The Censorship Industrial Complex: How Government Agencies and Big Tech Collude to Shape Public Discourse

The U.S. House Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

Shellenberger’s testimony outlines a network of government agencies, NGOs, and academic institutions involved in what he terms the "censorship industrial complex." This network allegedly operates to control and suppress various information, particularly on contentious topics like COVID-19 origins, vaccine information, and political issues, by collaborating with social media companies to monitor, label, or remove certain content.

The testimony covers the following key points:

1. **Historical Context**: It begins with President Eisenhower's warning about a "military-industrial complex," comparing it to today’s “censorship-industrial complex,” which Shellenberger argues similarly threatens democratic freedoms.

2. **Network of Institutions and Funding**: The testimony details how institutions like the National Science Foundation and DARPA have funded programs to monitor and counter online disinformation, with prominent involvement from organizations like Stanford Internet Observatory, the Atlantic Council, and Graphika, alongside private entities like Moonshot CVE.

3. **Disinformation Campaigns**: It highlights several instances considered disinformation campaigns, such as:

- The Trump-Russia collusion theory, which Shellenberger argues was exaggerated.

- The COVID-19 lab-leak theory, initially labeled a conspiracy theory despite scientific backing.

- The Hunter Biden laptop story, allegedly downplayed by government influence over social media platforms.

4. **Ideological and Strategic Goals**: According to Shellenberger, the complex’s goal is to create a controlled information environment, increasingly extending censorship to domestic content by labeling it as “misinformation” or “disinformation.” He critiques the ideological foundation of this network as inherently elitist, assuming a small group of experts can determine “truth” for the broader public.

5. **Recommendations**: Shellenberger urges Congress to defund this network, increase transparency of communications between government and social media companies, and reconsider Section 230 protections, which shield platforms from liability for user-generated content.

This testimony argues that these censorship practices go beyond defending democracy and veer into stifling legitimate democratic debate by curtailing free expression, presenting an ideological and operational expansion of censorship by the U.S. government through public-private partnerships.

Michael Shellenberger’s testimony to Congress, now known as "The Censorship Industrial Complex," has spotlighted a network of government agencies, private firms, NGOs, and academic institutions that he claims are actively engaged in coordinated efforts to monitor, influence, and suppress content deemed problematic or disfavored by these institutions. According to Shellenberger, these organizations often operate under the premise of preventing misinformation but actually end up silencing legitimate discourse on complex and often controversial subjects, ranging from public health issues to political debates. He highlights that these entities receive considerable funding from the government, notably from bodies like the National Science Foundation and DARPA, which initially developed techniques for combatting foreign threats but now allegedly apply them domestically to influence public opinion.

At the core of Shellenberger’s argument is the assertion that this "censorship industrial complex" systematically intervenes in public discourse. She claims that agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), collaborate closely with social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to suppress or flag content, particularly around elections and public health topics. For instance, during the 2020 elections, CISA and affiliated entities like the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) flagged millions of social media posts for moderation or removal, categorizing them as misinformation or potentially harmful narratives. Shellenberger argues that, under this structure, these platforms are effectively pressured into censorship under the guise of maintaining order and integrity online.

Shellenberger and his allies, including journalist Matt Taibbi, argue that this system exceeds mere guidance, as it involves direct influence on social media executives to remove or downrank content that challenges prevailing narratives. For instance, Shellenberger claims that agencies indirectly encourage compliance by holding the possibility of regulatory backlash over social media companies, positioning cooperation as a means to avoid such consequences. In a recent example involving the COVID-19 pandemic, internal emails reportedly show that Facebook faced pressures to moderate content related to vaccine information under threat of adverse policy changes affecting its operations in Europe. This, Shellenberger asserts, led to the removal of even “often-true” information that was deemed problematic due to potential effects on public sentiment.

Shellenberger calls for Congress to defund these activities, promote transparency regarding government-platform interactions, and limit Section 230 protections that currently allow tech companies significant latitude in moderating content. By highlighting these findings, Shellenberger warns of a growing entrenchment of censorship practices within key institutions, presenting a challenge to free speech under the guise of “protecting democracy” from misinformation—a dynamic, he argues, that ultimately undermines democratic processes by restricting open debate on critical issues.

Disinformation: A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century

Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each.

1. What is the primary concern raised regarding organizations like the Stanford Internet Observatory and Graphika?

2. What was the initial purpose of Graphika, and how has its focus shifted?

3. What constitutional right does the government censorship of political speech violate?

4. Briefly describe the origins and purpose of CISA.

5. What is the EI-ISAC, and how is it used for censorship purposes?

6. How does the concept of “prebunking” relate to censorship?

7. What are the two criteria that define membership in the American ruling class, as described in the text?

8. What is the significance of the Steele Dossier in the context of Russiagate?

9. How did the Obama administration leverage the "Russia hacked the 2016 election" narrative?

10. According to the text, how has the U.S. government's approach to counterterrorism shifted to target domestic populations?

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary concern is their inadequate disclosure of ties to the Department of Defense, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies, raising questions about their involvement in institutionalizing censorship research and advocacy.

2. Graphika was initially a private network analysis firm focused on identifying foreign influence campaigns, particularly Russian interference in elections. Its focus has shifted to include domestic censorship, targeting political speech and COVID-19 discourse.

3. Government censorship of political speech violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

4. CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) was established in 2018 as a component of DHS (Department of Homeland Security) to lead cybersecurity and critical infrastructure security programs. However, it has expanded its activities into monitoring and influencing online discourse.

5. The EI-ISAC (Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center) is a platform used by state and local election officials to share information with CISA. It has been used to flag and censor online content deemed to be "misinformation," effectively silencing critics and dissenting voices.

6. “Prebunking” involves presenting preemptive counterarguments or warnings about potential "misinformation" before it is widely circulated. Critics argue this manipulates public perception and limits exposure to alternative viewpoints, amounting to a form of censorship.

7. The two criteria are: (1) attending an elite university and (2) holding a top position in one or more of the following: a major media company, a prestigious university, a large tech company, a powerful bank, or a prominent foundation.

8. The Steele Dossier, a collection of unverified reports alleging ties between Trump and Russia, was used as the basis for obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, despite its questionable credibility. It played a significant role in fueling the Russiagate narrative.

9. The Obama administration used the "Russia hacked the 2016 election" narrative to justify expanding surveillance powers, increase censorship efforts, and delegitimize Trump's presidency. This narrative laid the groundwork for the subsequent crackdown on "disinformation."

10. The tactics and infrastructure developed to combat terrorism abroad, such as surveillance technologies and psychological operations, have been repurposed to target domestic populations deemed to be spreading "misinformation" or holding dissenting views.

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the evolution of the internet from a tool of individual empowerment to a potential instrument of government control and censorship. Discuss the role of Silicon Valley and the national security apparatus in this transformation.

2. Discuss the concept of the "censorship industrial complex" as described in the text. What are its key components, and how do they work together to shape online discourse?

3. Critically evaluate the arguments for and against government intervention in regulating "disinformation" online. What are the potential benefits and risks of such actions?

4. To what extent is the “war on disinformation” a continuation of the “war on terror”? Explore the parallels between these two campaigns, including their justifications, methods, and potential consequences for civil liberties.

5. How does the text challenge the conventional narrative surrounding Russiagate? What alternative perspectives are presented, and how do they impact our understanding of the events of the 2016 election and its aftermath?

Glossary of Key Terms

• Censorship Industrial Complex: A network of government agencies, private companies, and non-profit organizations working together to control and censor online information.

• CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency): A federal agency within the Department of Homeland Security responsible for protecting critical infrastructure, including election systems. CISA has expanded its activities to include monitoring and influencing online discourse.

• Disinformation: False information spread deliberately to deceive or mislead.

• EI-ISAC (Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center): A platform used by state and local election officials to share information about potential threats to elections. This platform has been used to flag and censor online content.

• FITF (Foreign Influence Task Force): An interagency group within the FBI responsible for countering foreign influence operations, including disinformation campaigns.

• GEC (Global Engagement Center): A division of the U.S. State Department tasked with countering foreign propaganda and disinformation.

• Graphika: A private network analysis firm initially focused on identifying foreign influence campaigns. Its work has expanded to include domestic censorship efforts.

• Misinformation: False or inaccurate information spread unintentionally.

