New Documents Prove DHS Involvement In Facebook And Twitter Censorship

According to The Intercept, its report is based on a variety of sources, including DHS “memos, emails, and documents” spanning years — some that were acquired via a lawsuit, some that are public documents, and — perhaps crucially — some that were leaked. The collection of materials is said to present a largely hidden effort to counter the deliberate and unintentional spreading of false info, as well as the sharing of facts in a way the DHS considers malinformation, which is content supposedly shared “with harmful intent” and likely without context.

The mission is said to expand far beyond what one may consider a good faith effort to help protect the public from manipulation from bad actors, however. Among other things, Lee Fang, an investigative journalist with The Intercept, claims that “obvious parody accounts” were victims of these censorship efforts, as well as content that challenged the U.S. government’s pandemic response. Of particular note is an alleged portal created by Facebook that is said to grant the DHS and unspecified “government partners” special access to fast-tracking disinformation requests.

Facebook and Twitter created special portals for the government to rapidly request takedowns of content. The portals, along with NGO partners used to censor a wide range of content, including obvious parody accounts and content disagreeing w gov pandemic policy. pic.twitter.com/Jth0WUfXAI

— Lee Fang (@lhfang) October 31, 2022

The effort isn’t just limited to Facebook, however, the report claims. Among the materials were notes showing that an FBI official had advised Twitter and JPMorgan Chase “senior executives” of the risks of so-called “subversive information” shared on social media, presenting it specifically as a threat against “support for the U.S. government.” The report notes that the DHS’s efforts allegedly extend beyond simply addressing and curbing dis- and misinformation from foreign countries intended to destabilize society and instead tread into the subjective and political, with the government ultimately “seeking to become arbiters of what constitutes false or dangerous information on inherently political topics.”