Mike Benz, a former U.S. State Department official and now Executive Director of the Foundation For Freedom Online, dives into the complexities of digital censorship. He discusses the government's evolving role in online speech, scrutinizing the intertwining of censorship and democracy since the 2016 election. Benz also highlights foreign influence on democratic institutions, particularly in Ukraine, and critiques the censorship industry’s impact on political discourse. The conversation raises vital questions about the balance between free speech and disinformation in today's political landscape.
Mike Benz emphasizes the shift from promoting international free speech to domestic censorship by the U.S. government post-2016 election.
The podcast examines how technological firms like Twitter and Facebook have collaborated with government entities to enforce censorship initiatives.
A pivotal development in 2014 marked the start of institutionalized internet censorship in response to geopolitical events and hybrid warfare tactics.
The redefinition of misinformation from a foreign to a domestic issue reflects a troubling trend in government overreach and censorship practices.
The discussion underscores the need for significant reforms and transparency within governmental institutions to combat the complexities of censorship.
Deep dives
Background of the Guest
The guest of the episode shares his background, highlighting his experiences as a speechwriter and advisor on technology issues for the Trump administration. He recounts running the cyber division of the State Department, overseeing the intersection of government, international diplomacy, and big tech companies such as Google and Facebook. This role positioned him as a liaison for tech interests within the government, where he engaged with lobbyists seeking favorable outcomes. His perspective shifted dramatically following the 2016 election, leading to a focus on the emergent censorship landscape involving government, private sector, and media collaboration.
Initiation of Internet Censorship
The discussion centers around the pivotal moment in 2014 that marked the beginning of institutionalized internet censorship in the U.S. This shift was precipitated by the geopolitical events in Ukraine, where U.S. involvement led to significant political changes. The guest elaborates on how the U.S. government transitioned from promoting free speech internationally to actively participating in censorship to counter perceived Russian influence. The new focus on controlling online narratives was framed as a response to hybrid warfare tactics, establishing a precedent for future domestic censorship mechanisms.
Government's Role in Censorship Infrastructure
An exploration of the government's role in developing a censorship infrastructure emerges, particularly following the events in Crimea. The establishment of doctrines that emphasized control of information through media rather than direct military engagement marked a strategic shift in U.S. foreign policy. The classification of information control as a form of warfare became a crucial aspect of diplomatic and military strategies, leading to institutional endorsements of censorship. As a result, the U.S. government began to formalize its censorship capabilities while framing it as necessary for national security.
Effects of the 2016 Election and Censorship Rise
Following the 2016 election, there was a stark increase in censorship directed at U.S. citizens, particularly those aligned with populist movements. The guest discusses how narratives labeling certain political figures as threats to democracy led to escalated surveillance and censorship practices. This change was accentuated by the emergence of conspiracy theories surrounding populist candidates, which prompted the government to act under the guise of protecting democratic principles. Consequently, censorship evolved to encompass more than just foreign influence, morphing into a comprehensive domestic policy tool.
Shift to Domestic Censorship Manipulation
A significant focus of the podcast is the transition from countering misinformation as a foreign threat to viewing it as a domestic peril. This change was largely facilitated by governmental responses to populism and discontent among voters, which were often framed as threats to democratic processes. The guest characterizes this evolution as dangerous, noting that it allowed the government to redefine misinformation and thus extend censorship measures within the U.S. This strategic realignment underscores the chronic tension between maintaining free speech and regulating perceived threats to democracy.
Role of Technology Companies in Censorship
The relationship between technology firms and government censorship initiatives is critically examined, with specific emphasis on how companies like Twitter and Facebook collaborated with government entities. The podcast illustrates examples where pressure from the government led to self-censorship among these platforms, influencing the narratives shared online. Furthermore, the guest reveals that many censorial tactics implemented during the pandemic were pre-existing frameworks adapted for new circumstances. This illustrates a worrying trend where private companies feel compelled to act as arbiters of acceptable speech under governmental scrutiny.
Origins of the Global Engagement Center
A pivotal discussion includes the establishment of the Global Engagement Center, set up to combat misinformation in the context of terrorism. Initially framed as a counter-terrorism initiative, its scope extended into misinformation about political figures and movements. The center's mission transitioned rapidly, blending with wider governmental aims to curtail dissent and counter populist voices. This demonstrates a tactical shift within government apparatus from external threats towards permeating domestic affairs, intertwining national security with political censorship.
International Censorship Efforts
The podcast touches on U.S.-funded international initiatives designed to combat misinformation globally, showcasing the intertwined nature of censorship and U.S. foreign policy goals. The guest emphasizes that this censorship extends beyond borders, affecting democratic movements worldwide that might challenge U.S. interests. Programs aimed at fostering censorship are framed as supporting democracy, despite potential contradictions inherent in such interventions. This highlights the complexity of U.S. involvement in foreign nations, where the promotion of ‘democracy’ often serves as a guise for exerting control over independent narratives.
Evolving Definitions of Democracy and Dissent
Shifts in the definition of 'democracy' are critically examined, particularly how institutional consensus has replaced individual will as the pillar of democratic ideals in contemporary discourse. Following Trump's election, governmental consensus viewing populism as authoritarian justified various censorship measures. The guest argues that this perspective is inherently flawed as it reduces democracy to the will of the institutions rather than the electorate. Such redefinitions pose significant risks to the foundational principles of democracy, inevitably leading to increased governmental overreach into individual expressions.
Future Implications and Potential Reforms
The episode concludes with reflections on the challenges ahead for reversing the trajectory of censorship entrenched within government frameworks. The guest posits that significant reform is necessary within the institutions responsible for policing speech and ensuring public trust. He highlights the crucial need to illuminate the complexities behind governmental censorship, advocating for transparency and public awareness. Ultimately, the discussion urges listeners to acknowledge the intertwined nature of censorship, technology, and statecraft to forge a more equitable information landscape.
Mike Benz is a former official with the U.S. Department of State and current Executive Director of the Foundation For Freedom Online, is a free speech watchdog organization dedicated to restoring the promise of a free and open Internet.
