on fighting
disinformation.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
And many of them are funded by guess what?
Taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Okay, so our tax dollars are going to these
groups to like police speech,even though the government's not
supposed to be able to do that.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
That's the irony Right.
The government can't directlycensor speech because of the
First Amendment, but by fundingthese outside groups they can
kind of influence what getstaken down or suppressed online.
Wow, that's sneaky.
It's like outsourcingcensorship, you could say.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Oh, I like that Outsourcing censorship.
Yeah, you also highlighted agroup called the Election
Integrity Partnership, eip, as amajor player in all this.
What's so important about them?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Yeah, so the EIP was formed right before the 2020
election.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
And here's the key thing they were formed at the
request of CISA.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
CISA yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Yeah, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency, a governmentagency.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
So the government basically created a group to
flag information.
They didn't like to get itremoved from social media.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
So this wasn't just like a suggestion box, right?
Speaker 2 (02:48):
No, it went deeper than that.
We actually have internalcommunications showing that CISA
officials, even high rankingones like Chris Krebs, you know
the former director.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Were in regular contact with the EIP's
leadership.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
So it was like an active collaboration?
Yeah, definitely.
What kind of information werethey flagging?
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Well, sometimes it was genuine misinformation stuff
that was demonstrably false.
Right, but not always.
Ok, there were cases where theyflag what they called true, but
shocking stories.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Oh, so even if something was true, it could get
flagged.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Yeah, If they deemed it too shocking or and we saw
this a lot during the pandemicthey would flag posts that.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
So even if it wasn't technically false, if it went
against the preferred narrative,that's right.
Yeah, it could still get takendown.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
And the pressure on social media companies to comply
with these requests.
It was intense.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Really.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
Oh yeah, we have internal Facebook communications
that reveal their concernsabout potential retaliation from
the Biden White House if theydidn't remove the content that
was being flagged by the EIP.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
So they felt like they had to censor certain
information or they would faceconsequences from the government
.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Yeah, that's how it appears.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
That's kind of scary.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
And it gets even more chilling when you look at some
of these CISA emails.
Okay, they explicitly statedthat information flagged by the
EIP could be shared with lawenforcement.
Wow, so imagine you're a socialmedia company.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Right.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
You're being told to remove content by a group that's
tied to the government, and ifyou don't, you could face legal
trouble.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
That's a tough spot to be in.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Yeah, it's a real dilemma for these companies.
They're trying to balance theirresponsibilities to moderate
content with protecting freespeech rights, but they're also
facing this immense pressurefrom powerful government
entities.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
And this pressure didn't just stop with
election-related content right.
What happened during COVID.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Oh, during the pandemic we saw these efforts to
control information really rampup.
Those internal Facebookcommunications we talked about.
They really shed light on whatwas happening.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
What did they show?
Speaker 2 (04:55):
They show that the Biden White House was putting a
lot of pressure on Facebook toremove content related to COVID
and the vaccines, and it wasn'tjust about blatant
misinformation.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Right.
They wanted to get rid ofanything that could potentially
promote vaccine hesitancy.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Even if it wasn't false.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Exactly yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
So the goal wasn't just to protect people from lies
, it was about controlling theentire narrative around the
pandemic.
That seems to be the case, andthat raises a big question when
do we draw the line betweencombating genuinely harmful
content and allowing opendiscussion, even if it's
controversial?
That's a tough question, evenif it's controversial.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
That's a tough question and it's something we
need to keep in mind as wecontinue this deep dive.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Yeah, definitely, and it's a question that came up
again with the Hunter Bidenlaptop story.
Right, you pointed to that as aprime example of how the
government blurred the linesbetween fighting quote
disinformation and justsilencing inconvenient truths.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
The Hunter Biden laptop story.
That's a crucial case.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
OK.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Because it shows the government actively working to
discredit a story that, whilepotentially embarrassing for a
political figure, wasdemonstrably true.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
And the FBI was involved in this too, right.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Deeply involved.
Yeah, even though they knew thelaptop was authentic.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
They actively worked to discredit the story and they
encouraged social mediaplatforms to treatredit the
story.
Wow, and they encouraged socialmedia platforms to treat it as
Russian disinformation.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Hold on.
So they knew it was real, butthey still tried to get it
censored.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
That's what the evidence suggests.
