Исследователи дезинформации из Стэнфорда раскрыли, как в 2020 Беатти послужил ключевым звеном для распространения байки про «цветную революцию».
Occasionally, Russian state media, such as RT, ran op-eds insinuating that domestic protest movements in the United States were in fact color revolution regime-change tactics. However, during the 2020 election, the term was applied to American politics in a somewhat unexpected way: prominent American conservative influencers suggesting that the US was experiencing a Deep State-backed color revolution intended to steal the election from President Trump.45 The first major push to introduce mainstream audiences to the narrative came from former Trump speechwriter and prominent conservative commentator Darren Beattie, who wrote about the theory and discussed it in podcasts in conversation with Steve Bannon, Michelle Malkin, and Adam Townsend. Right-wing newsite Revolver.News produced a detailed series laying out his claims. On September 15, Beattie appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight, giving the narrative mainstream attention on a program with an audience of millions. The propagation of the color revolution narrative occurred over several months, waxing and waning in popularity, but gradually gaining adoption as a frame to explain grass-roots Black Lives Matter protests and voting irregularities as part of an elaborate plan by Democratic operatives to steal the election. After Election Day, use of the term “color revolution” spiked a few more times, driven mostly by videos and posts that echoed the pre-election narrative, alleging that the “coup” had happened. Two of these spikes of activity, November 29-30 and December 11-14, seemed to revolve around tweets and posts by Lin Wood, a defender of President Trump who prominently promoted various conspiracies to explain Trump’s loss. https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:tr171zs0069/EIP-Final-Report.pdf
В показаниях Конгрессу в июле 2022 руководитель Стэнфордского проекта предложила рекомендации для социальных сетей:
That Technology Platforms: ● Develop clear guidelines and consistently enforce rules for accounts that repeatedly violate election misinformation policies. Platforms should provide both rationales and case studies to provide a clear understanding of their policies. ● Ensure that verified and high-profile accounts, which are known to be highly influential in the spread of rumors and have the greatest capability to mobilize, are held to as high a standard as others. ● Provide access to data, with appropriate privacy and security considerations, for academics, civil society, and the public, to better understand the spread of rumors, their reach, and how they are addressed. ● Enable access for external researchers to removed or labeled content, including exhaustive and rapid search capabilities. ● Provide greater transparency about why something has been removed or censored. https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2022-07-27_elections-cha_testimony_renee_diresta.pdf
Купив и разрушив Твиттер, Маск нарушил все эти рекомендации, а Джим Джордан, товарищ Мэтта Гаетца среди « цепных псов» Трампа и нынешний кандидат в спикеры, объявил войну исследователям дезинформации.
Jim Jordan, a US representative for Ohio, is leading the charge against the scientists. He is also one of the Republican leaders who have suggested that the Democrats have stolen the 2020 presidential election from former president Donald Trump, and who have made unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud. The House of Representatives judiciary committee that Jordan chairs is one of at least three investigating an alleged ‘censorship regime’ that involves academic researchers, US government programmes designed to counter disinformation and social-media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook. The committees have sent out letters demanding communications and records from numerous scientists and institutions - in some cases under threat of legal action. In parallel, a cadre of activist groups and Republican-led states that challenged the 2020 election results have launched lawsuits against the administration of President Joe Biden, as well as against individual researchers. In response to one such suit, on 4 July, a federal judge in Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction barring US agencies from interacting with social-media companies, with the purpose of “urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing” them to remove content. The order by judge Terry Doughty, who was appointed by Trump in 2017, also banned federal agencies from working with disinformation researchers. <...> One scientist familiar with the situation expressed a sense of frustration, saying that there is no way to counter the conspiracy theory suggesting they were part of an effort to censor conservative voices. They point out that researchers ran their studies openly and in full view of the public, and question why the judiciary committee is conducting its investigation behind closed doors, instead of allowing scientists to testify publicly about their work and their findings. “I don’t think they want public testimony, because they don’t want those optics,” says the scientist, who requested anonymity so they could speak freely. “It’s political retaliation,” they say, and there is little that the individual researchers who are being targeted can do to fight back. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02195-3