• Prebunking: A strategy to preemptively counter potential "misinformation" by providing warnings or alternative narratives before it is widely circulated.

• Russiagate: A term referring to the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election.

• Stanford Internet Observatory: A research center at Stanford University that studies online abuse, including disinformation and misinformation.

---

Briefing Doc: Disinformation, Censorship, and the Erosion of American Freedom

This document summarizes key themes and findings from the provided source, Michael Shellenberger’s “CENSORSHIP 710.pdf" and an excerpt from his book "A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century." The sources detail the emergence of a powerful censorship apparatus in the US, built on the infrastructure of the "war on terror" and repurposed to control online information under the banner of fighting “disinformation.”

Main Themes:

The Weaponization of Disinformation: The concept of "disinformation" has been weaponized to justify censorship of political speech and dissent. Federal agencies, particularly CISA within DHS, have overstepped their mandates to police online speech, often by collaborating with third parties like NGOs and social media companies to circumvent First Amendment protections.

The Censorship Industrial Complex: A network of government agencies, NGOs, think tanks, and academics has emerged, fueled by government funding and a shared ideology of censorship. This complex seeks to control the information environment by labeling inconvenient truths as "misinformation" and silencing dissenting voices.

From Counterterrorism to Domestic Censorship: Tools and tactics developed for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency efforts are being redeployed domestically to target American citizens. The focus has shifted from fighting foreign threats to policing the thoughts and opinions of the American public.

The Erosion of Free Speech and Democratic Norms: The censorship complex undermines fundamental American values of free speech, open debate, and democratic accountability. This trend threatens to create a chilling effect on public discourse and erode trust in institutions.

Key Findings:

CISA's Mission Creep: Despite its statutory mandate focusing on cybersecurity, CISA has actively pursued a mission of countering "misinformation" and "disinformation," even targeting domestic actors and narratives.

Censorship by Proxy: CISA collaborates with third-party organizations, particularly the EI-ISAC, to flag and censor content on social media platforms. This practice allows the government to exert influence over online speech while maintaining a degree of plausible deniability.

Blurring of Domestic and Foreign Threats: CISA and its partners have downplayed the distinction between foreign and domestic sources of disinformation, effectively justifying the targeting of American citizens.

Manipulating Social Media Platforms: CISA officials have pressured social media companies to adopt stricter content moderation policies, often by leveraging regulatory threats and the promise of government funding.

Government-Funded Censorship: Taxpayer dollars are being used to fund a vast network of organizations dedicated to censorship and narrative control. These organizations often operate with opaque funding structures and close ties to government agencies.

Supporting Quotes:

CISA Director Jen Easterly: "One could argue we’re in the business of critical infrastructure, and the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure, so building that resilience to misinformation and disinformation, I think, is incredibly important." This quote reveals the chilling ambition of government officials to control the thoughts and beliefs of American citizens.

Suzanne Spaulding (former CIA legal advisor): "encouraged Dr. Starbird [chair of CISA's MDM subcommittee] to emphasize that domestic threats remain and while attribution is sometimes unclear, CISA should be sensitive to domestic distinctions, but cannot focus too heavily on such limitations." This quote demonstrates the willingness of government officials to blur the lines between foreign and domestic threats to justify censorship.

Mike Benz (Founder, Foundation for Freedom Online): "This huge machinery was built around the war on terror. A massive infrastructure that includes the intelligence world, all the elements of DoD, including the combatant commands, CIA and FBI and all the other agencies. And then there are all the private contractors and the demand in think tanks. I mean, there are billions and billions of dollars at stake." This quote highlights the vast resources being poured into the censorship apparatus, largely driven by self-preservation and the need to constantly inflate the threat level.

Michael Shellenberger: "The war on terror was a dismal failure that ended with the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan, but its legacy lives on in the security state’s obsession with “disinformation” and its expansion of surveillance powers to target domestic political dissent." This quote connects the rise of the censorship complex to the failures of the "war on terror" and the enduring legacy of its overreach.

Conclusion:

The evidence presented in these sources paints a disturbing picture of a growing censorship regime in the US, operating under the guise of fighting "disinformation" but ultimately aimed at controlling political narratives and suppressing dissent. This trend represents a grave threat to American freedom and democratic values, and demands further investigation and accountability.