Mike Benz, the Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, stands as a prominent figure in the escalating battle for internet freedom. His background as a former State Department diplomat specializing in international communications and information technology provides him with a unique lens through which to view the current landscape of online censorship and digital rights. This article delves into the insights shared by Mike Benz in a revealing interview, exploring his mission to restore the “golden age of the internet” and his alarming revelations about the sophisticated censorship industry.
Benz’s journey into the realm of digital freedom advocacy is rooted in his deep understanding of both technology and geopolitics. His experience at the State Department equipped him with firsthand knowledge of how governments interact with technology and the evolving challenges in the digital sphere. This expertise now fuels his work at the Foundation for Freedom Online, an organization dedicated to educating policymakers and the public about the intricate dynamics of online censorship and advocating for policies that champion freedom in the digital age.
In his discourse, Benz paints a vivid picture of an internet that has strayed from its original promise of openness and unrestricted dialogue. He argues that the internet, once a bastion of free expression, has been increasingly subjected to gatekeeping and manipulation, particularly in the wake of significant geopolitical events like Brexit and the 2016 US presidential election. This shift, according to Benz, marks a “revenge of the gatekeepers,” where traditional media and establishment forces are attempting to regain control over the flow of information and public discourse.
Restoring the Golden Age of the Internet
For Mike Benz, the mission is clear: to revive the “golden age of the internet.” He reminisces about a time from 1991, when the internet was privatized, until around 2016, before what he describes as “geopolitical earthquakes.” This era, in Benz’s view, was characterized by a free and open exchange of ideas, unburdened by the pervasive censorship mechanisms that have since taken hold.
During this “golden age,” online debates flourished, largely unmoderated and uncensored. Benz points to the era of blogs and forums as a time when discourse thrived without the “bumper cars” of modern social media regulation. Individuals could connect and communicate on shared platforms, fostering a sense of collective digital space.
A key aspect of this period was the rise of an independent media ecosystem. By 2016, independent news outlets and online influencers had grown to a point where they could rival the reach of established media giants like The New York Times or CNN. This burgeoning independent media landscape, however, became a target for those seeking to control the narrative. Benz argues that the pushback against independent voices was a direct response to their growing influence on political and social ecosystems.
The Fall of Traditional Media and the Censorship Response
Mike Benz highlights the predicament faced by traditional newspapers in the wake of Brexit and the 2016 US election. Legacy news media faced a “dual threat”: declining influence over the political agenda and dwindling revenue due to the rise of free online content and alternative news sources. Citizen journalists and independent platforms often broke news faster and offered scoops that bypassed traditional gatekeepers.
This shift in the media landscape triggered a response aimed at re-establishing control. Benz describes the emergence of partnerships like the “Trust Project” and Google’s “OWL project” as attempts to artificially boost “authoritative news” in search algorithms. These initiatives, launched around 2017, were designed to elevate traditional media sources like CNN, MSNBC, and The Washington Post in search recommendations, effectively demoting alternative and independent voices.
Benz illustrates this with the example of YouTube search recommendations. Before 2017, search results presented a diverse range of sources. However, starting in late 2017, search results became heavily skewed towards “authoritative sources” – primarily legacy media outlets. This, in Benz’s view, represents a “news cartel” leveraging its influence with big tech companies to stifle competition from alternative news sources.
Covert Censorship: Nuance and the “Martyr Effect”
A critical revelation from Mike Benz concerns the shift towards more “nuanced and covert methods” of content moderation. He references a Stanford panel discussion in 2019, where Andy O’Connell, a former Facebook executive with Obama administration ties, discussed the need for subtler censorship tactics. This shift was partly driven by concerns about the “martyr effect,” where overt censorship or de-platforming could backfire, generating sympathy and increased support for censored individuals or viewpoints.
Benz points to the evolution of censorship techniques, moving away from heavy-handed, top-down approaches to more insidious, bottom-up methods. Early censorship efforts in 2017-2019 often involved outright banning or de-platforming accounts. However, this led to public outcry and accusations of bias.
To circumvent the “martyr effect,” new techniques were developed, some with funding from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). These methods focused on burying content and limiting reach in subtle ways, rather than outright bans. Examples include:
- Bottom-up methods: Instead of targeting high-profile individuals, these methods focus on suppressing the followers or amplifiers of those individuals.
- Random partial censorship: This technique involves randomly suppressing a percentage of followers or content related to a particular narrative, making the censorship less visible and harder to detect.
These “science of censorship” techniques, Benz argues, were adapted from counterinsurgency strategies used by the foreign policy establishment. Tools initially developed to combat terrorism abroad are now being deployed domestically to manage online discourse.
From Counter-Terrorism to Domestic Censorship
Mike Benz draws a stark parallel between tools used to combat foreign terrorism and those now employed for domestic content moderation. He asserts a near “one-to-one transfer” of technology and tactics from the foreign policy establishment to domestic applications.
He cites DARPA-funded research from 2014-2015 that focused on mapping ISIS language online. Using AI techniques like natural language processing, these projects aimed to identify and score social media posts based on their likelihood of being pro-ISIS propaganda. These algorithms analyzed language, hashtags, and image databases to fine-tune their detection capabilities.
Benz argues that the same technologies and approaches are now being repurposed for domestic issues. He points to the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding similar research, but now targeting “conservative sentiment” or “COVID skepticism.” This repurposing implies a significant shift, where tools designed for national security are being used to manage and control domestic political discourse.
Transparency, Accountability, and the Illusion of Choice
Mike Benz raises critical questions about transparency and accountability in online content moderation. He notes that from 2017 to 2020, “transparency and accountability” were the watchwords, but often used to demand platforms reveal and punish the spread of “populist political messaging.”
He argues that the issue extends beyond hate speech to encompass “mis-, dis-, and mal-information.” Malinformation, as defined by the Department of Homeland Security, includes true information that, when taken out of context, could be misleading. This broad definition expands the scope of censorship to potentially include factual information that authorities deem harmful or disruptive.
Benz points to an example of Senator Mark Kelly’s comments about censoring “correct information” regarding the financial services industry to prevent panic during the Silicon Valley Bank collapse. This, according to Benz, aligns with initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security, where misinformation about “critical infrastructure” (now including the financial sector) is classified as a cyber attack, granting censorship powers to cybersecurity agencies.
This raises profound questions about the nature of information control and the erosion of individual autonomy. Benz argues that in the modern era, participation in the information age is no longer optional. A Facebook, Google, or YouTube account is often essential for career prospects and basic societal engagement. This dependence on centralized platforms amplifies the impact of censorship and raises concerns about the lack of genuine choice for users.
The Erosion of Trust and the “Science of Censorship”
Benz emphasizes the danger of eroding public trust through government-funded censorship. He highlights the National Science Foundation’s “Convergence Accelerator Program,” originally established during the Trump administration to advance quantum technology. Under the Biden administration, a new “Track F” was added, focused on “trust and authenticity.” However, Benz argues that this track is essentially dedicated to “science censorship.”
The program documents, according to Benz, explicitly state that “mis- and disinformation” are causing a “crisis in democracy” and undermining trust in government and mainstream media. The stated goal is to develop AI censorship techniques to suppress those who “sow distrust” or question “scientific consensus.” Benz summarizes this approach as: “If trust cannot be earned, it must be installed.”
This “science of censorship” raises fundamental questions about the nature of truth and the role of dissent in a democratic society. By prioritizing the installation of trust over earning it through open debate and verifiable information, Benz suggests that these initiatives risk undermining the very foundations of a healthy democracy and scientific progress. Silencing debate, he argues, is inherently “anti-science,” as trust in science relies on the integrity of the process, including open inquiry and the freedom to challenge prevailing views.
