Truth Cops: Leaked Documents Outline DHS Plan To Police Disinformation (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    5,137
    Reaction score
    2,455
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline





    THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous, an investigation by The Intercept has found. Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms.

    The work, much of which remains unknown to the American public, came into clearer view earlier this year when DHS announced a new “Disinformation Governance Board”: a panel designed to police misinformation (false information spread unintentionally), disinformation (false information spread intentionally), and malinformation (factual information shared, typically out of context, with harmful intent) that allegedly threatens U.S. interests. While the board was widely ridiculed, immediately scaled back, and then shut down within a few months, other initiatives are underway as DHS pivots to monitoring social media now that its original mandate — the war on terror — has been wound down.

    Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the U.S. government has used its power to try to shape online discourse. According to meeting minutes and other records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican who is also running for Senate, discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information.

    “Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain,” Microsoft executive Matt Masterson, a former DHS official, texted Jen Easterly, a DHS director, in February.

    In a March meeting, Laura Dehmlow, an FBI official, warned that the threat of subversive information on social media could undermine support for the U.S. government. Dehmlow, according to notes of the discussion attended by senior executives from Twitter and JPMorgan Chase, stressed that “we need a media infrastructure that is held accountable.”

    Key Takeaways
    • Though DHS shuttered its controversial Disinformation Governance Board, a strategic document reveals the underlying work is ongoing.
    • DHS plans to target inaccurate information on “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine.”
    • Facebook created a special portal for DHS and government partners to report disinformation directly.


    -The work is primarily done by CISA, a DHS sub-agency tasked with protecting critical national infrastructure.

    -DHS, the FBI, and several media entities are having biweekly meetings as recently as August.
    DHS considered countering disinformation relating to content that undermines trust in financial systems and courts.

    -The FBI agent who primed social media platforms to take down the Hunter Biden laptop story continued to have a role in DHS policy discussions.

    ...In retrospect, the New York Post reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 election provides an elucidating case study of how this works in an increasingly partisan environment.

    Much of the public ignored the reporting or assumed it was false, as over 50 former intelligence officials charged that the laptop story was a creation of a “Russian disinformation” campaign. The mainstream media was primed by allegations of election interference in 2016 — and, to be sure, Trump did attempt to use the laptop to disrupt the Biden campaign. Twitter ended up banning links to the New York Post’s report on the contents of the laptop during the crucial weeks leading up to the election. Facebook also throttled users’ ability to view the story.

    In recent months, a clearer picture of the government’s influence has emerged.

    In an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast in August, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that Facebook had limited sharing of the New York Post’s reporting after a conversation with the FBI. “The background here is that the FBI came to us — some folks on our team — and was like, ‘Hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election,’” Zuckerberg told Rogan. The FBI told them, Zuckerberg said, that “‘We have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump.’” When the Post’s story came out in October 2020, Facebook thought it “fit that pattern” the FBI had told them to look out for.

    Zuckerberg said he regretted the decision, as did Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter at the time. Despite claims that the laptop’s contents were forged, the Washington Post confirmed that at least some of the emails on the laptop were authentic. The New York Times authenticated emails from the laptop — many of which were cited in the original New York Post reporting from October 2020 — that prosecutors have examined as part of the Justice Department’s probe into whether the president’s son violated the law on a range of issues, including money laundering, tax-related offenses, and foreign lobbying registration.

    Documents filed in federal court as part of a lawsuit by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana add a layer of new detail to Zuckerberg’s anecdote, revealing that officials leading the push to expand the government’s reach into disinformation also played a quiet role in shaping the decisions of social media giants around the New York Post story.

     
    I think that if the government needs to obtain a search warrent to get information that is private, then it shouldn't be sold to anybody. Why is congress allowing this private citizen information to be sold on the open market? That's my question.
    Yes, but since they are, and anyone, including foreign corporations and/or domestic political campaigns can buy that information, why would you prevent any government agency from also purchasing said information. Let‘s face it, it isn’t private information at this point.
     
    Yes I did. What's the incredibly important information you are referring to?

