Three separate investigations took over a year to nail down the case that government agencies were improperly censoring by proxy. Forced by courts to stop, they’re desperately trying for a reboot
I almost blew a top reading Brandy Zadrozny’s NBC piece that claimed it was “conspiracy theory” to suggest organizations like Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) acted as “proxies” for government censorship. Three different groups — Twitter Files reporters, staffers for House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan’s Weaponization of Government Committee, and lawyers in the Murthy v. Missouri case — spent more than a year of work building that case. We didn’t come to the exact same conclusions, but all three investigations agreed on the basic premise, backed by a mountain of documentation.
Many emails and other communications describing the creation of the EIP (and outlining the platforms’ relationship to agencies like the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security) were never published. Zadrozny’s piece was sufficiently irritating that I decided to lay out, one more time, just how overwhelming and even redundant the evidence is that agencies like the DHS designed these programs to be pliant cutouts for state content control:
