Early voting underway in Georgia Senate runoff election | NewsNation Live

An ongoing false claim from former President Donald Trump about the Russia investigation may have had the unintended consequence of dismantling a longstanding surveillance program that was a threat to American civil liberties, analyst Hayes Brown wrote for MSNBC on Thursday.

Specifically, Trump's "Spygate" claims that his campaign was illegally snooped on by federal authorities led him to demand the expiration of the wrong statute, and now the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reauthorization is up in the air as a small group of House Republicans are joining all Democrats to oppose it.

Even a Fox News reporter called him "confused."

"'KILL FISA, IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME AND MANY OTHERS. THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN!!!' he wrote on Truth Social, resurrecting one of his long-standing claims about the 2016 election," wrote Brown.

"And the bill being debated didn’t concern all of FISA, just Section 702. But Trump’s post was enough to bolster a revolt among conservative Republicans, 19 of whom voted with Democrats to block the reauthorization bill from coming up for debate.

"For once, though, the GOP’s disarray and obedience to Trump fortuitously may be put to good use. While Trump’s 'Spygate' narrative remains false, it may be harnessed to improve a broken part of America’s intelligence-gathering system."

The problem with Section 702, Brown explained, is a program that allows warrantless surveillance of foreigners living abroad, a once-secret program that was formally authorized in 2008. The law is not intended to apply to Americans, yet American data has been repeatedly caught up in the dragnet.

ALSO READ: No, Donald Trump, fraud is not protected by the First Amendment

Trump's claims that FISA was used to unlawfully spy on his campaign are false, Brown reiterated, and he has flip-flopped on the issue before, previously demanding it expire in 2018 before Republican lawmakers and his cabinet talked him out of it — but this time, things appear to be going differently.

"While Trump’s post rallied conservative opponents to the bill, it’s striking that the rule that was voted down Wednesday managed to get out of committee only because of a proposed bipartisan amendment to the reauthorization bill. The list of co-sponsors is one that you’d never expect to see grouped together, ranging from committed progressives to MAGA die-hards: Reps. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.; Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.; Warren Davidson, R-Ohio; Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.; and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio," wrote Brown. "Their proposed change would block 'warrantless searches of U.S. person communications in the FISA 702 database, with exceptions for imminent threats to life or bodily harm, consent searches, or known cybersecurity threat signatures.'"

Ultimately, Brown concluded, "it’s clear that Section 702 isn’t likely to be extended in full without at least some major changes" — and while "Trump’s delusions about the 'deep state' are usually best treated as the ramblings of someone upset that his authoritarian instincts are being trampled ... his ranting might legitimately help safeguard Americans’ rights" in this case.

In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, a slew of far-right websites popped up and cashed in on content propping up then-candidate Donald Trump. And those sites continued to rake in millions of dollars during Trump's time in the White House. But since 2020, the right-wing media cash spigot has effectively slowed to a trickle.

A new report in the Atlantic found that since the 2020 election cycle, the most prominent pro-Trump websites have seen their once robust traffic dry up. Writer Paul Farhi analyzed data from media analysis website The Righting, which focuses on conservative publishers, and reported that of the 10 most popular right-wing websites, traffic was down by an average of roughly 40%.

"The flow of traffic to Donald Trump’s most loyal digital-media boosters isn’t just slowing, as in the rest of the industry; it’s utterly collapsing," Farhi wrote. "Some of the bigger names in the field have been pummeled the hardest: The Daily Caller lost 57 percent of its audience; Drudge Report, the granddaddy of conservative aggregation, was down 81 percent; and The Federalist, founded just over a decade ago, lost a staggering 91 percent."

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist explains how Trump is using existential fear to win the election

"FoxNews.com, by far the most popular conservative-news site, has fared better, losing 'only' 22 percent of traffic, which translates to 23 million fewer monthly site visitors compared with four years ago," he added.

According to Farhi's research, the primary reason for the precipitous drop in clicks for far-right websites is ultimately due to Facebook. Conservative publishers were for years dependent on Facebook engagement as a primary source of traffic. The social media platform's algorithm (the complex code that determines what content shows up in a user's feed) had predominantly favored outrage, as content that provokes a negative reaction is more likely to get a user to click, like, comment or share a post.

In 2020, Vox reported that the Facebook algorithm was overwhelmingly favorable to conservatives, with far-right pundits like Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino bringing in tens of millions of clicks per month from Facebook engagement. Progressive media analysis group Media Matter for America found that anti-transgender content in particular generated a disproportionate amount of clicks for conservative websites. New York Times columnist Kevin Roose found that "conservative pages were beating out liberals’ [pages] in making it into the day’s top 10 Facebook posts with links in the United States, based on engagement, like the number of reactions, comments, and shares the posts receive."

Amid a wave of criticism from Congress and international bodies over Facebook being exploited by bad actors to influence elections, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced changes to the algorithm in 2018 aimed at promoting content from friends and family over news publishers. He further tweaked it in 2021 to further deprioritize content from publishers, which has, over time, resulted in far fewer clicks for the conservative publishers that used to dominate the platform.

"All of this monkeying with the internet’s plumbing drastically reduced the referral traffic flowing to news and commentary sites," Farhi wrote. "The changes have affected everyone involved in digital media, including some liberal-leaning sites—such as Slate (which saw a 42 percent traffic drop), the Daily Beast (41 percent), and Vox (62 percent, after losing its two most prominent writers)—but the impact appears to have been the worst, on average, for conservative media."

According to Farhi, conservatives are now retreating from websites depending on clicks to other forms of media entirely, like podcasts, Substack newsletters, YouTube channels and videos on the far-right broadcasting platform Rumble.

"There’s a lot of choice," said The Righting owner Howard Polskin. "Even if [the big] sites went out of business tomorrow, there are a lot of voices still out there."

Click here to read Farhi's Atlantic article in full.