The ascension of the Censorship Manufacturing Empire, spearheaded by Stanford and Silicon Valley

In the realm of digital communication, the line between freedom of speech and security has become increasingly blurred. This is evident in the recent developments surrounding the involvement of government agencies and tech companies in speech policing and censorship.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has urged NATO to prepare for both conventional and hybrid threats, including tweets, signalling a broadened perspective on potential security risks. Meanwhile, the paradigm shift in treating speech policing as a security policy was discussed by Claire Wardle DiResta in a 2018 article for Just Security.

The relationship between government agencies and tech companies has been under scrutiny, with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) expanding its focus to include combatting misinformation and disinformation, regardless of its source. This was particularly evident in the run-up to the 2020 election, when CISA played a significant role in defending the election against mis- and disinformation.

However, concerns about censorship arose when it was revealed that among those targeted by the government for silencing was Stanford's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who opposed broad pandemic lockdowns. The tickets reviewed by RCI illustrated the project's efforts to push social media platforms to silence President Trump and other elected officials.

The government's involvement in speech policing has been a contentious issue, with some experts doubting alleged social media censorship is going away anytime soon. In fact, the tickets almost uniformly covered domestic speech, and from the political right, with dozens of instances where the project made "recommendations" to social media companies to take action.

The government's role in this area has been the subject of legal battles. A federal district court found that in coordinating and colluding with third parties and social media companies to suppress disfavored speech, government agencies had likely violated the First Amendment. However, the nation's highest court stayed an injunction barring such contact during the pendency of the case, over the objections of Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.

The Biden administration's approach to this issue can be seen in the codification of a National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, which treats ideas considered troubling as potential national security threats. This strategy has been met with criticism, with GOP legislation to deter and/or defund the activities illustrated in these cases languishing in Congress.

The future of this relationship between government agencies and tech companies remains uncertain. Stanford's Internet Observatory and the University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public will not be spearheading the Election Integrity Partnership for 2024 or future election cycles. However, the EIP's successor, the Virality Project, was used to target dissent from public health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As we move forward, it is crucial to maintain a balance between security and freedom of speech. Transparency and accountability are key to ensuring that the actions of government agencies and tech companies do not infringe upon the protected political speech of Americans.