Mr. Gaetz, then 35, believed that the president’s allies in Congress needed a coordinated strategy to fight back against an investigation they viewed as deeply unfair and politically biased. He called Representative Jim Jordan, a conservative Republican from Ohio, and told him the party needed “to go play offense,” Mr. Gaetz recalled in an interview. The two men believed that Republican leaders, who publicly praised the appointment of Mr. Mueller, had been beaten into a defensive crouch by the unending chaos and were leaving Democrats unchecked to “pistol whip” the president with constant accusations about his campaign and Russia. So they began to investigate the investigators. Mr. Trump and his lawyers enthusiastically encouraged the strategy, which, according to some polls, convinced many Americans that the country’s law enforcement apparatus was determined to bring down the president. Within days of their conversation, Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Jordan drafted a letter to Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein, the first call for the appointment of a second special counsel to essentially reinvestigate Hillary Clinton for her handling of her emails while secretary of state - the case had ended in the summer of 2016 - as well as the origins of the F.B.I.’s investigation of Mr. Flynn and other Trump associates. The letter itself, with the signatures of only 20 House Republicans, gained little traction at first. But an important shift was underway: At a time when Mr. Trump’s lawyers were urging him to cooperate with Mr. Mueller and to tone down his Twitter feed, the president’s fiercest allies in Congress and the conservative news media were busy trying to flip the script on the federal law enforcement agencies and officials who began the inquiry into Mr. Trump’s campaign. Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Jordan began huddling with like-minded Republicans, sometimes including Representative Mark Meadows, a press-savvy North Carolinian close to Mr. Trump, and Representative Devin Nunes of California, the head of the House Intelligence Committee. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/trump-investigations.html
Representatives Steve Scalise, the majority leader, and Jim Jordan, the Judiciary Committee chairman, had each landed more than a dozen endorsements by the afternoon as they raced toward a vote of Republicans tentatively scheduled for Tuesday. An election on the House floor could follow the next day, though the process could stretch much longer if no consensus can be reached. Then early Friday, former President Donald J. Trump, whose far-right acolytes in Congress helped lead the rebellion that has plunged the House into chaos, weighed in. “Congressman Jim Jordan has been a STAR long before making his very successful journey to Washington, D.C.,” Mr. Trump wrote in a Truth Social message that was posted at 12:13 a.m. on Friday. “He will be a GREAT Speaker of the House, & has my Complete & Total Endorsement!” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/us/politics/scalise-jordan-trump-speaker.html
Исследователи дезинформации из Стэнфорда раскрыли, как в 2020 Беатти послужил ключевым звеном для распространения байки про «цветную революцию».
Occasionally, Russian state media, such as RT, ran op-eds insinuating that domestic protest movements in the United States were in fact color revolution regime-change tactics. However, during the 2020 election, the term was applied to American politics in a somewhat unexpected way: prominent American conservative influencers suggesting that the US was experiencing a Deep State-backed color revolution intended to steal the election from President Trump.45 The first major push to introduce mainstream audiences to the narrative came from former Trump speechwriter and prominent conservative commentator Darren Beattie, who wrote about the theory and discussed it in podcasts in conversation with Steve Bannon, Michelle Malkin, and Adam Townsend. Right-wing newsite Revolver.News produced a detailed series laying out his claims. On September 15, Beattie appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight, giving the narrative mainstream attention on a program with an audience of millions. The propagation of the color revolution narrative occurred over several months, waxing and waning in popularity, but gradually gaining adoption as a frame to explain grass-roots Black Lives Matter protests and voting irregularities as part of an elaborate plan by Democratic operatives to steal the election. After Election Day, use of the term “color revolution” spiked a few more times, driven mostly by videos and posts that echoed the pre-election narrative, alleging that the “coup” had happened. Two of these spikes of activity, November 29-30 and December 11-14, seemed to revolve around tweets and posts by Lin Wood, a defender of President Trump who prominently promoted various conspiracies to explain Trump’s loss.
https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:tr171zs0069/EIP-Final-Report.pdf
Reply
That Technology Platforms:
● Develop clear guidelines and consistently enforce rules for accounts that repeatedly violate election misinformation policies. Platforms should provide both rationales and case studies to provide a clear understanding of their policies.
● Ensure that verified and high-profile accounts, which are known to be highly influential in the spread of rumors and have the greatest capability to mobilize, are held to as high a standard as others.
● Provide access to data, with appropriate privacy and security considerations, for academics, civil society, and the public, to better understand the spread of rumors, their reach, and how they are addressed.
● Enable access for external researchers to removed or labeled content, including exhaustive and rapid search capabilities.
● Provide greater transparency about why something has been removed or censored.
https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2022-07-27_elections-cha_testimony_renee_diresta.pdf
Купив и разрушив Твиттер, Маск нарушил все эти рекомендации, а Джим Джордан, товарищ Мэтта Гаетца среди « цепных псов» Трампа и нынешний кандидат в спикеры, объявил войну исследователям дезинформации.
Jim Jordan, a US representative for Ohio, is leading the charge against the scientists. He is also one of the Republican leaders who have suggested that the Democrats have stolen the 2020 presidential election from former president Donald Trump, and who have made unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud.
The House of Representatives judiciary committee that Jordan chairs is one of at least three investigating an alleged ‘censorship regime’ that involves academic researchers, US government programmes designed to counter disinformation and social-media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook. The committees have sent out letters demanding communications and records from numerous scientists and institutions - in some cases under threat of legal action. In parallel, a cadre of activist groups and Republican-led states that challenged the 2020 election results have launched lawsuits against the administration of President Joe Biden, as well as against individual researchers.
In response to one such suit, on 4 July, a federal judge in Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction barring US agencies from interacting with social-media companies, with the purpose of “urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing” them to remove content. The order by judge Terry Doughty, who was appointed by Trump in 2017, also banned federal agencies from working with disinformation researchers. <...>
One scientist familiar with the situation expressed a sense of frustration, saying that there is no way to counter the conspiracy theory suggesting they were part of an effort to censor conservative voices. They point out that researchers ran their studies openly and in full view of the public, and question why the judiciary committee is conducting its investigation behind closed doors, instead of allowing scientists to testify publicly about their work and their findings.
“I don’t think they want public testimony, because they don’t want those optics,” says the scientist, who requested anonymity so they could speak freely. “It’s political retaliation,” they say, and there is little that the individual researchers who are being targeted can do to fight back.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02195-3
Reply
"Look, we have some absolute warriors," Trump told Fox News on April 26 when asked about his relationship with Congress, name-checking "Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows and Matt Gaetz and [Ron] DeSantis.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/07/trump-mueller-republican-warriors-congress-571562
Mr. Gaetz, then 35, believed that the president’s allies in Congress needed a coordinated strategy to fight back against an investigation they viewed as deeply unfair and politically biased.
He called Representative Jim Jordan, a conservative Republican from Ohio, and told him the party needed “to go play offense,” Mr. Gaetz recalled in an interview.
The two men believed that Republican leaders, who publicly praised the appointment of Mr. Mueller, had been beaten into a defensive crouch by the unending chaos and were leaving Democrats unchecked to “pistol whip” the president with constant accusations about his campaign and Russia.
So they began to investigate the investigators. Mr. Trump and his lawyers enthusiastically encouraged the strategy, which, according to some polls, convinced many Americans that the country’s law enforcement apparatus was determined to bring down the president.
Within days of their conversation, Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Jordan drafted a letter to Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein, the first call for the appointment of a second special counsel to essentially reinvestigate Hillary Clinton for her handling of her emails while secretary of state - the case had ended in the summer of 2016 - as well as the origins of the F.B.I.’s investigation of Mr. Flynn and other Trump associates.
The letter itself, with the signatures of only 20 House Republicans, gained little traction at first. But an important shift was underway: At a time when Mr. Trump’s lawyers were urging him to cooperate with Mr. Mueller and to tone down his Twitter feed, the president’s fiercest allies in Congress and the conservative news media were busy trying to flip the script on the federal law enforcement agencies and officials who began the inquiry into Mr. Trump’s campaign.
Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Jordan began huddling with like-minded Republicans, sometimes including Representative Mark Meadows, a press-savvy North Carolinian close to Mr. Trump, and Representative Devin Nunes of California, the head of the House Intelligence Committee.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/trump-investigations.html
Reply
Then early Friday, former President Donald J. Trump, whose far-right acolytes in Congress helped lead the rebellion that has plunged the House into chaos, weighed in.
“Congressman Jim Jordan has been a STAR long before making his very successful journey to Washington, D.C.,” Mr. Trump wrote in a Truth Social message that was posted at 12:13 a.m. on Friday. “He will be a GREAT Speaker of the House, & has my Complete & Total Endorsement!”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/us/politics/scalise-jordan-trump-speaker.html
Reply
The likely next Speaker of the House was the guy in control of that Twitter account at the time, fyi
- Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) October 6, 2023
Reply
Leave a comment