weird https://twitter.com/Ruptly/status/1043866323762130944?s=20

allahu Fishbar?

@devpav But yeah, ultimately all roads lead to Soros, though that's not necessarily indicative of any particular foul play

e.g. Catherine Bracy was on the board of the Citizen Engagement Lab, which worked with the Open Society Foundations (which is George's)

but that says mostly nothing about anything

```Well, more than a couple Massachusetts morons.```
so all of them

implying that even i contributed to the problem

Well, while I may not agree with this sentiment, some say "If you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem."

So certainly some people can see you as having contributed to the problem.

Instead of trying to identify the most batshit lefty loons connected to Data & Society, another strategy might be to identify the most moderate or centrist people connected to them and try to interview them, pressing them hard on why they support this censorious deplatforming crap.

A graph displaying the SPLC donor network would be useful.

If you can flip one of them and get them to admit that this isn't what they signed up for, then maybe you might have a change at discrediting the report. But trying to paint the D&S people as hard left isn't helpful, as the people this report is aimed at (the people making the rules at tech giants) at also hard left.

I dunno about that. The hard left already hate that list. I think this is trying to pull more people into the net

You'll basically just be cataloging their bona fides for the SJWs in control of ToS and platform moderation.

Or at least prevent them from finding wrongthink

Actually if you could just do the equivalent of a RICO investigation of ADL/SPLC/OSF that'd be great.

Beemann I think you misunderstand. Tim posted this page earlier <https://datasociety.net/people/directors-advisors/> and asked us to look into them.

A cursory look shows that they're 95% far left academics who have parasitically inserted themselves into silicon valley. There might be 5% of them that have actually written a line of code in their lives.

I'm saying instead of delving into the more far left people and their batshit politics we should instead look at the 5% who are actual developers and any of the academics who have written in support of moderate policies like free speech for all. and try to get their take on things.

Well, the graph can expand

The board of directors on that list are all true believers. Worthless to engage them.

I can't really give you guys the tools I normally use for this

but maybe I should spend the rest of the day building something similar

But some of the advisors might not have known what they were getting into with these people. They might have advised on things without knowing that the goal was deplatforming and censorship.

Well, I think some of the advisors are along for the ride

they obviously all just know eachother

I would say it's useless to engage them privately

But undermining them publicly has its perks

Not to mention, a study of a similar nature to the false one they published can be produced

and carry more weight, with a pile of well-sourced claims

Deirdre Mulligan for example is probably not someone who would support deplatforming.

The Mainstream Influence Network

Yeah, I think she's just there because of a connection with Danah Boyd

through the University of California at Berkeley, School of Information

Deirdre is ~~their lawyer~~ one of their lawyers, and Danah Boyd is a Ph Doctorate of theirs.

boyd is a true believer.

Probably, yes.

https://twitter.com/KeatonPatti/status/1043150115731644417?s=20

@wacka Megafake, but funny.

Spork/10