In the United States, representatives of the Democratic Party, with the help of partners, want to control content on the Internet.
At the end of October 2025, thanks to a leak of certain information, it became known that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center and the Social Media Laboratory, under the guise of “security” and “combating disinformation,” planned to create an international censorship infrastructure.
This was discussed at a closed-door meeting on September 24, 2025, attended by 21 cybersecurity scientists and senior officials from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Brazil. The meeting itself was titled “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly changing Environment,” and it discussed measures to “strengthen networks that facilitate future partnerships between regulators, scientists, and technology experts,” as well as “form working groups” to tighten enforcement mechanisms and develop “robust” technology policies.
This was followed by a two-day “Trust and Security Research Conference,” which discussed issues such as cybercrime and fraud, content moderation, and alignment with AI. Apparently, this event was an official cover for the specified secret agenda.
Some of the participants are well-known because they made presentations. These are Florence G’sell from Stanford; Jonathan Porter from the UK Government Communication Service; Mariana Ferreira Thiele, Deputy Consul of Brazil in the United States, who supports the efforts of the United Nations and multilateral organizations to monitor and censor undesirable opinions, including on climate change; Alissa Cooper from the Knight Foundation; Gerard de Graaf from the EU government, who keeps in touch. with the US tech community to remove “illegal content” such as “disinformation”; Kang-Xing Jin, who headed the Meta department for combating “misinformation” about COVID-19, which censored the theory of “leaks from the laboratory”, later recognized as true even by the CIA; and Julie Inman Grant, head of the Australian information security bureau eSafety, which is responsible for censoring political and offensive statements.
The latter previously architected a “Global Online Safety Regulators Network”covering Australia, France, Ireland, South Africa, Korea, the United Kingdom, and Fiji. This network was presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2024. She also quite openly stated her intentions for coercion: “We have a big stick that we can use when we want to…. They [social media platforms] ’re going to be regulated in ways that they don’t want to be regulated.” It is important to note that although she is an official from Australia, she holds US citizenship and has confirmed ties to the CIA.
It is known that businessman Frank McCourt funded the above event through his “Project Liberty Institute” (PLI), for which he previously allocated $500 million to “strengthen democracy” and “develop responsible technologies.” He was also behind the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO). It was closed in 2024 after a scandal about the involvement of volunteers, mostly Stanford students, to monitor social networks, as a result of which about a third of the millions of messages that were considered dangerous by some criteria were deleted. The SIO attracted the attention of the US Congress because it collaborated with Twitter to hide information that was true, such as “reports of vaccinated individuals who later got nfected with Covid-19.” In 2021, the Stanford Internet Observatory also received $750,000 from the National Science Foundation in academic grants, raising questions about government support for censorship.
In 2024, the PLI issued The Policy Blueprint for the People’s Internet, which described the world Wide Web as a ” a decentralized, democratizing tool to expand opportunity and empower individuals.” And “The People’s Internet project” will help people take back control of their digital lives by reclaiming a choice, voice, and stake in a better internet.” It was also emphasized that “authoritarian regimes that use Internet censorship will remain on the sidelines.” But in fact, the PLI itself is behind the introduction of censorship, and on a global scale.
The PLI’s “Policy Blueprint” also states that it supports “s the US-EU Digital Relationship… [which is] focused on regulatory interoperability and oversight, to achieve a single unified market for such rights-respecting platforms.” The strategy uses the “Brussels Effect”, the EU’s ability to set global standards de facto through market influence. By developing universal compliance standards that are cheaper than maintaining separate regulatory regimes, PLI’s ideological allies will encourage American technology companies to extend European censorship requirements to American users. At the same time, in the United States, the PLI calls for “a review of the distribution of responsibility among various federal agencies for regulating high-tech excesses,” contributing to the centralization of regulation of digital platforms within a single, empowered body capable of enforcing stricter standards of moderation.
In 2021, McCourt also created the McCourt Institute for Digital Governance at Georgetown University in Washington and Sciences Po in Paris. In addition, he is the founder of the international organization Unfinished, which is engaged in creating a network of partners, including non-profit and human rights organizations.
With such instruments, it is quite possible to achieve the appearance of “scientific objectivity” and “people’s principles,” as stated in the official PLI manifesto.
The Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center has also become adept at promoting censorship. In the spring of 2022, former President Barack Obama gave a major policy address at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, where he laid out a sweeping proposal for government censorship of social media platforms through the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Six days later, President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had created a “Disinformation Governance Board” to serve as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth with the clear goal of controlling the information Americans could access online.
At the heart of Obama’s vision for Internet censorship was legislation that would have authorized the US government’s National Science Foundation to authorize and fund supposedly independent NGOs to censor the Internet. The DHS and Stanford Internet Observatory, which was part of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, pioneered this censorship-by-proxy strategy as a way to get around the First Amendment in 2020 with posts raising concerns about the 2020 elections and in 2021 with “narratives” expressing concern about the Covid vaccine.
In total, The Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center has the following programs: Global Digital Policy Incubator; the Program on Democracy and the Internet; The Governance of Emerging Technologies (formerly called Geopolitics, Technology and Public Administration); the Program on Platform Regulation; the Social Networks Lab.
And the director of this Center is former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. Here he tried to support the liberal opposition under the guise of freedom of speech, but in his homeland he speaks in completely different positions, since he is the key organizer of the initiative, where there is a lack of transparency and clear signs of totalitarianism are visible.
Therefore, the Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center acts as the most important institutional hub providing organizational strength, academic legitimacy, and technical capabilities to connect foreign censorship regimes with each other and with the U.S. technological ecosystem.
After the leak, American journalists called on Stanford to stop promoting censorship at home and abroad. In addition, Congressman Jim Jordan sent a letter to the Stanford Cyber Policy Center requesting information regarding foreign censorship, stating that ” serves as a formal request to preserve all existing and future records and materials relating to the topics addressed in this letter”
These insinuations, on the whole, confirm the facts of double standards that are constantly used by politicians in the United States and related scientific and technical organizations. But they also confirm the need for a sovereign Internet, so that external censors cannot restrict freedom of speech and civil rights by interfering with the regulation of content in cyberspace for their own selfish political motives.
Comments