    In the first quote, from 3-21, the ellipsis separating the 7-word quote is leaving out 22 words in between, not to mention the context that comes after. Literally 3/4 of the text is ignored, which alters the meaning drastically. The phrase "in addition to removing...often-true content" is nowhere near the same as "in addition to removing vaccine misinformation, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable information. This often-true content, which we allow at the post level because experts have advised us that it is important for people to be able to discuss both their personal experiences and concerns about the vaccine, but it can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking."

    Would you agree that removing the original context- that the text was specifically discussing misinformation- drastically changes things?
     
    In the first quote, from 3-21, the ellipsis separating the 7-word quote is leaving out 22 words in between, not to mention the context that comes after. Literally 3/4 of the text is ignored, which alters the meaning drastically. The phrase "in addition to removing...often-true content" is nowhere near the same as "in addition to removing vaccine misinformation, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable information. This often-true content, which we allow at the post level because experts have advised us that it is important for people to be able to discuss both their personal experiences and concerns about the vaccine, but it can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking."

    Would you agree that removing the original context- that the text was specifically discussing misinformation- drastically changes things?
    Not at all, but I'm against censoring speech unless it encourages violence or something illegal.

    The important part that you said changes the context is them admitting they are censoring posts that didn't even contain misinformation. So they were censoring true information(it's against the 1st amendment for the government to censor true or false speech) because they claimed it caused vaccine hesitancy.

    I'm not sure how one justifies censoring speech especially when the information is true. That sounds pretty Orwellian to me.
     
    Why do you think that?
    Because the government shouldn't be able to circumvent constitutional requirements. It's similar to when we learned about all the spying from Snowden. If they didn't get a warrant, they have no right to have that information.

    It is reasonable to question if the private companies should be able to get the data, but the government isn't the same as a company who doesn't have constitutional requirements to satisfy before they get the data.
     
    Not at all, but I'm against censoring speech unless it encourages violence or something illegal.

    The important part that you said changes the context is them admitting they are censoring posts that didn't even contain misinformation. So they were censoring true information(it's against the 1st amendment for the government to censor true or false speech) because they claimed it caused vaccine hesitancy.

    I'm not sure how one justifies censoring speech especially when the information is true. That sounds pretty Orwellian to me.

    Then we're done. You refuse to acknowledge reality when it stares you in the face. You continually twist everything into knots that are nearly impossible to untangle instead of discussing things honestly. There is a great conversation to have about this topic. It's a shame your only contributions serve to muddy the waters to the point where we can't even see the bottom anymore.
     
    Because the government shouldn't be able to circumvent constitutional requirements. It's similar to when we learned about all the spying from Snowden. If they didn't get a warrant, they have no right to have that information.

    It is reasonable to question if the private companies should be able to get the data, but the government isn't the same as a company who doesn't have constitutional requirements to satisfy before they get the data.
    I don’t think you can consider public information to be private. If I can purchase the information legally, from a company to which you voluntarily gave that information, then it’s not private information any longer. So how does the constitution address that?
     
    Then we're done. You refuse to acknowledge reality when it stares you in the face. You continually twist everything into knots that are nearly impossible to untangle instead of discussing things honestly. There is a great conversation to have about this topic. It's a shame your only contributions serve to muddy the waters to the point where we can't even see the bottom anymore.
    What reality am I refusing to acknowledge? You're done because I don't believe in censoring true or false speech(except speech that calls for violence or something illegal)? What am I missing?

    I'm guessing you are for censoring the speech in this example? If not tell me what your position is?
     
    I don’t think you can consider public information to be private. If I can purchase the information legally, from a company to which you voluntarily gave that information, then it’s not private information any longer. So how does the constitution address that?
    I wouldn't consider it public information. It's not posted on the internet. It's private information that companies acquire.

    If the government didn't purchase the information they would have had to get a warrant for each request. If normally a warrant is required then the government shouldn't be circumventing constitutional requirements.
     
    I wouldn't consider it public information. It's not posted on the internet. It's private information that companies acquire.

    If the government didn't purchase the information they would have had to get a warrant for each request. If normally a warrant is required then the government shouldn't be circumventing constitutional requirements.
    You are splitting hairs here. I don’t think that companies should acquire the information and I don’t think they should sell it, but while they do I don’t see any reason to care about the government buying it. You do realize foreign governments can buy it, right? Anyone can buy it.

    How does the Constitution address this issue?
     
    That kind of information requires the government to obtain a search warrant. Do you think the government should be able to sidestep constitutional requirements to get our personal information?
    Any information that is legally for sell is publicly available information. No law enforcement agency has to get a search warrant to get publicly available information, the Constitution is very clear in supporting that idea. The government can not invade your private space without a search warrant. The Constitution does not require the government to look away from something that is being traded in the public market.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that supports your point of view that the government should be obligated to ignore publicly available information. The fact that it's publicly available by definition means it is no longer private. The companies selling that information got everyone's consent to sell it before they sold it. That means every individual agreed to make the information publicly available which means they chose to not keep the information private anymore.

    It's completely false that the FBI sidestepped any constitutional requirements when they purchased publicly available information.

    If you have an issue with the FBI obtaining that publicly available information, then your issue is not with the FBI. Your issue is with the laws that allow that information to be publicly available through questionable Terms of Service and Privacy Policy notification requirements.

    Do you have any evidence that the companies, that sold the information to the FBI, obtained and sold that information without the knowledge and consent of each individual? If someone doesn't read the Terms of Service and Privacy Policies that every company provides, that's on the individual, not the FBI.
     
    Last edited:
    Any information that is legally for sell is publicly available information. No law enforcement agency has to get a search warrant to get publicly available information, the Constitution is very clear in supporting that idea. The government can not invade your private space without a search warrant. The Constitution does not require the government to look away from something that is being traded in the public market.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that supports your point of view that the government should be obligated to ignore publicly available information. The fact that it's publicly available by definition means it is no longer private. The companies selling that information got everyone's consent to sell it before they sold it. That means every individual agreed to make the information publicly available which means they chose to not keep the information private anymore.

    It's completely false that the FBI sidestepped any constitutional requirements when they purchased publicly available information.

    If you have an issue with the FBI obtaining that publicly available information, then your issue is not with the FBI. Your issue is with the laws that allow that information to be publicly available through questionable Terms of Service and Privacy Policy notification requirements.

    Do you have any evidence that the companies, that sold the information to the FBI, obtained and sold that information without the knowledge and consent of each individual? If someone doesn't read the Terms of Service and Privacy Policies that every company provides, that's on the individual, not the FBI.
    Apparently it was anonymous social media data & the FBI used technical methods to pierce the anonymity.


    Also, FBI whistleblower talks in this video about it:



    Jordan showed that the FBI asked for all Bank of America purchases for 2 days in the DC area:



    In each instance, the data wasn't publicly available and the data was obtained without a single warrant.
     
    Oh, well, if Jim Jordan says so. Lol.
    The proof that SaintforLife and Jim Jordan are both wrong is that none of the defendents argued to have the case dismissed due to illegal search and seizure or any violation of their 4th Amendment rights. If there was even the slightest bit of truth to what Saintforlife and Jim Jordan are saying, all of the defendents would have filed a motion to dismiss their case and that motion would have been granted.

    That won't stop either one from continuing to repeat a lie to try to make the FBI the bad guys for prosecuting the terrorists who attacked the Capitol on January 6th.

    They will continue to tell lies to try to give aid and comfort to terrorists who attacked the United States of America.
     
    Last edited:
    The proof that SaintforLife and Jim Jordan are both wrong is that none of the defendents argued to have the case dismissed due to illegal search and seizure or any violation of their 4th Amendment rights. If there was even the slightest bit of truth to what Saintforlife and Jim Jordan are saying, all of the defendents would have filed a motion to dismiss their case and that motion would have been granted.

    That won't stop either one from continuing to repeat a lie to try to make the FBI the bad guys for prosecuting the terrorists who attacked the Capitol on January 6th.

    They will continue to tell lies to try to give aid and comfort to terrorists who attacked the United States of America.
    Do you have a response to my reply to your post? Specifically the videos that I posted?
     
    Can you show what he said wasn't true or will you hide behind your vague responses?
    Dude, I hope you’re at least getting a few pennies per post. You can assume everything Jim Jordan says is either untrue, political spin, or both. That will save everybody some time. The man has never authored one piece of legislation nor did he ever even take the bar. He’s worthless.
     
    This is what the CDC was trying to prevent, SFL. Exactly this. You look like an idiot posting this garbage.

     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom