Shellenberger: Government Intel & Security Agencies Behind NGO Demands For More Censorship By X/Twitter

Authored by Alex Gutentag and Michael Shellenberger via Public Substack,

Groups main the advertiser boycott of X/Twitter obtain cash from and have a historical past of spying for governments…

Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO, ADL; MP Damian Collins, CCDH Advisory Board Member;  Sasha Havlicek, CEO of ISD

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) are nongovernmental organizations, their leaders say. When they demand extra censorship of on-line hate speech, as they’re at present doing of X, previously Twitter, these NGOs are doing it as free residents and never, say, as authorities brokers.

But the actual fact of the matter is that the US and different Western governments fund ISD, the UK authorities not directly funds CCDH, and, for at least 40 years, ADL spied on its enemies and shared intelligence with the US, Israel and different governments.  The purpose all of this issues is that ADL’s advertiser boycott towards X could also be an effort by governments to regain the power to censor customers on X that they’d beneath Twitter earlier than Musk’s takeover final November.

Internal Twitter and Facebook messages present that representatives of the US authorities, together with the White House, FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in addition to the UK authorities, efficiently demanded Facebook and Twitter censorship of their customers over the past a number of years.

ADL is waging a really related marketing campaign towards X/Twitter that it efficiently waged against Facebook in 2020. In simply three days, 800 firms, together with $129 billion client merchandise large Unilever, withdrew tens of tens of millions of {dollars} in advert income from Facebook till it agreed to ADL’s censorship calls for. “The Facebook caved to far-left pressure groups and now allows them to silently dictate policy in exchange for ad money,” said Musk yesterday. “That is the relationship they’ve had with X/Twitter for many years. Presumably, they have that with all Western search or social media orgs.”

It’s attainable that there was a rise in hate on X since Elon Musk purchased the corporate. With larger free speech insurance policies comes the potential for extra offensive speech, together with racist or antisemitic speech. Bigotry does exist, and it ought to be challenged.

But there isn’t a good proof of that. Public has debunked claims by ISD and CCDH of a rise. And researchers have repeatedly debunked ADL’s claims of rising antisemitism for years. In 2009, an Israeli filmmaker discovered that ADL couldn’t assist its claims of an antisemitism disaster. Wrote NPR in a review of the film, “When he presses ADL staffers for evidence to back up their claims of a sharp spike in North American anti-Semitism in 2007, they can offer only wan transgressions…”

Eleven years later, Liel Leibovitz noted in Tablet that ADL had, for a report, “counted hundreds of threatening calls to Jewish community centers made by a mentally troubled Israeli teenager. You had to read the report’s fine print to learn that the number of violent attacks against Jews that year had actually decreased by 47%.”

ADL, ISD, and CCDH haven’t introduced any good proof that offensive speech on-line instantly causes “hate-motivated violence,” nor that censorship prevents it. Moreover, final week Public reviewed proof suggesting that one of the best ways to fight hate speech is thru open and public debate, which permits individuals to vary their minds, not censorship.

ADL’s principal purpose is meant to be stopping “the defamation of the Jewish people,” however the group is utilizing the legacy of antisemitism and the Holocaust to justify unrelated censorial advocacy work. This is exploitative, and it’s defamatory to say that Jews, on the whole, want and favor censorship. Many Jews on each the left and the right have argued that ADL doesn’t characterize their pursuits. By claiming to talk for all Jewish individuals whereas demanding extremely unpopular insurance policies, the ADL could also be inadvertently driving antisemitism.

As troubling as these extremely partisan ideological biases are, what’s most harmful are the previous and current ties between ADL, ISD, CCDH, and governments, notably safety and intelligence organizations, which we element beneath.

Neither ADL, ISD, nor CCDH have responded to a number of requests for extra data or an interview.

ADL’s Spying For Governments

FBI Director Robert Mueller provides the keynote speech on the Anti-Defamation League’s 2005 National Commission Meeting November 3, 2005 in New York City. Mueller, who was joined by U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, spoke on terrorism, extremism and different international matters which are the centerpiece of this years ADL National Commission Meeting. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Although ADL is at present targeted on demonizing Trump supporters as “domestic terrorists,” it has a historical past of partnering with the state and legislation enforcement to focus on the Left. 

…

Today, ADL’s ties to intelligence and safety organizations are nearer than ever. It works with the FBI by holding a coaching session with brokers and internet hosting FBI Director Christopher Wray as a featured speaker. According to Greenblatt, the FBI works instantly with ADL “every day.”

…

We wouldn’t have agency proof that there’s a conspiracy by the intelligence and safety businesses of the United States and Britain to manage the content material on social media platforms like X and Facebook by means of their management over CCDH, ISD, and ADL. Perhaps ideological, cultural, and political alignment alone clarify the outstanding coordination we’ve documented. Perhaps the US and UK authorities funding for CCDH and ISD is insignificant in comparison with their nongovernmental funders.

But there’s sufficient proof of conspiracy for members of Congress and Parliament to research CCDH, ADL, ISD, and different so-called “nongovernmental” organizations for the advocacy of censorship. Who is funding them? What are their relationships with authorities officers? What is their function in intelligence and safety organizations?

…

What’s clear is that we additionally want to vary our view of ADL, CCDH, and ISD. They can’t be thought-about “nongovernmental organizations.” Their ties to the federal government, notably the nationwide safety state, are too robust. 

Public Substack subscribers can read the full note here…