the federalist

NewsGuard sells government-funded censorship tool to private firms

NewsGuard: The Government-Funded Censorship Machine

The for-profit censorship ​giant NewsGuard is now selling its “Misinformation Fingerprints” technology to‍ private companies to silence Americans’ speech —⁤ technology ⁤the federal government helped NewsGuard ‍develop to the tune of nearly $750,000 in taxpayer⁢ funding. So while‍ NewsGuard is now making headlines for trying to​ take⁢ down Elon Musk’s X, the bigger story concerns the federal government’s‌ funding of the censorship-industrial complex.

NewsGuard launched a⁢ Thanksgiving-week attack on the social ​media company‌ former ‌known as Twitter, claiming some 200 ⁢ads⁤ from prominent advertisers appeared on feeds of users spreading lies about the‌ Israel-Hamas war. Elon ⁢Musk returned fire, calling NewsGuard “a propaganda shop” that “uses these​ reports to pressure companies to buy their ‘fact-checking’ services.”

“It’s a profit ‍over any principle model,” ‌the​ X owner countered.

The verbal sparring between‍ Musk and NewsGuard is likely to continue ‌for some time,‌ but the war on free⁢ speech being‌ waged by NewsGuard extends much beyond ⁣X and is being subsidized ‍by our​ tax dollars.

“In ⁣September 2021, NewsGuard ⁣was⁣ awarded a grant through⁣ the Small Business‌ Innovation and Research program, which funds early-stage companies to develop⁢ products and​ technologies⁢ that can be helpful for⁤ government,” ‌NewsGuard announced in its 2021 ‍Social​ Impact Report. “Under ‌the grant,” the report explained, “NewsGuard ⁣plans to further ⁤develop‍ the Misinformation Fingerprints tool and test ⁢the effectiveness of the Fingerprints in detecting state-sponsored disinformation ‍campaigns.”

Federal records show the Department of Defense funded the Small Business Innovation and Research ⁤program’s award of⁢ nearly $750,000‍ to NewsGuard for the further development and testing ‍of the Misinformation Fingerprints tool. And according to NewsGuard’s 2021 Social ‍Impact‍ Report, its “Misinformation Fingerprints” catalog ⁢traced “762 ‍false⁤ narratives,” “providing one-of-a-kind tracking seeds ⁤for ⁤the AI tools used by defense industry clients.”

By the following year,⁤ NewsGuard reported ‌ in its 2022 Social Impact Report‍ that its “Misinformation Fingerprints” ⁣technology ‍had accumulated 1,122 supposedly⁣ false narratives and been “deployed at scale” ⁤— including by social media ⁣companies. Since then, NewsGuard has⁤ highlighted the use of the Misinformation Fingerprints tool by social media companies “seeking to ‌mitigate falsehoods‌ on their platforms…”

“For example⁤ the Ethos Network, an⁢ ethical⁢ social media ⁣app targeting Gen-Z‌ users, ‍has integrated⁤ NewsGuard’s⁢ Misinformation Fingerprints ⁢and associated ‘debunks’ into its user interface,” NewsGuard bragged, claiming its technology enabled⁢ “users to verify the ⁢content of their posts before publishing them.”

In addition to the Ethos Network, NewGuard reports that‌ GIPHY, the online‍ search engine ⁤and database of GIFS,⁢ was one of the first companies to use the Misinformation Fingerprints dataset,‍ “to quickly identify and ⁤address content that ⁤risks spreading misinformation​ through its platform.” Microsoft also⁤ uses NewsGuard’s “fingerprints” technology “to train Bing Chat.”

NewsGuard currently markets its Misinformation ⁢Fingerprints technology to a variety of entities, including‍ tech giants and organizations ‍with AI and social-listening tools. ⁤That ​technology,‍ NewsGuard ‌promises, allows false claims to be intercepted, ⁣while facilitating the sharing of accurate information.

Like its other offerings, NewsGuard’s ​Misinformation Fingerprints‌ tool relies on​ the research of its supposedly​ “trained analysts and misinformation experts,”⁣ meaning that the same defects seen in its rating of ​news outlets ​likely permeate the Misinformation Fingerprints. NewsGuard ⁤also markets its Misinformation ⁤Fingerprints ​to‍ be used “in⁢ conjunction with NewsGuard’s ⁢reliability ratings,” promoting that combined technology ⁢to the advertising⁤ industry ​to be used to “redirect ad spend⁢ away from purveyors of misinformation ‌and⁢ towards sources⁢ of quality journalism.”

American taxpayers thus paid‍ for ​NewsGuard ⁢“to‌ further develop the Misinformation Fingerprints⁣ tool,” which NewsGuard then deployed at scale, ‍marketing the censorship technology to social media companies and advertisers to‌ silence and starve disfavored speech. And because NewsGuard ​worked with⁢ the Department of Defense “to ​test​ the ⁤effectiveness of the Fingerprints in detecting⁣ state-sponsored disinformation campaigns,” it seems‌ likely the government had some input in‌ determining​ what qualified ‌as “disinformation.”

NewsGuard has ⁢since attempted to ⁢walk back its earlier boast⁤ that it had received a government grant to develop⁢ its Misinformation Fingerprints tool, framing ⁣the $750,000 award as a licensing fee. But whether⁣ a grant ‌or a licensing fee, the scandal remains the same: Our ‍government funded and helped ⁢develop censorship technology designed to silence American speech. And⁢ the⁤ award to NewsGuard is just one example, with the federal government awarding more than⁤ 500​ contracts ⁤or grants related⁢ to so-called mis- or⁢ disinformation since 2020.

These facts also should not ‍be considered ‍in ⁢isolation, but rather viewed in light ⁢of the federal government’s efforts over the last five ⁢years to coerce⁢ social media companies to censor disfavored speech.

So yes, NewsGuard’s efforts to silence speech and to destroy ‌the financial survival of disfavored outlets and social media companies is a problem. However, fighting NewsGuard’s anti-American attack on free speech‌ isn’t​ enough.⁢ Rather, it is the‍ totality of the federal government’s efforts ⁣to control speech ‌that must be destroyed — or ⁢our freedom of ‌speech will be.


How does the use of‌ PAA technology contribute to brand safety and ad verification?

Used⁤ for⁢ brand ‍safety⁤ and ad ⁢verification.

However, ⁤the use of government funding to develop and promote this technology raises⁢ serious concerns​ about the infringement of ‍free speech ‍rights. By providing financial support to ​NewsGuard, the federal⁤ government is ⁤effectively endorsing and ‍enabling the censorship-industrial complex.

This is particularly‌ troubling considering the power and influence that NewsGuard holds in​ the digital information‌ landscape. With its credibility ‌ratings and fact-checking services,‍ NewsGuard has the ⁣ability to shape public perception and‌ control the flow of information. This kind of centralized control‍ over information is dangerous ⁤and undermines the principles of a free and open ‍society.

Furthermore, there ⁣is a clear conflict⁢ of‍ interest when a government-funded entity such as NewsGuard⁤ is selling its technology⁤ to private ‍companies. This creates a perverse ⁣incentive for NewsGuard ‌to target and suppress⁣ certain viewpoints that may be deemed unfavorable by those in power.​ Such actions not only stifle free⁣ speech but also undermine the diversity of ideas and opinions that are necessary for a healthy democratic ​society.

It is essential that we remain vigilant in ⁣preserving⁣ our fundamental‍ right‍ to free speech and resist any attempts to control‍ and manipulate the flow of ⁤information. The government ⁢should not be in the business of ​funding censorship and stifling dissenting voices. Instead,​ it should uphold and protect the principles of free and open discourse, allowing⁤ individuals to make informed decisions based on⁣ a wide range of perspectives.

In conclusion, the use of‍ government ‍funding to⁣ support ‍NewsGuard’s censorship technology raises grave concerns about the erosion of free ​speech ​rights. We must be cautious of the increasing‌ influence and ​power that entities like NewsGuard hold over the‌ flow of information. ⁣It ⁣is our responsibility to defend and protect our right to free⁣ speech,⁣ ensuring that diverse perspectives and ideas continue to thrive in our society.



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."

Related Articles

Sponsored Content
Back to top button
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker