Subscribe for premier reporting on free speech, privacy, Big Tech, media gatekeepers, and individual liberty online.

Jim Jordan Investigates Stanford Internet Observatory Monitoring Election Speech for 2024

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Recently the news arrived that what opponents see as a key linchpin in the government-Big Tech censorship collusion, the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), was winding back its operations.

But before it does, the House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government want to gain access to information requested through a previous subpoena.

On Monday, Chairman Jim Jordan sent a letter to SIO’s legal representative, the main point being the Committee’s desire to make sure that neither SIO, other groups operating as part of the university, nor any group that might succeed SIO will continue with their “disinformation studies” ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Jordan recalled that the subpoena was issued in April 2023, after the group failed to voluntarily provide requested information meant to help the Committee’s oversight of alleged past collusion. However, SIO (Stanford) failed to respond to the subpoena in time.

Jordan goes into what type of information was requested: Stanford working with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) and in the process using Jira to send censorship recommendations to online platforms, for the sake of content “moderation.” The Committee wanted access to relevant Jira ticketing data and other documents.

Under threat of being held in contempt, this eventually started happening, and, Jordan writes, “The Committee found that there were dozens of examples of EIP personnel, including then-Director of SIO Alex Stamos, making explicit recommendations to platforms for specific enforcement measures.”

Prior to this, the SIO and EIP denied making this type of recommendation, and there is now obviously little trust, to put it mildly, in the Committee’s approach to the activities of these groups (Jordan mentions their “repeated false and/or misleading” past statements).

With that in mind and given the news of SIO’s “disbanding,” but also “reconstituting” in some manner, the letter wants to make sure that the “reconstituted remnants” don’t resume with their involvement in censoring lawful speech ahead of an election.

“The Committee’s subpoena to Stanford University is continuing in nature, and the instructions and definitions accompanying the subpoena make clear that relevant documents and information related to the SIO – and its ‘successors’ – are within the scope of the subpoena,” Jordan warns in the letter.

In order to ensure compliance, the Committee wants to know if SIO or some successor, or another Stanford University entity, will “participate or otherwise support the Election Integrity Partnership” as well as if they will “participate or otherwise support any monitoring, analysis, or research of Americans’ election-related speech in the lead-up to the 2024 election.”

Further questions about the same current or future groups concern their intent, or lack thereof, “to work with, or intend to work with, any social media or technology companies regarding the monitoring or moderation of Americans’ election-related speech online,” and – “Will the SIO, any successor to the SIO, or any other entity within Stanford University provide recommendations to social media or technology companies to remove or otherwise censor Americans’ election-related speech in the lead-up to the 2024 election.”

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Read more

Join the pushback against online censorship, cancel culture, and surveillance.

Already a member? Login.