It is misrepresenting the facts to the extent of being misinformation, which is quite ironic. It builds a grand narrative of conspiracy, but when the substantiating facts are finally sprinkled in they don’t quite match.
> we just set up an election integrity partnership at the request of DHS/CISA
> Brookie’s acknowledgment contradicts the claim made by the EIP that the idea for the project “came from four students
The partnership was not the program. This glaring misrepresentation is what the entire piece is built on.
A partnership and ticketing portal setup for government to subsidize moderation of private companies on subjective matters is not a censorship conspiracy? Does it really matter where the idea came from if government agents indeed used the tools created?
The assertion that DHS was funding the program (or using it as a tool) is an unsubstantiated leap. Stanford was gathering and analyzing intelligence with national security implications. There is an obvious public service in sharing this information with DHS.
What this article is citing is direct refutation of the claim.
Moreover this evidence is valuable because it came unprompted. The evidence may noy be devastating, but its not unsubstantiated either.
I don't think anyone contends its ok for any party to share information with the govt that it deems important. But whether that sharing happened is not the claim. The question is who directed the work.
The original assertion that the DHS did not direct the work is under suspicion, becauae the alibi came from a related party that is now know to be in a business partnership with the same party that is defending itself from the allegations of illegal 1st amendment interference.
And now theres 3rd party information that refutes the alibi.
Edit: Flagged again with 33 upvotes in 27 mins.