I think the subsequent responses (redirecting you to smaller snippets of a podcast) reveals that the answer is “no.” Here is where I will say that the preferred brand of conservative and alt media (hours of audio slop, TV yelling, bloviatkng with no pushback) actually damages consumers’ ability to synthesize information and identify theses and supporting arguments. So I’ll do it for him:
Benz claims that at Atlantic Council journalist seminar aimed at training people to recognize and respond to disinformation is part of the U.S. government censorship apparatus. He is concerned that the framework presented, which tells journalists to be aware of how information ops use tactics of Dismissal, Distraction, Distortion, and Dismaying. Benz rejects this framework because none of those tactics involve the deployment of actual “false” information and alleges that Atlantic Council is advocating for censorship of political viewpoints. He objects to the use of a DJT tweet and Brexit slogan a case studies for the framework at the training.
A coherent response might be:
1. Rhetoric that uses tactics of distortion, dismissal, destruction and dismaying is a feature of info ops and the Atlantic Council does not suggest banning the tactics. Rather, it is equipping journalists to recognize and probe this type of rhetoric, not to simply repeat it mindlessly. This isn’t censorship, it is the opposite, it is building the foundation for challenging, critical, and open discussion.
2. The audience (journalists and fact-checkers) are not in a position to censor or silence people and Benz does not demonstrate how this session leads to tech censorship. The audience members are only in a position to question people, which is an important element of free speech.
3. Using DJT or Brexit as an example could be seen as ill-considered given that the session is funded with U.S. grants. On the flip side, given that it was filmed in 2019, it could be seen as evidence of grants working as intended: a third party training that equips journalists to ask hard questions and criticize even the U.S. and its allies when warranted, and defending the principles of fee and healthy debate rather than serving a narrow political aim.