Yes, wow, we even havetestimony from an FBI analyst
who, in a meeting with Twitter,confirmed that the laptop was
authentic.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
OK.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
But then another participant in that meeting just
shut down any furtherdiscussion of it.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
It sounds like something out of a movie.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
It really does.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
The government trying to suppress a true story just
because it didn't fit theirnarrative.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
Yeah, and it wasn't just a few rogue agents.
This went all the way to thetop.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
That's really scary.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
It's a stark reminder that the fight against quote
unquote disinformation can beweaponized for political
purposes, and that has seriousimplications for free speech.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
And this isn't just an American thing, right?
You talked about some prettyalarming examples from Brazil.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Oh yeah, brazil is a case study in how government
censorship, under the guise ofcombating disinformation, can
get out of control.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Who was the main player there?
Speaker 2 (07:12):
It was the Supreme Court justice, Alexander DeMoros
.
He basically used thejustification of fighting
disinformation to issue thesesweeping orders that completely
bypassed any kind of normallegal process.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Wow, what kind of orders are we talking about?
Speaker 2 (07:28):
He ordered social media accounts to be blocked,
online content to be removed.
He even had people arrested forcriticizing him or the election
process.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Wow, so he was basically a one-man censorship
machine.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Pretty much, yeah, and it wasn't like these orders
were just suggestions, right.
He issued them directly tosocial media companies,
demanding immediate compliance.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
And threatening them with massive fines if they
didn't obey.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
So these companies were basically stuck between a
rock and a hard place, right.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Either they comply with these potentially
unconstitutional orders or theyface financial ruin.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Exactly, and it highlights another disturbing
trend.
We're seeing Governmentsputting immense pressure on
private companies to basicallyact as arms of state censorship.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
So, just to recap, we've seen how governments are
increasingly influencing what wesee online, both directly
through agencies like CISA, andindirectly through pressure on
these social media companies.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
And the justifications for this control
are often very vague andsubjective.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
What counts as disinformation or a threat to
national security.
Well, that seems to be in theeye of the beholder, doesn't it?
That's the core issue here,yeah it's really about who gets
to decide what we can and can'tsee online absolutely.
That's where the real dangerlies yeah, that's a bit scary it
is it feels like we've justscratched the surface here yeah,
(08:47):
it's a much bigger issue thanpeople realize this isn't just
about a few isolated incidents.
This is a fundamental shift inhow we think about, you know,
free speech in the digital age.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Right.
The Internet has essentiallybecome like the new town square.
Yeah, it's where we exchangeideas, debate.
You know, it's like the publicforum now.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
And, as that's happened, governments around the
world are like OK, how do wecontrol this?
Speaker 2 (09:10):
Exactly.
They want to figure out how toregulate this new space.
The problem is that they'reoverstepping and blurring the
lines between legitimate content, moderation and outright
censorship.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
And it's not just happening in countries with a
history of censorship right.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
No, that's the thing.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
We're seeing it in democracies like the US and
Brazil.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Where the government is putting pressure on these
companies to remove stuff thatmight be controversial but is
still protected speech.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
That's right.
That's a key point.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
So where do these social media companies fit into?
All of?
Speaker 2 (09:43):
this.
Yeah, it's a tough spot forthem.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
They have a lot of power, but they're also being
pressured by governments.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Right, it's this constant balancing act.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
What are their responsibilities when it comes
to moderating content?
Are they even equipped to bemaking these decisions?
Speaker 2 (09:58):
That's the big question, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (09:59):
And then, how do we hold them accountable?
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Right, because they're not neutral players.
Let's be honest.
They have their own interestsand biases.
They're often influenced bymoney and politics.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
So they have their own agenda.
And then when you addgovernment pressure on top of
that, it gets really messy.
Yeah, it creates a situationwhere certain viewpoints are
just systematically silenced.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
That's right and that's dangerous for everybody.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
No matter what your political beliefs are.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
It doesn't matter yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
A healthy democracy needs open debate, even about
tough topics.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Exactly, and when we start silencing dissenting
voices, we're actuallyundermining the foundations of
our society.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Okay, so we've laid out the problem.
What can we do about it?
It feels kind of overwhelming,to be honest.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
I know it can definitely feel that way.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
Like we're up against these giant forces.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
There are things we can do, though.
Okay, I think the first andmost important step is being
informed.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
The more we understand about how these
systems work and the tacticsthat are being used to censor
content, the better equipped weare to push back against it.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
So it's about being more aware of what we're reading
and watching online, not justtaking everything at face value.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Exactly, don't just passively consume information.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Question the sources.
Look for different perspectives.
Be wary of narratives that seemto be pushing a specific agenda
.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
What about holding these social media companies
accountable?
Is there anything we can dothere?
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Yeah, I think we need to demand more transparency
from them.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
About.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
About how they make decisions, about what to remove
and why.
Okay, we need to know whattheir policies are, how they're
being applied.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
And if we don't agree with their decisions?
Speaker 2 (11:37):
We need to let them know, be vocal, make it clear
that we're paying attention thatwe won't tolerate censorship
and we can support organizationsthat are fighting for free
speech online.
There are groups out theredoing great work, holding these
companies accountable,advocating for policies that
protect our rights in thedigital age.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
You've given us a lot to think about.
It's easy to feel helpless inall of this.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Yeah, I understand that, but I think you've made
some good points.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
We can't just sit back and let this happen.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
No, we have to be active, engaged.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
We have to fight for a free and open Internet
Absolutely.
I think that's a good takeaway.
We can't just be passivebystanders.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
We have a role to play.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
And we have to be willing to speak out.
Yes, okay, let's take a minuteto process all of this, and then
we'll move on to the final partof our deep dive, where we'll
try to put it all together andhopefully offer some reasons for
optimism.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Okay, so we've covered a lot of ground here,
yeah we have.
And it's easy to get kind ofoverwhelmed by, like the sheer
scale of this problem.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
I know what you mean.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
But I'm hoping we can end this deep dive on a more
hopeful note.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
I think we can, yeah, despite how serious this is.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Okay cut.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
There are actually some reasons to be optimistic.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Tell me more, because I could definitely use some
good news after all of that.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Well, one of the most encouraging things is that
there's more awareness of thisnow than ever before.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
Yeah, like investigative journalists are
really digging into this everbefore.
Yeah, yeah, like investigativejournalists are really digging
into this Right.
Congressional committees areholding hearings, ok, and even
people within these techcompanies.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
They're starting to speak out against this kind of
censorship, so it feels likemaybe the tide is tuning.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
I think it is yeah, ok, the more people know about
this problem, the more likely weare to see some meaningful
action.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
And remember we, the people, we have the power Right.
If we demand change, if werefuse to be silenced, if we
keep fighting for our freedoms,we can make a difference.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
So it's about taking back our agency, taking back our
voices.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
And not just, you know, passively accepting the
information that we're given.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
That's a great way to put it.
It's about being active,engaged.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
You engaged shaping the digital world.
We have the tools to amplifythe voices that are being
silenced.
Challenge those falsenarratives.
Hold those in power accountable.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
It's like a form of digital activism, almost.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Yeah, you could call it that.
We need to be proactive indefending our freedoms online.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
So what does that look like?
What can we actually do?
Speaker 2 (14:09):
Well, it means speaking out against censorship,
supporting those organizationsthat are fighting for free
speech.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Right.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
And demanding transparency from these
companies, from the government.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
And that means going beyond, just like you know,
liking a post on social media orsharing something.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Right.
It's about getting informed,understanding the issues and
then taking action.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
What kind of action?
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Well, you could support legal challenges to
these censorship laws Right.
Contact your elected officials.
Demand that they protect freespeech online.
You could even boycottplatforms that engage in
censorship, or explore andsupport alternative platforms
that are prioritizing freespeech.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
And just talking about it.
Yeah Right, absolutely Friends,family.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Yeah, raising awareness, encouraging critical
thinking, that's huge.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Yeah, ok, I like that .
So it sounds like, even thoughthis is a really complex issue
and we've gone through somepretty dark territory here.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
It is a serious situation.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
You've given us some real reasons to be hopeful.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
I believe there is hope.
Yeah, we just can't give up thefight.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
We have to remember that this fight for free speech,
it's never really over.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
It's a constant struggle.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
But it's one worth having Absolutely.
I mean, the future of theinternet, maybe even the future
of democracy itself, kind ofdepends on it, doesn't it?
I believe it does.
Yeah Well, looks like we'vereached the end of our deep dive
.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Yeah, it's been a long one.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
You've given us a lot to think about, a lot to do.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
I hope so.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
We'll leave our listeners with this.
Don't be afraid to question,challenge.
Speak your mind.
The internet was designed to bea space for free expression,
and it's up to us to keep itthat way.
That's right.
We can't be complacent.
All right, thanks for joiningus on this deep dive and we'll
see you next time.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Thanks for having me.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.