In an era dominated by digital discourse, the concept of a free and open internet is increasingly under scrutiny. Mike Benz stands at the forefront of this debate as Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. Drawing on his experience as a former State Department diplomat specializing in international communications and information technology, Benz offers a critical perspective on the evolving landscape of online censorship and control. For those seeking a deeper understanding of his background and expertise, a search for Mike Benz Wikipedia may be a starting point, though the most comprehensive insights are often found directly through his work and interviews like this one.
This discussion delves into the core mission of the Foundation for Freedom Online and Mike Benz’s analysis of the internet’s trajectory, from its lauded “golden age” to the current challenges of content moderation and the rise of what he terms the “censorship industry.”
The Foundation for Freedom Online: Restoring the Golden Age of the Internet
According to Mike Benz, the Foundation for Freedom Online is driven by a clear and ambitious mission: to “restore the golden age of the internet.” This golden age, as he describes it, spanned from the internet’s privatization in 1991 to the significant geopolitical shifts of 2016. This period was characterized by an open and largely unmoderated digital space, a stark contrast to the increasingly regulated online environment of today.
Benz argues that since 2016, there has been a concerted “whole-society effort to implement domestic censorship.” The Foundation’s work is therefore focused on educating policymakers and the public about the intricate dynamics of this “censorship industry” and advocating for policies that champion online freedom. For individuals researching figures influencing the digital freedom debate, exploring resources like Mike Benz Wikipedia (if available) alongside his professional engagements offers a fuller picture of his perspective and influence.
Unmoderated Discourse: Revisiting the Internet’s Golden Era
When Benz refers to the “golden age,” he explicitly points to a time when online debates were largely “unmoderated and uncensored.” This era, predating the dominance of social media, was defined by platforms like blogs and forums. These platforms facilitated direct dialogue and information sharing, fostering a sense of shared digital space where diverse voices could converge.
He characterizes the current situation as “the revenge of the gatekeepers.” Prior to the rise of social media giants, the internet fostered a maturing ecosystem of independent media and online influencers. By 2016, these independent voices had begun to rival the reach of traditional media behemoths like the New York Times or CNN. Benz contends that the pushback against this burgeoning independent media landscape was an attempt to curtail the influence of these alternative voices on political and social discourse.
The Decline of Traditional Media and the Curated News Landscape
Benz highlights the “dual threat” faced by traditional legacy news media following events like Brexit and the 2016 US presidential election. Firstly, these institutions were experiencing a decline in their agenda-setting power at the political level. Secondly, the traditional revenue model was collapsing due to the abundance of free online content and the proliferation of alternative news sources that bypassed paywalls.
He points out that traditional outlets like the New York Times and CNN were often no longer the primary sources of breaking news. Citizen journalists, present at events and possessing insider information, frequently broke stories first. This shift in the news dissemination landscape led to what Benz describes as a series of deliberate maneuvers to “turn the knobs of volume down on news media competition” and redirect attention and revenue back to traditional media.
The Trust Project and Google’s OWL: Engineering Authoritative News
Benz points to the emergence of initiatives like the Trust Project and Google’s OWL project in early 2017 as examples of these maneuvers. The Trust Project, and Google’s OWL (Authoritative News) project were designed to elevate so-called “authoritative news” sources in search algorithms and recommendations.
He illustrates this point by contrasting YouTube search recommendations before and after 2017. Prior to these initiatives, search results drew from a wider range of sources. However, starting in late 2017, search results became heavily weighted towards “authoritative sources,” primarily CNN, MSNBC, and the Washington Post. Benz argues this effectively created an artificial advantage for the established “news cartel,” allowing them to outperform alternative news sources through algorithmic manipulation. Understanding the individuals behind these initiatives, such as those potentially mentioned in a Mike Benz Wikipedia entry or related biographies, can provide further context to these developments.
Covert Censorship and the “Martyr Effect”
Benz raises concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding content curation, questioning how consumers can discern genuine competition in the news landscape if they are unaware of algorithmic filtering. He describes levels of “scandal” related to content moderation practices that he believes warrant greater public attention.
He cites the example of Andy O’Connell, a former senior executive at Facebook with prior roles in the Obama State Department and White House. During a 2019 panel discussion at Stanford, O’Connell reportedly discussed the need for “more nuanced and covert methods” of content moderation. This shift towards covert methods was allegedly motivated by concerns about the “martyr effect,” where overt censorship or de-platforming could backfire, increasing support for censored individuals or viewpoints.
DARPA and the Science of Censorship
Benz highlights the role of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) funding in developing these “nuanced and covert methods.” He points to the work of academic Neil Johnson at George Washington University, who has reportedly published DARPA-funded studies on censorship techniques designed to avoid the martyr effect.
Traditional censorship methods, which involved directly banning or de-platforming individuals or institutions, were found to generate significant backlash. In response, “bottom-up methods” were proposed, focusing on suppressing the reach of followers or amplifiers rather than directly targeting prominent accounts. Techniques like “random partial” censorship, designed to be statistically undetectable by users, were also developed. Benz argues that these sophisticated censorship techniques originated from foreign policy and counterinsurgency efforts and have been repurposed for domestic use. Investigating the backgrounds of figures like Neil Johnson, perhaps starting with a search for Mike Benz Wikipedia and related researchers, could reveal deeper connections in this network.
Weaponized AI and the Erosion of Domestic Protections
Benz directly states that the tools being applied to online content moderation are tools originally developed for “counterinsurgency purposes abroad,” raising serious questions about the domestic application of technologies designed for combating terrorism. He argues that there has been a “one to one transfer” of these technologies from the foreign policy establishment to domestic spheres.
He cites DARPA grants from 2014-2015 focused on mapping ISIS language online using AI and natural language processing (NLP). These AI techniques, initially developed to identify and counter extremist content, are now being repurposed to analyze and potentially suppress domestic narratives deemed problematic. Benz contends that what DARPA was doing for counterterrorism is now being mirrored by agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) in relation to “conservative sentiment or COVID skepticism.” He emphasizes that the traditional understanding that such “dirty tricks” were confined to foreign policy has been broken, necessitating stronger protections against domestic censorship.
Transparency and Accountability: Lost Principles in the Digital Age
Benz addresses the question of whether platforms have a duty to inform users about content promotion and moderation practices. He notes that “transparency and accountability” were key principles advocated from 2017 to 2020, particularly concerning the spread of “populist political messaging.” The call for transparency was often linked to demands for accountability, implying platforms should be held responsible for allowing certain types of political discourse.
However, Benz argues that transparency is fundamentally a “consumer protection issue.” In the modern era, digital platforms are essential for participation in society and the economy. He points out that individuals are effectively compelled to use platforms like Facebook, Google, and YouTube for professional and personal reasons, making access to these platforms non-optional for participation in modern life.
He highlights the expansion of censorship beyond hate speech to encompass “mis-, dis-, and mal-information.” Malinformation, defined by the Department of Homeland Security as truthful information that could be misleading in aggregate, further broadens the scope of potential censorship. This expansion, according to Benz, raises serious concerns about the suppression of legitimate information and debate.
Financial Misinformation and the Censorship of Dissent
Benz references Congressman Massie’s observation regarding Senator Mark Kelly’s comments about censoring “correct information” to prevent financial panic during the Silicon Valley Bank collapse. Benz connects this to initiatives within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency).
He cites CISA’s declaration of misinformation as a “cyber attack on democratic institutions,” which has been used to justify censorship related to elections, COVID-19, and immigration. Benz points to CISA subcommittee minutes from June 2022 proposing a new category for “financial misinformation.” This framework, he argues, allows for the censorship of opinions and information related to critical infrastructure, including the financial sector, under the guise of cybersecurity. Benz suggests this framework could be used to prevent individuals from withdrawing money from the market, framing it as a defense of “policy and pecuniary interests” rather than genuine democratic principles. Further research into CISA and DHS initiatives, perhaps sparked by information found through a Mike Benz Wikipedia search and related government resources, could illuminate the scope of these policies.
The COVID Origins Debate and the Suppression of Scientific Inquiry
Benz uses the COVID origins debate as a prime example of government-funded censorship. He points to significant funding channeled through organizations like Graphica, funded by the Pentagon, State Department, and NSF, to suppress online discussion of the lab leak theory. He notes that despite this censorship, FBI Director Christopher Wray recently indicated that the lab leak theory is the FBI’s “dominant theory.”
Benz argues this situation exemplifies the protection of “noble lies,” where the government may suppress truthful information deemed harmful or destabilizing. He critiques the implication that individuals must wait for government authorization to hold certain beliefs, undermining the principles of free inquiry and open debate, particularly in scientific matters.
Anti-Science Censorship and the Erosion of Trust
Benz asserts that silencing debate is inherently “anti-science.” He emphasizes that trust in science relies on respect for the scientific process, which includes open questioning, debate, and scrutiny. He criticizes government funding initiatives, like the NSF’s “Convergence Accelerator Program,” which he argues are being repurposed for “science censorship.”
Originally established during the Trump administration to accelerate scientific breakthroughs, particularly in quantum technology, the program has reportedly added a new track called “Track F: Trust and Authenticity.” Benz contends that this track is focused on developing AI censorship techniques to suppress “mis- and disinformation” and restore trust in government and mainstream media. He argues this approach reflects a philosophy of “If trust cannot be earned, it must be installed,” prioritizing engineered consensus over genuine trust built through open discourse and accountability. Examining the NSF’s Convergence Accelerator Program and Track F, possibly through resources linked from a Mike Benz Wikipedia page, could provide further insight into these initiatives.
The Twitter Files and Evidence of Platform Manipulation
Benz references the Twitter Files as providing “hard, unimpeachable evidence and screenshots” of platform manipulation. These files reportedly revealed internal classifications and labels applied to high-profile accounts, such as those of James O’Keefe and Charlie Kirk, indicating deliberate efforts to limit their amplification.
He explains the “remove, reduce, inform” tiered system used by social media companies for content moderation. “Reduce,” or “friction,” involves measures to slow virality through search bans, recommendation bans, shadow bans, and other techniques. Benz argues the intent of these measures is to deliberately slow follower growth and limit the reach of specific narratives.
AI-Driven Narrative Tagging and Keyword Suppression
Benz highlights his foundation’s research into the application of AI-driven narrative tagging, particularly in relation to COVID-19 and election discourse in 2020 and 2022. He explains that hashtags, branding terms, and keywords associated with specific events were programmed into AI systems to automatically “tune down” the reach of content associated with those narratives. He warns that users employing these tagged terms in their posts may inadvertently be hindering their own visibility and reach.
Competition and the Entrenched Power of Big Tech
When asked if competition can solve these problems, Benz acknowledges the theoretical potential but points to the practical obstacles. He uses the example of Parler, an alternative social media platform that faced de-platforming after the 2020 election, highlighting the coordinated actions of payment processors and Amazon Web Services in shutting down competitive platforms.
Benz emphasizes the deep interrelationship between big tech companies and the government. He notes that major tech platforms are government contractors, citing examples like Google’s CIA contracts, DOD contracts, and the extensive relationships between Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and government agencies like the State Department. He argues this government subsidization provides entrenched big tech companies with an insurmountable advantage, hindering fair market competition. Researching government contracts with tech companies, perhaps initiated by a search for Mike Benz Wikipedia and related corporate information, can reveal the extent of these financial ties.
Mike Benz’s State Department Experience and the Nexus of Big Government and Big Tech
Benz details his experience as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Communications and Information Technology at the State Department. In this role, he oversaw the State Department’s big tech portfolio, dealing with issues ranging from IT security to tech policy and multilateral affairs.
He describes his direct engagement with lobbyists from Google, Facebook, and other major tech companies, witnessing firsthand the “nexus between big government and big tech.” Benz states that his time at the State Department, ending in 2020, coincided with a period of “intense consolidation” between government and big tech, marking a point where big tech severed the remaining vestiges of the social contract that had existed since the early 1990s. For those interested in his professional trajectory, resources like Mike Benz Wikipedia (if available) and professional networking sites could offer more details.
The Danger of Unfettered Power and the Chinese Social Credit System
Benz expresses concern about the dangers of unchecked power in the digital realm. While acknowledging the complexities of foreign policy, he draws a parallel to the historical relationship between big government and big oil, suggesting that while government support for industries like oil may have downsides, it doesn’t necessarily lead to direct restrictions on consumer access.
He warns that we are moving beyond the “infancy stages” towards the “adolescent stages” of a Chinese-style social credit system, with much of this development being government-funded. He cites NewsGuard as a prime example, a company created in 2017 with the stated goal of bankrupting “fake news.” Benz highlights the board of NewsGuard, populated by figures from major media institutions and the national security establishment, including former heads of the CIA, NSA, DHS, and NATO.
NewsGuard and the Creation of a Protected News Cartel
Benz describes NewsGuard as a “news ranking system for news credibility” that operates through advertiser networks and social media companies. He argues that NewsGuard and similar organizations facilitate the de-platforming and de-monetization of independent news outlets, effectively containing the independent news revolution that had emerged prior to 2017. He contends that this creates a “protected news cartel,” where established institutions are shielded from competition, similar to how government subsidies and contracts protect big tech companies.
He argues that just as it’s difficult to compete with government-subsidized tech giants, it’s equally challenging to compete with established news outlets that benefit from the backing of organizations like NewsGuard. He emphasizes the unequal playing field, where independent news organizations face systemic disadvantages in terms of reach, monetization, and platform access.
The Shift from Objective to Advocacy Journalism
Benz observes a deliberate shift within the journalism field away from objective journalism towards advocacy journalism. He notes the rejection of “both-side-ism” in favor of explicitly taking sides, arguing this shift is justified as a means to prevent the rise of “demagogues.”
However, Benz argues that this abandonment of objectivity ultimately serves to reinforce the “protected news cartel.” By prioritizing advocacy over objective reporting, established media outlets further solidify their position and limit the space for alternative perspectives and independent journalism.
Early AI and the Existential Threat to Internet Freedom
Benz recounts his early awareness of AI’s potential impact on internet content moderation, drawing parallels to AI’s transformative effect on the game of chess. He recognized the “existential threat” to internet freedom posed by AI’s ability to analyze and manipulate online narratives at scale.
He describes his attempts to warn others about the impending changes, comparing the application of AI to content moderation to the way AI chess engines like Deep Blue and Fritz revolutionized chess analysis. He foresaw AI’s capacity to map political narratives, assess social media posts, and transcribe speech, creating a powerful tool for censorship and control, requiring only a small “disinfo-lab” to exert significant influence. His early insights into AI and its implications, potentially documented in resources beyond a basic Mike Benz Wikipedia entry, are crucial for understanding his current stance.
AI as a Double-Edged Sword: Censorship and Creative Potential
Benz acknowledges the double-edged nature of AI, drawing again from the chess analogy. He notes that while AI chess engines transformed chess, they also opened up new possibilities and creative approaches to the game, leading to phenomena like “chess DJ’ing.”
He sees similar potential in generative AI tools like ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Bard. While recognizing the censorship risks, he also emphasizes AI’s capacity to “open up new lines of beauty” and revolutionize content creation. He highlights the recent advancements in generative AI, such as the ability to create websites and multimedia content from simple prompts, suggesting this technology has the potential to democratize content creation and foster new forms of expression.
Finding the Foundation for Freedom Online
For those interested in learning more about his work, Mike Benz directs listeners to the Foundation for Freedom Online’s website: foundationforfreedomonline.com. He also invites individuals to follow his updates on Twitter at @Mikebenzcyber. For further biographical information, while a Mike Benz Wikipedia page may offer a starting point, direct engagement with his work and the Foundation provides the most comprehensive understanding of his views and mission.
