Busted: Disinformation operative who attacked Elon Musk’s push for “free speech” caught red-handed in secret influence operation

by: Revolver news


It is not yet clear whether Elon Musk’s increasingly precarious play for Twitter will result in the restoration of free speech in the “global public square.” Successful or not, Elon’s brave move has clarified beyond any doubt the Regime’s fundamental hostility to free speech and dissent. Judging from the critical reactions from journalists, NGOs and Democrat politicians, you’d think the man were attempting to invade Poland rather than remove censorship on a social media platform.

Of all the regime scribblers and scribes flooding the internet with glorified blog posts on the awfulness of Elon Musk’s Twitter bid, a piece by Renée DiResta published in the Atlantic stands out from the rest — not because of its force of argument, but because of the largely forgotten scandal behind its author.

Like the now disgraced and jobless Nina Jankowicz, DiResta is a career-girl of the Disinformation Industry — a constellation of NATO and US State Department-funded NGOs and civil society groups that censor inconvenient truths, facts and narratives under the guise of protecting the public from so-called “disinformation.” And like Nina Jankowicz, it turns out that DiResta’s name is closely associated with one of the most explosive and aggressively covered-up influence operations of the century.

Renée DiResta — Disinformation Industry Operative

With that teaser in place, let’s start at the beginning with DiResta’s piece on Musk and Twitter. We invite the impatient reader to scroll down to DiResta’s scandal — but it’s worth the wait for those with more patience.

Like most well-trained operatives of the disinformation industry, Renée is smart enough to couch her defense of Twitter’s censorship in layers of obfuscatory verbiage and heavily qualified lip service to the importance of free-expression. We should remember that even the Department of Homeland Security assured us in a hilarious “fact sheet” that its ill-fated Disinformation Governance Board is set up to defend free speech.

But anything more than a cursory look at Diresta’s “concerned” reaction to Musk and his cadre of “free-speech absolutists” completely betrays her true agenda. Here she is scribbling away in the Atlantic (emphasis ours):

The idea of Twitter as the “global town square” was articulated by then-CEO Dick Costolo in 2013. He likened it to something from ancient Athens:

Thousands of years ago in the Greek Agora, that’s where you went to find out what was going on and talk about it, right? You came and talked about what was going on in your part of the village, and I came and talked about what was going on in mine, and the politician was there, and we listened to the issues of the day, and a musician was there and a preacher was there, et cetera, and it was multidirectional and it was unfiltered, and it was inside out, meaning the news was coming from the people it was happening to, not some observer.

The unintended consequences of the platform that Jack Dorsey and his co-founders built, however, came into rather stark relief as it grew; a variety of unfortunate things that happen when humans engage with humans happened. On Twitter, however, these problems reached unprecedented heights via unfettered virality and velocity. The Islamic State made a home on the platform; harassment mobs proliferated; state actors and conspiracy theorists alike recognized that Twitter was a remarkable venue for propagandizing, unmediated, to millions. Public opinion began to shift against the hands-off approach. Government regulators began to pay attention.

How could the company maximize freedom of expression while minimizing the unique harms that the new communication infrastructure had enabled? A content-moderation regime emerged. Over the next seven years, its rules and practices would evolve in response to new and novel challenges: taking down terrorist propaganda, minimizing bad information during a pandemic, handling a litany of rumors and lies about election theft.

[The Atlantic]

Let’s put aside DiResta’s daft use of the passive voice for a moment and take a second to appreciate how radical this passage is. The author just lumped in terrorist propaganda — specifically, ISIS propaganda — with Covid skepticism and skepticism pertaining to election integrity. Given that this is the Regime’s perspective, it is much easier to understand not only why something like the Disinformation Governance Board would exist in the first place, but why it would be housed within the Department of Homeland Security — one of the largest national security bureaucracies set up in the aftermath of 9/11 to protect the nation from terrorism.

If Covid skeptics, election skeptics, and by extension nearly half of America can be lumped in with ISIS on the basis of their political beliefs, it makes sense that the national security bureaucracy would be turned inward in order to crush the ISIS-level national security threat of Americans who oppose vaccine mandates or, God forbid, don’t think the 2020 election was fair. As we pointed out in earlier pieces, the Disinformation Industry is assigned to carry out the information warfare component of this domestic war on terror — to silence important speech on important matters central to democratic deliberation under the guise of “Defending Democracy against Disinformation.”

Renée, in her piece, is desperate to protect the Regime and its disinformation commissars from the supposed ISIS-level threat of free-speech on Twitter. She goes on to attack Musk and his “free speech absolutists” and to reject the notion of a “digital public square” in its entirety (emphasis ours):

Since the advent of more active content moderation on Twitter and other online platforms, the prototypical public square has been retconned—particularly by Musk’s supporters in the United States—into a haven for absolute free speech. This is not accurate. The real public square has always been moderated. Public-nuisance laws and noise ordinances have long placed restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression protected by the First Amendment. Try to get a group of 100 ideological allies together to follow someone around a public park in the center of town shrieking at them, and see how that plays out.

Of course this is incredibly disingenuous. Noise ordinances and “public nuisance laws” simply do not analogize to narrative-level censorship on Covid, election results, and other such issues on social media.

Tellingly, in an earlier (and less guarded) piece for the Atlantic, DiResta not only encourages narrative-level political censorship on social media, she also claims that there is no political bias to social media censorship practices. DiResta insists that since misinformation overwhelmingly comes from the political right, this gives the false appearance that social media companies are biased against the right when they censor misinformation. Read the following passage and behold the twisted logic of a modern day commissar (emphasis ours):

The distinct behavior of serial spreaders of misinformation should theoretically make them easy for Facebook or Twitter to identify. Platforms that place warning labels on false or misleading content could penalize accounts that repeatedly create it; after an account earned a certain number of strikes, the platform’s algorithms could suspend it or limit users’ ability to share its posts. But platforms also want to appear politically neutral. Inconveniently for them, our research found that although some election-related misinformation circulated on the left, the pattern of the same accounts repeatedly spreading false or misleading claims about voting, or about the legitimacy of the election itself, occurred almost exclusively among pro-Trump influencers, QAnon boosters, and other outlets on the right. We were not the only ones to observe this; researchers at Harvard described the former president and the right-wing media as driving a “disinformation campaign” around mail-in voter fraud during the 2020 election; the researchers’ prior work had meticulously detailed a “propaganda feedback loop” within the closely linked right-wing media ecosystem.

[The Atlantic]

In this piece we see reference to the same narratives, election integrity and Covid skepticism, that DiResta previously lumped in with ISIS and terrorism, perpetrated by vaguely defined alleged malefactors like “QAnon boosters” (whatever that is) and, Heaven forfend, “pro-Trump influencers.” DiResta backs up her shocking claim, that misinformation is essentially a right-wing problem, with a Harvard study. Without wasting too much of our time on it, we dug up the specific Harvard study DiResta references.

Immediately we note that the Harvard study DiResta cites in support of her remarkable claim that misinformation is exclusively a right-wing problem is funded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute, among other similar “philanthropic” organizations. Note the bottom footnote in the first page of the study, titled “Mail-In Voter Fraud: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign”

:

Apart from the farce of such a study being funded by George Soros, among other similar figures, there’s a very important passage buried in the study that inadvertently exposes the entire ulterior purpose of the Disinformation Industry. Here’s a transcript of the relevant passage:

Our results are based on analyzing over 55 thousand online media stories, five million tweets, and 75 thousand posts on public Facebook pages garnering millions of engagements. They are consistent with our findings about the American political media ecosystem from 2015-2018, published in Network Propaganda, in which we found that Fox News and Donald Trump’s own campaign were far more influential in spreading false beliefs than Russian trolls or Facebook clickbait artists.

[Harvard]

Despite all the posturing about “Russia”, we see that the fight against disinformation was never really about addressing an alleged threat of foreign influence. According to the Disinformation Industrial-Complex, Donald Trump is a bigger purveyor of “false beliefs” than Russia, and therefore, by implication, Trump and his supporters deserve to be identified, silenced, and destroyed in much the same way a foreign disinformation threat would be. It is perhaps not surprising then that DiResta would so cavalierly respond to Trump being banned from his main communications platform while a sitting President of the United States:

Of course, DiResta’s remark about Parler turned out to be insufficiently optimistic from the Disinformation censor’s point of view. Parler went dark just days after Trump’s Twitter ban after Amazon Web Services famously pulled the plug on them.

As we promised the reader in our introduction, the story of Renée DiResta is far more scandalous than a hypocritical disinformation operative calling for mass censorship. Readers will recall that Nina Jankowicz’ name came up in a major leak as an associate of the Integrity Initiative, a NATO, US State Department, UK government-funded influence operation that secretly meddled in the political affairs of NATO Democracies. While we don’t know whether DiResta was associated with the Integrity Initiative, she was involved in something equally if not more scandalous.

DiResta’s Dark Alabama Secret

Before DiResta was complaining about the threat of Elon Musk’s “free speech absolutism” in the pages of the Atlantic, she worked (among other things) as a research director for a cyber security firm called New Knowledge.

New Knowledge’s purpose was to study the spread of disinformation, “malign narratives” and Russian influence operations. In her capacity as Research Director for New Knowledge, DiResta submitted written testimony to the US Senate drawing attention to the danger of such Russian disinformation and influence operations, including the alleged Russian “troll farm” Internet Research Agency — which every self-respecting disinformation operative knows to puff up as the most malign and consequential political influence operation in modern history.

But there is one very important secretive, malign influence operation that Renée DiResta failed to disclose to the Senate. This influence operation was conducted by her own employer, New Knowledge, to influence the outcome of the 2017 Alabama special Senate contest between populist Roy Moore and Doug Jones. The details of the influence operation are even more scandalous. In what even the head of New Knowledge described as a “false flag” operation, New Knowledge conducted a secret influence operation to make it look like populist candidate Roy Moore was the beneficiary of a secret Russian influence operation!

The New York Times of all places broke the story of this remarkable and now-forgotten scandal:

As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.

The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.

One participant in the Alabama project, Jonathon Morgan, is the chief executive of New Knowledge, a small cyber security firm that wrote a scathing account of Russia’s social..

HUGE: Dr. Shiva Discovers Existence of the Secretive Long Fuse Report — Exposes Twitter-Government Collusion — As Momentous Discovery as Pentagon Papers



Dr. Shiva revealed how election officials and government actors work together to coordinate with social media platforms to silence speech in America.

Dr. Shiva described this discovery in his latest amended legal complaint filed on July 22.

This case is about the government surveilling and blacklisting a minority, political candidate Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai (“Dr. Shiva”), and then eventually silencing his speech, in the midst of his U.S. Senate campaign, because he criticized government officials, thereby violating his First Amendment rights – the foundational principle of the United States.

2. Starting in June of 2020, Dr. Shiva, a candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, was one of the top six (6) individuals in the United States who had been identified,in The Long Fuse Report, as an Influence Operator (IO) per the Playbooks (created by the Defendants), and was under 24/7 surveillance by teams working 4-hour shifts, using an infrastructure – of technology and relationships as shown in Exhibit A, coarchitected by the Defendants in this case. Dr. Shiva is mentioned twenty-two (22) times in The Long Fuse Report.




Dr. SHIVA’s Lawsuit To Show Government MADE Twitter Silence Political Speech

By Staff

A government private company relationship to marginalize and de platform individuals over first amendment speech is Fascism. These are the playbooks developed by Twitter to suppress opposing views to the state narrative:

All these referenced documents with links to their content are available here: https://vashiva.com/first-amendment-twitter-galvin-lawsuit/

From Dr Shiva's court filing at: Case 1:20-cv-11889-MLW Document 118 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 7

Plaintiff has independently discovered the documentary evidence proving that Tassinari, Cohen, NASED and Twitter Legal jointly collaborated to design and build the core infrastructure, processes, and protocols enabling the Twitter Trusted Partnership Program and the Twitter Partner Support Portal (PSP).

In2017,Cohen and others began formulating and designing the framework for silently violating the free speech rights of US persons by first characterizing speakers as “Influence Operators” (IOs) thereby fabricating a sinister connotation where none exists, as the ideological frame work to justify canceling speakers who exercise their right to express their opinion.

All of these finally culminated in 2020 in the final manual for state officials called the Elections Influence Operations Playbook for State and Local Officials, for which Cohen and Twitter Legal are architects.This manual is split into three parts. The first two parts are available to the public.The third part is available only to state and local officials. Part1 provides the theoretical foundation for identifying and targeting “Influence Operators,”i.e. persons who accuse state election officials of corruption or make allegations that state elections may have violated Federal law.

When ever government enlists and dictates user behaviors that are NOT desired or dictates policies to view point discriminate is known as fascism.

In 2018, Amy Cohen, as Executive Director for NASED, testified to Congress about this emerging framework that she helped to formulate and architect in 2017, in cooperation with state officials and that they created a new centralized Governing Coordinating Council (GCC) that brought together both state and federal officials to create an electronic infrastructure for surveying speech and monitoring“ Influence Operators.”

So there we have an admission by the director of NASED that the avowed purpose of this 'energing framework' is to control free speech by de-platforming those defined as 'influence' operators.

"Bruce Lund, a senior member of In-Q-Tel’s technical staff, noted in a 2012 paper that “monitoring social media” is increasingly essential for government agencies seeking to keep track of “erupting political movements, crises, epidemics, and disasters, not to mention general global trends.” This statement necessarily infers that "erupting political movements" includes speech that opposes  government narratives.

The article continues:  “When you have private companies deciding which algorithms get you a so-called threat score, or make you a person of interest, there’s obviously room for targeting people based on viewpoints or even unlawfully targeting people based on race or religion,” said Lee Rowland, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.

This is exactly what is happening with Twitter's de platforming of views that conflict with government political agenda narratives.












'Lead Stories' a supposed fact checking site for Facebook & Twitter funded by the Communist Party

by Staff

The Epoch Times reports that the Fact checking site used by Facebook and Twitter is funded by the communist party through Tic Tok.  "One fact-checker, Lead Stories, is partly paid through its partnership with TikTok, a social media platform run by a Chinese company that owes its allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)."

"Lead Stories was started in 2015 by Belgian website developer Maarten Schenk, CNN veteran Alan Duke, and two lawyers from Florida and Colorado."

The social media 'fact checker' specializes in debunking claims of false information on such topics as Dominion, Stolen election, machines, vaccines, etc. From USA Today:  "One fact-checker, Lead Stories, is partly paid through its partnership with TikTok, a social media platform run by a Chinese company that owes its allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)." However lead stories doesn't debunk anything with other than anecdotal opinions not real data that refutes Lindell's arguments.

So it was no big surprise that Alan Duke, a 20 year former CNN reporter who is Lead Stories CEO would take issue with the growing evidence that the US election was hacked by China.  "Dominion Voting Systems is suing Lindell for $1.3 billion, alleging that he made defamatory false statements: that Dominion's machines were used to steal votes. In a Zoom meeting with Lead Stories staff on February 18, 2021, Lindell said he welcomes Dominion's suit and is certain he'll prove Dominion participated in election fraud."  
However, what Duke and the other 'fact checkers' conveniently ignore is the IT forensic data from a court authorized audit of Dominion voting machines. The Lead Attorney Matt Deperno features downloadable Forensic Analysis files documenting Dominion Voting Machine anomalies. And that's not the only claim of Dominion anomalies altering an election.

In Massachusetts, Dr. Shiva, a scientist engineer, was running for the state Senate. He won Franklin county by about 54% because they hand count all ballots. I"There are 351 communities in Massachusetts. Of these, 255 communities use voting machines linked to Dominion (controversy-linked) Software.:"

However, Dr. Shiva lost every other county in the state by the identical ratio of 60/40, a physical impossibility. No lawyer in Massachusetts would take his case so he had to represent himself pro se. Based on the IT analysis he provided the judge refused plaintiff's request to dismiss the suit.   "On October 30, 2020, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, who represented himself in Federal court as his own counsel before Judge Mark L. Wolf, obtained a landmark victory for Free Speech on Twitter. Testimony unequivocally revealed that the Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, NASED, and its Executive Director Amy Cohen forced Twitter to ban Dr.SHIVA for 21 days, in the midst of his U.S. Senate federal campaign for exposing the deletion of ballot images – a violation of Federal Law, which demands all records generated during a federal election be preserved for 22 months."  Shiva's lawsuit against the Massachusetts secretary of state continues.

Next Duke claims: "Lead Stories has debunked the claim that voting machines were connected to the internet (they weren't). We've also addressed false claims about the 2020 election and the specific countries mentioned by Flynn. For example, the U.S. Army did not seize vote-count servers in Germany; a purported foreign service officer in Rome did not work with Barack Obama, former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and others to rig the 2020 election; and votes from the 2020 election were not stored on servers in Spain."

Dominion is a third generation voting machine system originating in Venezuela that evolved from Diebold which pioneered the ability to steal elections. The Michigan forensic audit revealed a modem inside the Dominion voting machine which is for connection to the internet. Dominion's own manual has several graphic pictorials on how to connect the machine to the internet.

Lindell made no such claim in either of his Absolute documentaries about the army seizing anything nor any claims about a foreign service officer in Rome or anywhere else. Watch the 'Absolute' videos at LindellTV and prove me wrong.

Duke's next statement is equally false: "Lindell's next guest was Douglas Frank, a Ph.D. analytical chemist from Cincinnati, who implausibly claimed that lists of names from the 2010 census were used to create phantom voters in a pattern matching demographic patterns of the population while inflating Biden's tallies. Lead Stories sent him a request for the exact data and formulas he used but we received no reply."

Dr Frank has a combined Physics-Chemistry degree, He made no such claim about being an analytical chemist. He is a specialist in large data analysis and has 3 PHd's overall.  Dr. Frank did not claim any garnering of names from the 2010 census, but merely extracted the 2010 numbers (not names) to show how Dominion machines used  population data as a system reference to enable the votes to be switched without exceeding the total population in a given precinct. Dr. Frank discovered the' key' used by Dominion which involves a scalar multiplier to replicate an earlier historical voting pattern of actual voters.

It took a number of attempts before Frank succeeded in representing the precinct's voting population with a mathematical curve. This would establish the base state of the voting algorithm used by Dominion after which votes could be switched from Trump to Biden easily without risk of exceeding the total number of precinct voters. This was done state wide for each voting precinct. 

I was watching live when Lindell said he asked Alan Duke to contact them and there was no response. However it was announced that Duke was trying to call him later in the presentation likely to interrupt Lindell who wouldn't take the call until he completed the presentation.  As far as I am aware Duke never tried again that evening..

Duke isn't very bright but doggedly continues::" Based on registration and turnout numbers, he claims to be able to "predict" the number of ballots cast and show how fake votes were added. That is like saying you can "predict" someone's age using just their birth year. It's a simple calculation that will be mostly right (but not exactly). And it is not even a prediction since you can only know the turnout numbers after the vote counting is completed."

This is absolute nonsense. Frank was not using age to predict anything just showing how prediction could even be done within a specific age group using different ratios of course. As I recall in Franks' Ohio analysis, all 88 counties had the same Biden to Trump ratio which is a clear indication that it has been manipulated. So, if I've observed the same ratio turning up in 3 or 4 precincts, then I can test an observed ratio (say it's 60/40) for the rest of the state. If that ratio is repeated throughout the state then it's CLEAR evidence of fraud because it is impossible for any states voting precincts to exhibit that same ratio.  Duh!

It's clear from Duke's allegations that he has no understanding of applied mathematics. In the 'Lead Stories' article showing the Antrim Michigan curve reproduced from Lindell's Absolute series some glaring irregularities show up in the Dominion data. First, the total population of Antrim county was just 19,322 but the registered voters listed 24,118 or 125% more than the people who lived there which means you have phantom voters embedded in the database.
The second glaring irregularity is that the predicted ballot curve EXACTLY MATCHES the registered Antrim county voters another physical impossibility. The correlation factor was 0.993 using Dr. Frank's prediction model which can only be true if the machine is using an algorithm to cast votes.

So there you have it a half baked attempt by Duke and lead stories to debunk what is clearly machine manipulation of an election and considering Duke and Lead stories ties to communism it's no surprise that they would deny the election was fraught with fraud..