After five years of pioneering research into the abuse of social platforms, the Stanford Internet Observatory is winding down. Its founding director, Alex Stamos, left his position in November. Renee DiResta, its research director, left last week after her contract was not renewed. One other staff member’s contract expired this month, while others have been told to look for jobs elsewhere, sources say.
Some members of the eight-person team might find other jobs at Stanford, and it’s possible that the university will retain the Stanford Internet Observatory branding, according to sources familiar with the matter. But the lab will not conduct research into the 2024 election or other elections in the future.
The shutdown comes amid a sustained and increasingly successful campaign among Republicans to discredit research institutions and discourage academics from investigating political speech and influence campaigns.
SIO and its researchers have been sued three times by conservative groups alleging that its researchers colluded illegally with the federal government to censor speech, forcing Stanford to spend millions of dollars to defend its staff and students.
In parallel, Republican House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan and his Orwellian “Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government” have subpoenaed documents at Stanford and other universities, selectively leaked fragments of them to friendly conservative outlets, and misrepresented their contents in public statements.
And in an actual weaponization of government, Jordan’s committee has included students — both undergraduates and graduates — in its subpoena requests, publishing their names and putting them at risk of threats or worse.
The remnants of SIO will be reconstituted under Jeff Hancock, the lab’s faculty sponsor. Hancock, a professor of communication, runs a separate program known as the Stanford Social Media Lab. SIO’s work on child safety will continue there, sources said.
Two of SIO’s major initiatives — the peer-reviewed Journal of Online Trust and Safety and its Trust and Safety Research Conference — will also continue. (The journal is funded through a separate grant from the Omidyar Network.)
But in quietly dismantling SIO, the university seems to have calculated that the lab had become more trouble than it is worth.
In a statement emailed after publication, Stanford strongly disputed the fact that SIO is being dismantled. “The important work of SIO continues under new leadership, including its critical work on child safety and other online harms, its publication of the Journal of Online Trust and Safety, the Trust and Safety Research Conference, and the Trust and Safety Teaching Consortium,” a spokesperson wrote. “Stanford remains deeply concerned about efforts, including lawsuits and congressional investigations, that chill freedom of inquiry and undermine legitimate and much needed academic research – both at Stanford and across academia.”
Really seems like Stanford is appeasing the far-right on everything these days. The leadership there has no grasp on the duties of their job and supporting their students.
It’s tough when people like us sit here online and bicker at people for not doing their jobs… when we can see they are literally overwhelmed by an avalanche of attack from rightwing douchebags who have infinite resources and infinite bootlickers to mindlessly repeat propaganda.
You should take a look at their endowment. It’s not going to teachers. Maybe they should use it to fight back? Cause if a university capitulates to an attack on freedom of speech then what lesson are they teaching the student body?
Stanford University has made hundreds of millions of dollars on licensing alone. That doesn’t even include the billions they got from donations.
They can afford to fight this. What they do get just giving up is the donations they get from conservatives. This is a business decision.
It’s the concentration of money and its interests. It corrupts purpose.
Stanford is literally in Silicon Valley. It’s no shock that the University that cranks out tech bros and is funded by the same group doesn’t want anyone reporting on anything unethical.
There were claims of misinformation and censorship.
That’s not the same thing as reporting on unethical things.
So which is the truth? The article completely fails to report what the details or outcome of these allegations and lawsuits were.
Reminds me of how vociferously the Right raged against Obama when his DOJ released its report on domestic terrorism and rightly attributed to right-wing interests. Obama, as the good corporate lap dog that he was, apologized for saying the correct, factual things, which is weird, because that report’s one of the few good things Obama ever did.
It’s strange to me that this article makes mention of claims of disinformation, and lawsuits based on censorship and government collusion, without mentioning any details at all about what was actually claimed to have happened.
Does anyone know what the claims were, whether they had any validity, and what the outcomes of the lawsuits were?
It looks like they did research on a wide variety of topics.
