Stanford Internet Observatory's former research director details the online rumor mill that led to SIO ending its rapid-response election observation work
This by the former research director of the #Stanford Internet Observatory. It was one of the leading #US institutions studying #online disinformation, but it's been shut down recently due to lawsuits and Congressional ‘investigations’ (which remind me of #McCarthy) … X: Ryan J. Reilly / @ryanjreilly : “As we enter the final stretch of the 2024 campaign, it will not be other countries that are likely to have the greatest impact. Rather, it will once again be the domestic rumor mill.” https://www.nytimes.com/... Michael McElreath / @michaelmce47098 : Beware people like Jim Jordan and Stephen Miller who use the First Amendment as a means to destroy our freedoms and democratic government. https://www.nytimes.com/... Jeff Giesea / @jeffgiesea : “We cannot allow fear to undermine our commitment to safeguarding the democratic process.” I'm with @noUpside on this. https://www.nytimes.com/... @jonippolito : I was asked in today's #MyFest webinar how to avert AI-generated disruption of upcoming elections. Ask your local election officials what they are doing to prepare for deep fakes. High-profile analysis is being stymied, so it's just us chickens now https://www.nytimes.com/... 🐘♻️ @upine : Gd article. Tho it shows why academics & gov agencies can't & study disinfo well due to threats. Just as DHS's Disinfo Governance Board was closed, so is Stanford Internet Obsrvatry's Election Integrity Prtnrship's rapid-response election obsrvation work. https://www.nytimes.com/... @healthcarerenew : I Study Disinformation. This Election Will Be Grim. “The networks spreading misleading notions remain stronger than ever, while the networks of researchers and observers who worked to counter them are being dismantled” https://www.nytimes.com/... @michellesdude : An important resource in the fight against election disinformation has been closed, in response to concerted actions of the Russian intelligence services, the @HouseGOP @JudiciaryGOP, and various thugs making online death threats against the researchers. https://www.nytimes.com/... @copilco1 : Academics. Be aware, extreme right can go after you, use your work against you and dismantle your research. What Happened to Stanford Spells Trouble for the Election https://www.nytimes.com/... Forums: r/skeptic : “I Study Disinformation. This Election Will Be Grim.” See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
Stanford Internet Observatory’s decision to wind down followed a broader retrenchment in academic and agency misinformation research under political and legal pressure. The former research director’s account adds the operational mechanism: an online rumor ecosystem can make rapid-response observation itself costly to sustain.
The end of election-focused work was already signaled in reports that SIO was winding down; this account connects that institutional outcome to lawsuits, congressional scrutiny, foreign activity, and threats directed at researchers. It matters because the loss is not merely of a research brand, but of a standing capability to examine fast-moving election claims.
First-order effects
- SIO no longer provides its rapid-response election-observation function, leaving its researchers and collaborators without that institutional vehicle during a period when domestic rumors are identified as a central risk.
- Political and legal pressure, alongside threats and hostile online narratives, has demonstrated a path by which public-facing disinformation research can be constrained without a finding on the research itself.
Second-order effects
- Other university and agency teams studying political misinformation have stronger incentives to narrow public-facing work, alter methods, or avoid election-specific programs—extending the earlier pullback from political and medical misinformation research.
- Platforms, journalists, and election administrators may have fewer independent, rapid analyses to draw on when assessing coordinated or viral claims, increasing reliance on their own internal capacities and ad hoc outside experts.
Third-order effects
- If this pressure pattern persists, election-integrity research could shift from open, rapid-response networks toward smaller, less visible, or more legally insulated efforts, reducing public transparency around how claims are studied.
- The episode points to a durable conflict over whether observing and countering alleged misinformation is protected research or improper speech governance; that boundary will shape which institutions can maintain such programs.
The trend: Election-disinformation research is becoming an institutional-risk category as legal, political, and online pressure increasingly determine what can be studied openly and in real time.