JD Vance claimed Democrats were censoring the internet. He’s lying.

During this week’s vice presidential debate, Senator JD Vance attempted to present Donald Trump’s agenda in a softer light to the American people. The Vance that voters saw on his cable news and podcast appearances — in which he invoked “childless cat ladies” and claimed that parents should have more voting power than non-parents — was nowhere to be found. Instead, for much of the debate, Vance presented himself as a slick Ivy League debater with an “oh shit” exterior.

But by the end of the night, that façade was gone, replaced by the far-right online bigot that his public records reveal him to be. When Vance was asked whether he would try to challenge the results of the 2024 election if he and Trump lost, he deflected. “I believe that we actually pose a threat to democracy in this country,” he said. “It’s the danger of censorship.” Vance later added: “Kamala Harris is engaging in censorship on an industrial scale.”

If you weren’t sure why Vance brought up “industrial” censorship in that moment, you’re not alone. This answer wasn’t for you – or for most viewers. It was an uproar for Vance’s supporters, who had been told for years that their right to free speech was under attack. Republicans (and some on the far left) have engineered a crisis over a “censorship industrial complex.” They argue that anyone who researches rumors online, implements social media platform rules to protect safety and health, or speaks to public or private partners about any of the above is subject to unfair censorship.

The narrative that government, academia, and the private sector have allegedly been collaborating on a large scale to suppress Americans’ political opinions for years has spread from its roots on the fringes of the internet to the halls of Congress. This manufactured controversy is based on real concerns: It would indeed be bad if the US government forced social media platforms to remove posts. But its poor track record relies heavily on scaremongering, collapse of context, and research errors that would make an elementary school student blush.

An example emerged in the debate itself when Vance claimed to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz: “You yourself have said that there is no First Amendment right to misinformation.” Which he – and the conservative influencers who What made that old quote viral over the summer — what viewers weren’t told was that Walz was talking about misinformation related to voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, neither of which is protected speech.

That’s just one example, but there have been many more over the years of this conservative fever dream. At the American Sunlight Project, of which I am a co-founder, we recently published research debunking these unfounded claims. We have seen a clear and concerted pattern of “information laundering,” with untrue allegations traveling from online influencers to conservative political groups to lawsuits and congressional investigations. By falsely accusing researchers, governments and social media companies of censorship, these groups have successfully undermined the public’s trust in essential fact-checking and critical thinking processes ahead of the upcoming 2024 elections.

We are not the only ones who have stressed that there is a lack of evidence to support these claims. At another point in the debate, Vance appeared to reference a recent Supreme Court case in which Missouri and Louisiana claimed the Biden administration forced social media platforms to remove Covid falsehoods. “Did Kamala Harris stop Americans from expressing their opinions in the wake of the 2020 Covid situation?” Vance asked. Apparently this Yale law graduate isn’t up to date on his Supreme Court decisions; in June the court dismissed the case. In her opinion for the six-member majority, Trump-appointed Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote: “Plaintiff cannot rely on ‘mere allegations,’ but must instead point to factual evidence.”

A new study on anti-conservative bias published in the journal Nature also casts doubt on the premise of Vance’s claims. It found that while conservatives were banned from Twitter at a higher rate than liberals, “users who were pro-Trump/conservative also shared far more links to various groups of low-quality news sites – even when the news quality was politically balanced.” “Lay groups” or groups consisting only of Republican lay people – and had a higher estimated probability of being bots.”

In other words, conservatives were more likely to share content that was likely to contradict pre-existing policies, even when judged by people with similar beliefs. We all agree to abide by the social media companies’ terms and policies when signing up to share cat pictures or political memes. Implementing these guidelines does not constitute “censorship,” any more than a bar refusing service to patrons without shoes.

Beyond facts and politics, Vance’s use of “censorship” is a signal to voters who have been repeatedly told that Democrats are communists, fascists, or worse. His use of the term is a simple shorthand for empowering an enemy. Vance apparently believes in “censorship.” a serious threat to democracy akin to an armed mob storming the Capitol. The difference between the two is that one of them actually happened.