Bombshell Congressional report uncovers well-funded network of election interference and censorship

Election interference is more intricately planned and well-funded than previously realized. The Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government recently released an interim staff report titled: “Weaponization of “Disinformation” Pseudo-experts and Bureaucrats: How the Federal Government Partnered with Universities to Censor Americans’ Political Speech.”

The report unravels the criminal conspiracy to deprive Americans of their Free Speech rights, originally protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The report also finds that actors within the federal government are collaborating with “disinformation-fighting” firms to control the information that is shared online and throughout the public square. This criminal conspiracy uses censorship to deceive the public. These censorship operations manipulate public discourse and threaten the very fabric of democracy, while establishing an elaborate system of election interference and engineering.

Multiple organizations working with federal operatives to silence Americans

The Congressional report exposes the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), which is contracted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for the sole purpose of censoring Americans and controlling their conversations. The EIP was developed by the Atlantic Council in 2020 and was immediately used by the U.S. government to target American’s free speech rights. This shadow group has done nothing but promote corporate propaganda and elevate false government narratives, all under the guise of “combating disinformation.”

The report finds that the federal government and public universities worked together to pressure social media companies to censure conservative political opinions, true information and even jokes. The censorship almost always benefited one side of the political spectrum. Information shared by Republicans and conservatives was targeted as “misinformation” and routinely removed from platforms, even when true, while false information shared by Democrats and liberals was allowed to flourish through algorithmic programs.

The EIP can be broken down into four other “partners,” including the following: the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), the University of Washington Center for an Informed Public (CIP) Graphika, and, of course, the Atlantic Council. Each organization has a specific role to play in their censorship gambit. One organization conspires to identify and isolate “spreaders of misinformation.” Another organization is tasked with building a psychological profile on its targets, while detailing the networks and social media sites that their targets interact on. Yet another organization is conscripted to communicate directly with the social media companies and suggest that their targets be censored and removed from their platforms. These companies routinely pressured social media companies to identify offending posts, and kept an open line of communication back to the EIP and the government official that originally demanded the censorship.

The organizations openly talk about their “Platform Takedown” operation, which was specifically developed to target undesirable information and have it removed from major social media platforms. Accordingly, social media companies may shadow ban a user’s posts and limit their “discoverability.” These organizations controlled the narrative on topics like “election misinformation” and “vaccine misinformation” – essentially deceiving the public on matters of historical importance.

Former intelligence officials conspire to control what people think and share online

Graphika is openly described as a company that specialized in “cutting-edge technology that creates large-scale explorable maps of social media landscapes.” Graphika provides so-called in-depth analysis that can help “clients and partners understand complex online networks and take decisive action.” Graphika works directly with Harvard, Oxford and DARPA to target Americans for wrong-think. These Americans are then slandered across the internet, their professional reputations challenged and their licenses suspended.

The University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public is all about thought control. Their mission is “to resist strategic misinformation,” to “promote an informed society,” and to “strengthen democratic discourse.” To them, strengthening the democracy and public discourse must include a takedown of public knowledge and targeting Americans for wrong-think. As of November 2023, the CIP is focusing on the identification and takedown of information from X users (formerly Twitter) who they view as the “new elites.” The “new elites” that are targeted for censorship and defamation include influencers who have large followings on the X platform.

Likewise, the Atlantic Council employs former U.S. intelligence officers to takedown Americans who tell the truth online. The Council’s newfound Digital Forensic Research Lab has “operationalized the study of disinformation by exposing falsehoods and fake news, documenting human rights abuses and building digital resilience worldwide.” This is fancy doublespeak for: “We are censoring the truth to make the world a safer place, a place where official lies must be honored to comfort our collective consciousness into a state of psychological submission.”

According to the Council’s website, they are open about their desire to target Americans and falsely label them as “harmful,” while removing them from the conversation. “Further research and capability building are necessary to avoid the further proliferation of these threats,” the website reads. “Within industry, decades of “trust and safety” (T&S) practice has developed into a field that can illuminate the complexities of building and operating online spaces. Outside industry, civil society groups, independent researchers and academics continue to lead the way in building collective understanding of how risks propagate via online platforms—and how products could be constructed to better promote social well-being and to mitigate harms.”

This is a sophisticated way of saying: “We know what’s best for everyone to see and hear. We will tell people what is appropriate to think. We, the all-knowing, will determine who is a threat, and we will censor them and eliminate them from the conversation to provide a more perfect ‘democracy.'”

Sources include:

Judiciary.House.gov [PDF]

Web.Archive.org

Graphika.com

Web.Archive.org

RWMalone.substack.com

CIP.UW.edu