4 ms·

> And in an actual weaponization of government, Jordan’s committee has included students — both undergraduates and graduates — in its subpoena requests, publish

by ffhhj 2y ago

> And in an actual weaponization of government, Jordan’s committee has included students — both undergraduates and graduates — in its subpoena requests, publishing their names and putting them at risk of threats or worse. 1984 at work.

consumer451 2y ago
> 1984 at work. This gets thrown around a lot, but here it is entirely appropriate. Jordan's "Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government" is in-fact, the weaponization of the federal government.
progressive666 2y ago
[dead]
pseudo0 2y ago
Is this supposed to be concerning? Most research groups publish a list of their staff online, including graduate students and undergrads. They contribute to and get credited in published work and attend conferences. If you're going to perform oversight of such a group, it has to include all the researchers, not just the people signing the grant paperwork.
- consumer451 2y ago
  > If you're going to perform oversight of such a group "Oversight"[0] is something that the government only does to itself in a free country like the United States of America. Why is the federal government performing "oversight" of Stanford, a private organization and university? As a child, my family brought me to the USA from an authoritarian communist country to escape things like government "oversight" of private universities. I understand that their findings were very uncomfortable for one political party, but that's how this type of thing works. One party is always going to be more uncomfortable. My mind is melting right now. How is this not setting of all of the alarm bells against government overreach, for every liberty-minded person? [0] https://oversight.house.gov/ https://oversight.house.gov/
  - pseudo0 2y ago
    The allegation is described in the article: > SIO and its researchers have been sued three times by conservative groups alleging that its researchers colluded illegally with the federal government to censor speech, forcing Stanford to spend millions of dollars to defend its staff and students. This is the government investigating whether the government colluded with this private entity to take actions that violate the First Amendment. We have seen a lot of that lately, with government agencies leaning on private entities to avoid scrutiny and limit legal relief when it comes to 1A cases. Stanford's involvement is peripheral, the oversight is limited to their interactions with the government. I suppose a liberty-minded individual would suggest that a private entity should not collude with the government, if it wants to avoid government oversight.
    - consumer451 2y ago
      Was any collusion proven in court? Because if not, this feels a lot like the House Un-American Activities Committee, aka McCarthyism. This was historically settled as the definition of government overreach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_C... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism > I suppose a liberty-minded individual would suggest that a private entity should not collude with the government, if it wants to avoid government oversight. I look forward to the endless oversight panels on intel contractors, which I am truly afraid to name, because that will happen as well, right? Please note that afaik, Stanford's Internet Observatory was not a government contractor.
      - pseudo0 2y ago
        As described in the article, all that happened were subpoenas for documents. That's the very first step in any investigation. Those documents have shed significant light on the relationship between the SIO and government agencies [0]: > Led by former CIA fellow Renee DiResta, the Virality Project functioned as an intermediary for government censorship. Ties between the US government and the academic research center were extremely close. DHS had “fellows” embedded at the Stanford Internet Observatory, while SIO had interns embedded at CISA, and former DHS staff contributed to the Virality Project’s final report. > The Virality Project also had contact with the White House and the Office of the Surgeon General, described the CDC as a “partner” in its design documents, and the California Department of Public Health had a login to access the Jira content flagging system, as did CISA personnel. It sure seems like SIO was acting as a government contractor/agent here, if it was providing services to the government in exchange for funding. [0] - https://brownstone.org/articles/the-virality-projects-censorship-agenda/ https://brownstone.org/articles/the-virality-projects-censor...

by ffhhj 2y ago

consumer451 2y ago

> 1984 at work. This gets thrown around a lot, but here it is entirely appropriate. Jordan's "Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government" is in-fact, the weaponization of the federal government.

progressive666 2y ago

[dead]

pseudo0 2y ago

Is this supposed to be concerning? Most research groups publish a list of their staff online, including graduate students and undergrads. They contribute to and get credited in published work and attend conferences. If you're going to perform oversight of such a group, it has to include all the researchers, not just the people signing the grant paperwork.

consumer451 2y ago
> If you're going to perform oversight of such a group "Oversight"[0] is something that the government only does to itself in a free country like the United States of America. Why is the federal government performing "oversight" of Stanford, a private organization and university? As a child, my family brought me to the USA from an authoritarian communist country to escape things like government "oversight" of private universities. I understand that their findings were very uncomfortable for one political party, but that's how this type of thing works. One party is always going to be more uncomfortable. My mind is melting right now. How is this not setting of all of the alarm bells against government overreach, for every liberty-minded person? [0] https://oversight.house.gov/ https://oversight.house.gov/
- pseudo0 2y ago
  The allegation is described in the article: > SIO and its researchers have been sued three times by conservative groups alleging that its researchers colluded illegally with the federal government to censor speech, forcing Stanford to spend millions of dollars to defend its staff and students. This is the government investigating whether the government colluded with this private entity to take actions that violate the First Amendment. We have seen a lot of that lately, with government agencies leaning on private entities to avoid scrutiny and limit legal relief when it comes to 1A cases. Stanford's involvement is peripheral, the oversight is limited to their interactions with the government. I suppose a liberty-minded individual would suggest that a private entity should not collude with the government, if it wants to avoid government oversight.
  - consumer451 2y ago
    Was any collusion proven in court? Because if not, this feels a lot like the House Un-American Activities Committee, aka McCarthyism. This was historically settled as the definition of government overreach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_C... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism > I suppose a liberty-minded individual would suggest that a private entity should not collude with the government, if it wants to avoid government oversight. I look forward to the endless oversight panels on intel contractors, which I am truly afraid to name, because that will happen as well, right? Please note that afaik, Stanford's Internet Observatory was not a government contractor.
    - pseudo0 2y ago
      As described in the article, all that happened were subpoenas for documents. That's the very first step in any investigation. Those documents have shed significant light on the relationship between the SIO and government agencies [0]: > Led by former CIA fellow Renee DiResta, the Virality Project functioned as an intermediary for government censorship. Ties between the US government and the academic research center were extremely close. DHS had “fellows” embedded at the Stanford Internet Observatory, while SIO had interns embedded at CISA, and former DHS staff contributed to the Virality Project’s final report. > The Virality Project also had contact with the White House and the Office of the Surgeon General, described the CDC as a “partner” in its design documents, and the California Department of Public Health had a login to access the Jira content flagging system, as did CISA personnel. It sure seems like SIO was acting as a government contractor/agent here, if it was providing services to the government in exchange for funding. [0] - https://brownstone.org/articles/the-virality-projects-censorship-agenda/ https://brownstone.org/articles/the-virality-projects-censor...