Big Tech, Government Contracts, and Unequal Competition
Mike Benz addresses the issue of unfair competition in the tech landscape, highlighting the deep entanglement of big tech companies with the government. He points out that major platforms like Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon are all government contractors, receiving substantial federal subsidies through contracts with agencies like the CIA, DOD, and State Department.
This government subsidization creates an uneven playing field, making it virtually impossible for new, independent platforms to compete fairly. Benz uses the example of Parler, an alternative social media platform that faced coordinated de-platforming after the 2020 election, including being cut off by payment processors and Amazon Web Services.
The entrenched big tech companies, benefiting from government contracts and support, possess a significant advantage that cannot be overcome through free market competition alone. This dynamic raises concerns about the concentration of power in the hands of a few government-aligned tech giants and the implications for innovation and free speech online.
The Chinese Social Credit System and the Rise of NewsGuard
Mike Benz warns that the current trajectory points towards a Chinese-style social credit system, and he argues that we are already well beyond the “infancy stages.” He cites NewsGuard as a prime example of this trend. Launched in November 2017, NewsGuard aims to “bankrupt the industry of so-called fake news” through a news ranking system that grades the “credibility” of news sources.
NewsGuard’s board is comprised of figures from legacy media and the national security establishment, including Rick Stengel (former State Department), General Michael D. Hayden (former CIA/NSA), and Tom Ridge (former DHS). This composition underscores the close ties between media, government, and national security interests in shaping the online information landscape.
NewsGuard’s ranking system is used to influence advertising networks and social media platforms, leading to the de-platforming and de-monetization of news outlets deemed “unreliable.” Benz argues that this system effectively contained the independent news revolution that had emerged prior to 2017, creating a “protected news cartel” favoring establishment media. Like big tech companies benefiting from government contracts, legacy media outlets are now also benefiting from government-backed mechanisms that stifle competition and control the flow of information.
The Shift from Objective to Advocacy Journalism
Mike Benz observes a significant shift within the journalism field away from objective reporting towards advocacy journalism. He notes the increasing rejection of “both-side-ism” and the embrace of a more partisan and agenda-driven approach to news. This shift, he argues, is justified by the narrative that objectivity allows “demagogues” to gain traction.
However, Benz contends that this move towards advocacy journalism is fundamentally about creating a “protected news cartel.” Just as it is nearly impossible to compete with government-subsidized big tech companies, it is becoming increasingly difficult to challenge the dominance of establishment media outlets. Initiatives like NewsGuard and the Trust Project create barriers to entry for independent journalism, ensuring that legacy media retains its gatekeeping role and control over the dominant narratives.
AI, Chess, and the Future of Content Creation
Drawing a parallel to the world of chess, Mike Benz reflects on the early uses of AI and its implications for online content. He recalls observing the transformative impact of AI chess engines like Deep Blue and Fritz, which revolutionized the game. He recognized similar potential, and risks, in the application of AI to content moderation and information control.
Benz notes the emergence of “chess DJ’ing,” where humans creatively combine the insights of multiple AI chess engines to discover new strategies and possibilities. He sees a parallel in the current developments in generative AI, such as ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Bard. While acknowledging the potential for misuse, Benz is optimistic about the creative possibilities of AI in content generation.
He points to the recent advancements in AI’s ability to generate websites, music videos, and multimedia content from simple prompts or sketches. This accessibility, putting powerful creative tools in the hands of millions, could lead to a new era of online expression and innovation, potentially disrupting the very censorship mechanisms that are currently being deployed.
Learn More About the Fight for Freedom Online
Mike Benz’s work at the Foundation for Freedom Online is at the forefront of the fight for digital freedom and against online censorship. His insights offer a critical understanding of the complex forces shaping the internet today. To delve deeper into this crucial issue and support the cause of internet freedom, visit foundationforfreedomonline.com. For real-time updates and commentary, follow Mike Benz on Twitter at @Mikebenzcyber. By staying informed and engaged, individuals can play a vital role in safeguarding the open and free internet for future generations.
