House weaponization panel subpoenas National Science Foundation for misinformation research

The House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government Subpoenas National Science Foundation

The House Judiciary Select⁢ Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the‌ Federal Government has taken action against the National Science Foundation (NSF) by issuing a ‌subpoena. ⁢The subcommittee accuses the agency of withholding information regarding funding provided to researchers focused on misinformation, which‌ Republicans argue amounts to online censorship.

Committee Chairman Jim ‌Jordan (R-OH) expressed his dissatisfaction with the ‍NSF’s ⁤response, stating that they have not provided the necessary documents.⁣ In a letter to Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, Jordan demanded that all internal ⁣records related to online censorship ⁣be handed over to the committee.⁢ The subpoena was issued shortly after the subcommittee released a report claiming that⁤ the NSF was financing research aimed at silencing Republicans.

Examining the Extent of Online Censorship

“It is necessary for⁣ Congress to gauge the‌ extent to which NSF ⁢officials have coerced, pressured, worked with, or relied upon social media and other tech companies and third parties to censor‌ speech,” Jordan wrote.

“Moreover, the Committee has documents demonstrating that NSF personnel regularly interacted and communicated with organizations ​receiving NSF funds, including for projects that focused on combatting alleged misinformation online,” Jordan added. “NSF has yet to produce any records related ‍to these communications or other meetings.”

The subcommittee’s report, released on Tuesday, provides details on federal⁣ government-funded research projects related to misinformation and the development of artificial intelligence-powered programs for regulating and controlling online information. The report highlights the NSF’s funding for research into “Trust⁣ & Authenticity in Communication Systems.”

Several universities received funding for designing AI-powered tools to combat misinformation. The University of Wisconsin-Madison ​received $5.75 million for its CourseCorrect tool, initially intended ⁤to address specific forms⁤ of misinformation ⁤such as vaccines or the origin of COVID-19. It is now used to promote fact-checking on food safety. The ‍University of Michigan received $750,000 to develop WiseDex, a program that utilizes crowd wisdom and AI techniques to identify and flag⁣ harmful misinformation. Additionally, ⁤the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ‌received ⁤$750,000 to create Search Lit, a series of tools to help students recognize misinformation.

While these⁣ programs are still in the developmental ‌stages, WiseDex failed to secure funding for Phase II of its development.

Jordan has characterized these projects as discriminatory​ against Republicans and part of a larger ‍collaborative effort between technology companies, federal agencies, and academia to suppress conservative​ speech online. The committee’s report includes quotes from a researcher at MIT expressing concern about the public’s ability to discern truth from fiction online. Email exchanges among researchers ‍also reveal ​worries about Republicans and military veterans being‍ more susceptible to misinformation.

A spokesperson​ for the NSF denied engaging in censorship or having a‍ role in‌ content policies or​ regulations. They emphasized that their investments​ in research aim to understand communication technologies, including deep fakes, and how people interact with them. The goal ‍is to provide policymakers⁢ with the necessary information⁤ to make informed decisions about regulations and safeguards to protect⁤ the public.

Jordan’s report adds to the mounting evidence ⁢of federal agencies ⁣collaborating with Big Tech platforms like Facebook and X to restrict speech related to COVID-19 and vaccines.

The Supreme Court ‌is scheduled to hear oral arguments for Murthy v. Missouri on⁣ March 18, ​a ⁤case that examines whether certain ⁢communications between Big Tech companies and federal employees can be considered coercive and⁢ a violation of the First Amendment.

Click⁢ here ‌to read more from the Washington Examiner.

How does⁤ the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on ⁤the Weaponization of‌ the Federal Government’s investigation into online​ censorship by the National Science Foundation contribute to broader debates about ‌the power‌ of social media companies and‍ the manipulation of information in‍ public discourse

Ed for a broader range of misinformation. Other universities, including Carnegie Mellon University and ⁣the University of Maryland, also received funding for similar research projects.

The ⁢report ‍argues ​that while the intention behind funding such projects may appear noble, there are concerns about potential biases and the suppression of conservative voices. Republicans believe that this funding is being directed towards projects​ that aim to silence conservative viewpoints on social media platforms.

The​ subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee‌ on the Weaponization of the Federal Government seeks to uncover the truth behind these allegations. It demands that the National Science Foundation hand over all internal records related to online censorship and ⁣any communications with​ organizations receiving NSF‌ funds.

The subcommittee’s⁤ efforts to investigate online censorship are⁤ part of a broader concern within Congress. In recent years, there have been growing debates about the power ⁣that social media companies have over ⁢public discourse and the manipulation of information. Republicans have​ expressed concerns that conservative voices⁤ are being suppressed while liberal ‌viewpoints are amplified.

The⁣ National Science Foundation, ​as a federally funded agency,⁢ has a⁤ responsibility to be ‌transparent and uphold the principles of free speech and unbiased research. The subcommittee asserts that it⁣ is their duty to examine the extent to which the ⁣agency may have influenced or worked ‌with tech companies or other third parties to censor ⁢speech.

Director Sethuraman Panchanathan and the National Science Foundation have yet to publicly respond to the subpoena. ⁢It remains to be seen how they will address the allegations of online censorship and‍ whether they will comply with the subcommittee’s demands.

As the​ investigation ⁢moves forward,‍ the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government will play a crucial role in shedding‍ light on the funding and research practices of the National Science Foundation. The outcome of this investigation will have significant implications for the future ‌of free speech, online regulation, and the role of federal agencies in shaping public discourse.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases