The Weaponization of Non‑Redaction
From the Epstein files to congressional “censorship” reports, MAGA is using "transparency" as a weapon—and calling it accountability.
Friends, I’m starting this newsletter on a personal note. Safeguarding our shared reality continues to be a bleak financial proposition. While I’m working harder than ever to document this administration’s assault on free expression and help you find your way through a polluted information environment, it’s not bringing in much income, thanks to the chilling effect Trump 2.0 has had on the institutions that once invested in my field.
The relentless enemies of truth, however, are profiting from their lies, and challenges to my family’s privacy and safety persist. My stalker continues to make frivolous legal filings; now, he is retaliating against me for obtaining a protective order against him in 2023. This has led to yet another large legal bill, bringing the total of my legal expenses since 2022 above $100,000.
I know times are tough right now—believe me, I feel it too. Supporters like you are the reason I was able to pay my bills after I was villainized for choosing to serve my country. If you can spare a few dollars to help me pay this latest bill, I would be really grateful. You can contribute directly to my legal aid fund here, or become a paid subscriber to this newsletter below. Thank you. Having thousands of you in my corner means more than you know!
Over the past several weeks, Jim Jordan’s congressional subcommittee that weaponizes the federal government—oops, I mean the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, silly me!—has released a new set of bogus reports attempting to make the case that “Europe” is “censoring” online speech by enforcing its own sovereign regulations on tech companies.
This is patently false. Regulation is a government’s right. If American social media companies wish to do business in a given market, they need to comply with local rules, the same way American car manufacturers comply with local safety laws in the jurisdictions where they sell their vehicles. Further, Europe’s social media regulation—the Digital Services Act (DSA)—doesn’t compel any content-related takedowns, as Jordan alleges; it focuses on transparency. And finally, since the DSA came into force, 50 million content moderation decisions made by underpaid contractors employed by a few unelected billionaires have actually been reversed, because Europeans used their right to appeal those decisions over a hundred million times. Perhaps Jordan is upset that Europeans have more speech rights on online platforms than their American counterparts. The antidote would be to pass a bill, but Jim Jordan doesn’t do that.
The reports make plenty more insane allegations, and I’m not going to debunk all of them. Instead, I want to focus on a tactic that the Subcommittee—and others in the MAGA universe—have consistently used to intimidate: the deliberate non-redaction of names and personal information in official business.
When Jim Jordan first started bullying me to testify before his inchoate subcommittee in late 2022, his first letter to me included my home address, which he posted on his Twitter account. I had to get my lawyer to call his staff to compel them to take it down.
When Jim Jordan first started publishing documents from the Stanford Internet Observatory, he did not redact the names of undergraduate student researchers, and even attempted to compel the university to get them to testify.
And now, as he releases reports and contextless annexes of internal communications “proof” that “Europe” is “censoring” speech, civil society researchers find their names and emails unredacted throughout the report. We know Jordan’s staff can redact information, though, because they’ve taken great care to redact the personal information of tech company employees mentioned throughout.
This pattern of strategic non-redaction tells you everything you need to know about Jordan’s goals. He’s not trying to investigate anything, or get justice for anyone. He is knowingly unleashing online mobs against innocent people doing work they believe is in the public interest while protecting the interests of powerful tech companies, full stop.
If this reminds you of the much more famous scandal of strategic non-redaction currently playing out in the Epstein Files, you’re catching on. Here, Pam Bondi’s DOJ has protected interests and images of powerful men who sexually abused girls while neglecting to redact victims’ names or images of them, effectively retraumatizing them and replaying their personal horror for millions of Americans who are consuming the files like reality television. It’s gross, it’s unethical, and—in my experience and opinion—it’s deliberate.
Leaving the names of individuals unredacted—whether in the Epstein files or in Jordan’s “censorship” investigations—dangles red meat before the most conspiratorial, violent communities on the internet. In an information vacuum, these are the names that fill the void. Internet sleuths dive into their personal histories and fill up digital corkboards with decontextualized quotes and factoids and so much red string. They post megathreads and paywalled Substack posts and monetize their theorizing. And their victims are left to deal with abuse, harassment, and physical threats while those in privileged positions, like Jordan and Bondi, simply shrug and call it “transparency.” 🧭
