Wednesday, May 23 , 2018, 6:20 pm | Overcast 62º

 
 
 
 

David Harsanyi: Russia ‘Fake News’ Scare Is All About Chilling Speech

Last week, Republicans began to call for the release of a memo authored by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that purports to lay out a series of abuses connected to the FBI surveillance of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.

As often happens these days, a Twitter hashtag, #ReleaseTheMemo, evolved around the effort and was widely retweeted by Republicans and elected officials.

It didn't take long for a report to emerge that claimed Russian-sponsored Twitter accounts and bots were the real driving force behind the viral call for the release of the memo. Without worrying about the veracity of this convenient claim, all the usual suspects giddily spread the story across social media — probably because they have such a deep reverence for truth in the Era of Trump.

The report also prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff, both Democrats, to pull out every fearmongering catchphrase available to demand that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg perform an "in-depth forensic examination" on the "ongoing attack by the Russian government through Kremlin-linked social media actors directly acting to intervene and influence our democratic process."

It's difficult, it seems, for some people to embrace neutral principles nowadays. But if you genuinely believe that President Donald Trump's distasteful tweets are attacks on the foundations of free expression, how could you not be alarmed by a pair of powerful elected officials demanding that social media companies hand over information about their users?

What would they say if the president had sent a letter to Google insisting it give the executive branch an "in-depth forensic examination" of his political opponent's searches?

As it turns out, reports today say that Twitter's internal analysis found it was mostly Americans, not creepy Slavic mind-control robots, who were behind the hashtags. Not that it really matters, anyway.

If a group of Americans has a legitimate issue to rally around, how is it supposed to control what outsiders do? It's not as if #ReleaseTheMemo was secret or illegal. Republican politicians were openly using it.

Yet if Feinstein and Schiff had their way, Twitter and Facebook would have moved to quash the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag for what apparently turned out to be solely partisan reasons. Sounds like a power that can be abused. Even if the two had been genuinely troubled by Russian hashtags — yes, suspend your disbelief — the source of "fake news" is not always easily discernible.

Sometimes it comes to you from an anonymous Russian bot, and sometimes it's retweeted by a prominent journalist.

Democrats have manufactured panic over amateurish Russian propaganda to not only claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin was "meddling" in the election but also to argue that interference had the power to turn the election to Trump. With this risible idea in hand, they have created paranoia about social media interactions and rationalized infringements on expression.

Not long before demanding forensic investigations into hashtags, Feinstein was demanding that Twitter, Facebook and Google restrict their content more tightly, threatening, "Do something about it — or we will."

Democrats have attempted to control interactions through the Fairness Doctrine or the IRS, and now through the Russia scare. Part of living in a free country is dealing with messy, ugly misinformation.

Lots of people in the United States seem pretty impressed by how they do things in Europe. In Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May is launching a "rapid response unit" run by the state to "battle the proliferation of 'fake news' online."

The "national security communications unit" will be tasked with combatting misinformation — as if it has either the power or ability to do so.

In France, President Emmanuel Macron is working on a plan to combat "fake news," which includes the power to institute an emergency block on websites during elections. What could possibly go wrong?

Me? I'd rather we live with Russian troll bots feeding us nonsense than authoritarian senators dictating how we consume news.

I mean, has anyone yet produced a single voter who lost his free will during the 2016 election because he had a Twitter interaction with an employee of a St. Petersburg troll farm? Or do voters tend to seek out the stories that back their own worldviews?

If your argument is that Americans are uninformed and easily misled, I'm with you. Just look at all the people who believe that a $46,000 buy on Facebook by the Russians was enough to destroy the pillars of our democracy.

But if you want to live in a free and vibrant nation, you have to live with the externalities of that freedom.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Click here for more information, or click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @davidharsanyi, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Supporter

Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >