-
Australia aims to tax tech giants unless they pay news outlets
-
Bangladesh's tigers stalk uncertain future in Sundarbans
-
Horses unlikely saviours for those who serve in uniform
-
Crude extends gains as Trump considers latest Iran proposal
-
Nations to kick off world-first fossil fuel exit talks
-
Philippine museum brings deadly, lucrative galleon trade to life
-
Opening remarks Tuesday in Elon Musk versus OpenAI
-
New York restaurant's $40 half chicken fuels cost of dining debate
-
Trump shooting scare renews 'staged' conspiracy theory
-
LIV Golf postpones June event set for New Orleans: reports
-
Trains collide near Jakarta, killing seven, injuring dozens
-
Colombian peace accord failed to protect nature: ex-leader Santos
-
Nations have chance to break 'fossil fuel mindset': Mary Robinson
-
Colombia in mourning after deadliest attack in decades
-
Jury in place for Elon Musk's legal battle with OpenAI
-
Weinstein rape accuser gives emotional testimony at US retrial
-
Rybakina crashes out of Madrid Open, Sabalenka reaches quarters
-
Trump and team renew attacks on adversaries after gala shooting
-
Carrick hails Casemiro and Fernandes after vital Man Utd win
-
Felix, 40, says she plans comeback for LA Olympics
-
French FM says Iran must make 'major concessions' to end crisis
-
Trains collide near Jakarta, killing five, injuring dozens
-
Britain's King Charles meets Trump in bid to salvage ties
-
Accused media gala gunman charged with attempting to assassinate Trump
-
Man Utd beat Brentford to close on Champions League berth
-
Third suspect pleads guilty in US murder of Jam Master Jay
-
Milei bars media from presidential palace
-
Sabalenka reaches Madrid Open quarters, Zverev pushes through
-
California billionaire tax appears headed to the ballot
-
Trump, Melania slam Kimmel for 'widow' joke
-
Trains collide near Jakarta, killing four, injuring dozens
-
Kompany hails Kane, 'ageing like fine wine' as Bayern face PSG in Champions League
-
UK's King Charles arrives in US to shore up Trump ties
-
Tuareg rebels in control of key Mali town
-
US Supreme Court hears Bayer bid to end Roundup weedkiller suits
-
Separate goals, common enemy for Mali's jihadists and separatists
-
Accused media gala shooter charged with attempted Trump assassination
-
Tourism plummets in US-blockaded Cuba
-
Taylor Swift files to trademark her voice amid AI clone boom
-
Sabalenka reaches Madrid Open quarters, Gauff bows out
-
Trains collide outside Jakarta, killing four: officials
-
EU tells Google to open Android to AI rivals
-
Italian Calzona quits as Slovakia coach
-
Jury selection starts in Elon Musk's legal battle with OpenAI
-
21 killed in deadliest Colombia bombing in decades
-
Hazlewood, Kumar spark Delhi collapse as Bengaluru romp to victory
-
UN maritime agency rejects Hormuz tolls
-
Human Rights Watch warns of 'exclusion and fear' at World Cup
-
Tuareg rebels in control of key Mali town after offensive
-
Joshua signs deal to face Fury in all-British grudge match
Disinformation researchers lament 'chilling' US legal campaign
The study of disinformation has emerged as a political lightning rod in the United States, with conservative advocates launching a sweeping legal offensive that researchers fighting falsehoods denounce as an intimidation campaign ahead of the 2024 election.
As next year's vote approaches, many US academics and think-tanks focused on disinformation research are facing lawsuits by right-wing groups and inquiries from a Republican-led congressional panel.
The researchers -- including from the Stanford Internet Observatory and the University of Washington -- have worked on contentious subjects, including false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and conspiracy theories about Covid-19 vaccines.
They are accused of colluding with the government to censor conservative speech online under the guise of fighting disinformation.
But the researchers deny those claims and say the bitter wrangle is seriously impacting their work, including efforts to raise funding.
Some researchers face subpoenas from the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee, demanding records including emails with government officials and social media platforms dating back to 2015, according to letters seen by AFP.
The analysts say the resource-draining requests and mounting legal costs are undermining the fight against disinformation, a problem that is likely to surge in the run up to next year's White House race.
"This is having a serious chilling effect on the work being done to research different forms of false and misleading information," one leading US researcher told AFP.
"Funding is being pulled and people are so tied up responding to requests for emails that the work has all but stopped for most people."
Coming on top of online trolling and threats of violence that disinformation researchers say they routinely face amid the hyperpolarized US political climate, the legal efforts amount to a "harassment tactic" that has taken a major toll on morale, another academic told AFP.
They were among four researchers who spoke to AFP on the condition of anonymity, citing safety and legal concerns.
- 'Very troubling' -
"It's remarkable and very troubling that a congressional panel that purports to be investigating censorship is engaged in the intimidation of researchers," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
"There's nothing at all nefarious about researchers studying online speech... The panel should withdraw its sweeping demands, which undermine the very freedoms it says it is trying to protect."
Last month, firebrand conservative lawmaker Jim Jordan, head of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Stanford University threatening legal action unless the school complies with a subpoena for records.
In a statement to AFP, Stanford University said it was "deeply concerned about ongoing efforts to chill freedom of inquiry and undermine legitimate and much needed academic research in the areas of misinformation and disinformation -- both at Stanford and across academia."
In May, America First Legal, an advocacy group led by former Trump advisor Stephen Miller, filed a class-action lawsuit in Louisiana that he said was meant to strike at the heart of the "censorship-industrial complex."
Aside from academics from Stanford and the University of Washington, the group also sued researchers from the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council think-tank and the research group Graphika.
The plaintiffs in the case include Jim Hoft, founder of the far-right conspiracy website Gateway Pundit.
Stanford's researchers face another lawsuit filed in Texas by anti-vaccine advocates, who allege their social media posts were repeatedly flagged as misinformation or removed entirely as part of what it called mass censorship.
- 'Dirty tricks' -
Organizations that research disinformation dispute that they have the power to censor social media accounts and deny any collusion with government agencies.
But that argument appears to be the central premise of the House of Representatives committee led by Jordan, a Trump ally who did not respond to AFP's request for comment but has publicly accused such organizations of "censorship of disfavored speech."
Last month, a Jordan-led subcommittee on the "weaponization of the federal government" concluded in a report that a cybersecurity agency within the Department of Homeland Security had been mobilized to censor Americans in collusion with "Big Tech and disinformation partners."
Amid the sustained backlash, President Joe Biden's administration appears to have backed away from some of its efforts to counter disinformation.
For example, the State Department-backed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) recently said it will stop funding the London-based Global Disinformation Index (GDI). NED told US media its grant was meant to combat disinformation from authoritarian regimes, particularly China.
Many disinformation researchers view the backlash against them as a deliberate strategy before the 2024 election.
"If you want to get away with dirty tricks next year, you need to get rid of this space," one researcher told AFP.
"The goal is to ensure that no one is scrutinizing the playing field before the next election."
C.Kovalenko--BTB