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
    5,746
    Reaction score
    2,725
    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.

     
    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.

    I'm sure Gym Jordan went to the bar, though. He had to go somewhere to look the other way while the student-athletes under his supervision were sexually abused.
     
    Do you have a response to my reply to your post? Specifically the videos that I posted?
    You read and quoted my response to the videos you posted. The claims in the video are not true.

    The proof, that the FBI didn't do anything illegal and didn't violate the Constitution or do any end runs around the Constitution, is that no defendant made these claims in their defense. If what you and the people in the videos keep saying was true, there would have been hundreds of incidents of defendants making motions to dismiss their cases and those motions would have been granted.

    Here's what you and all of those people in your video are ignoring. The data that the FBI is getting is legally being shared with them by companies, because people consented to those companies mining their personal data and sharing it with anyone the company wants to share it with.

    You need to read the Terms of Service and Privacy Policies of everyone you do business with and every website you go to, because they all very clearly tell you that they are going to mine all of your personal data that they can and they are going to share it with whoever they want. When you agree to use their service or visit their website, you are agreeing to let them do mine your personal data and share it with whoever they want.

    The FBI is not breaking any laws or violating the Constitution when they get data from companies that have your consent to share your personal data with whoever they want.

    If you're worried about you personal data legally getting into the hands of the FBI without them being required to get a search warrant, then you need to stay away from the internet, ditch smart phones altogether, and never go out in public again in any urban setting.

    Everyone ask yourself this, if Paul Rand and Jim Jordan are sincerely worried about protecting people's privacy, why have neither one them authored a single bill to protect people's privacy? The answer is because they are insincere, self-serving, lying jackholes who are making up this BS for their own political gain, and they don't care one bit about the inevitable violence that will occure because of the lies they are telling.
     
    Last edited:
    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.
    It's easy to show that he's lying or spinning. Put up or shut up.
     
    It's easy to show that he's lying or spinning. Put up or shut up.
    Why should I spend one minute on your crazy ideas? You never believe the truth when it’s shown to you. Just Google Jim Jordan lies and take your pick. Lol.

    do it, I just did. There are easily dozens of fact checks and stories about him lying.
     
    Why should I spend one minute on your crazy ideas? You never believe the truth when it’s shown to you. Just Google Jim Jordan lies and take your pick. Lol.
    Translation= I have nothing that I can post to refute Biden being involved in Hunter's business ventures.
     
    It's easy to show that he's lying or spinning. Put up or shut up.
    I just did.

    Show us the court records of defendants who moved for dismissal, because the FBI illegally or unconstitutionally acquired their data, and that a judge granted their motion.

    Show us that people didn't agree to let those companies mine their data and share it with whoever they wanted.

    As you said, "put up..."
     
    Translation= I have nothing that I can post to refute Biden being involved in Hunter's business ventures.
    Nope! That’s a lie right there. We’ve all refuted it. We’ve pointed out the lies, and you just ignore them. I’m not falling for your trolling tonight. You can just stew in your hate.
     
    It's bunk? If so why did Wray admit that the FBI did collect bank records of anyone in the area on January 6th(even if they weren't involved in the riot) or gun purchase records all without a warrant. Are you comfortable with the FBI getting that information without a warrant?
    Just revisiting and following up on the fact that people consent to allowing banks to share their information when they setup online access to their banks or install their bank's app.

    The idea that people consent to their private information was chuckled at as if it's not true. I just got a change in Terms of Service when I logged into my bank account today. This is one of the things I had to consent/agree to continue to log into my account:
    H. Disclosure of Account Information
    You understand that information about your accounts may be furnished to others in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the Membership Agreement and Disclosure Statements (particularly the Privacy Notice Disclosure). Furthermore, you understand that information about your accounts may be disclosed for the purpose of providing these Online Banking Services but shall be done in accordance with the Privacy Notice Disclosure of the Membership Agreement and Disclosure Statements.

    The Privacy Notice Disclosure was not provided in the noticed and there wasn't even a link to it. The reason they do that is they know most people will click to box to "Agree" with the terms without finding and reading the Privacy Notice Disclosure. They don't want customers to be aware that their customers are agreeing to letting them share customer information with whoever they want.

    When we click the "Agree" box and then click "Continue" we give our legal consent to whatever their Privacy Notice Disclosure declares, even if we didn't bother to read it.

    I think we need to have privacy protection laws similar to those in the EU, but as it stands right now, it's perfectly legal and acceptable for the FBI to have access to customer information from companies that have gotten their customers' legally binding consent to share their customers' information.
     
    378394947_694283006068308_2416248374532000283_n.jpg
     
    Wait, I thought yall said this never happened


    No one ever said that no court would ever rule against the Biden admin on this.

    The facts of what happen haven't changed. There wasn't any new information that came from this court case.
     



    Sources:

    full DHS-ODNI report- https://t.co/aUll4GV1B0

    ODNI report on "Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections"- https://t.co/z23s6QXO4g


    You make all of that sound like a bad thing.

    People going from the government to the private sector is nothing new. Private companies want to hire people with the appropriate experience, and people with the appropriate experience who work(ed) for the government can make way more money in the private sector. Heck, the Armed Forces promise people training they can use in the civil sector if they give them 4 years of their lives, from IT to welding.

    Now, why do you think the government would want to work with global corporations like Meta? For the sound of your posts, you think it is a conspiracy to control you and to deny you 1st amendment rights. But what about other activities, like fraud, drug trafficking, money laundering, terrorist activity/recruiting, child trafficking/pornography, school shootings? None of those ring a bell?

    The question I have for you, why are you so pro-misinformation? Do you want to be led by the nose?
     
    You make all of that sound like a bad thing.

    People going from the government to the private sector is nothing new. Private companies want to hire people with the appropriate experience, and people with the appropriate experience who work(ed) for the government can make way more money in the private sector. Heck, the Armed Forces promise people training they can use in the civil sector if they give them 4 years of their lives, from IT to welding.

    Now, why do you think the government would want to work with global corporations like Meta? For the sound of your posts, you think it is a conspiracy to control you and to deny you 1st amendment rights. But what about other activities, like fraud, drug trafficking, money laundering, terrorist activity/recruiting, child trafficking/pornography, school shootings? None of those ring a bell?

    The question I have for you, why are you so pro-misinformation? Do you want to be led by the nose?
    It is a conspiracy and the court and the appeals court both said the Biden violated the 1st ammendment by pressuring social media companies to censor people's social media posts. The Biden administration appealed the decision twice.

    It's perfectly reasonable for social media companies to consult or work with government agencies for the things you listed like fraud, drug trafficking, money laundering, etc?

    Should a former CIA official be involved in policing/censoring social media posts that involved vaccine hesitancy(even if it was true) the Ukraine War, Covid, & US elections? That happened and was talked about in the Twitter threads I posted. That has nothing to do with clearly illegal things like fraud, drug trafficking, etc.

    Can you define misinformation? Who gets to decide what is misinformation?

    I'm not pro-misinformation, but I definitely don't want the government being the arbiter of what's true and what's not considering the massive amount of government propaganda that's out there.

    People pushing to control or restrict misinformation are usually people who want censorship of views they dislike.
     
    A self-described "disinformation" tracker that Republicans accuse of helping to censor conservative voices online has shared ties with the British government, according to records.

    As part of his sprawling "censorship" investigation, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) in August subpoenaed the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a United States charity with a London-based arm the White House has cited as an expert on thwarting purported disinformation. But the U.K. entity has other affiliations raising eyebrows among watchdog groups: Its board of directors has included British politicians, officials, and their staffers.

    “The CCDH has been one of the government’s go-to organizations to justify censoring conservative content," Tom Jones, president of the American Accountability Foundation, told the Washington Examiner. "Americans should be very concerned that the Biden administration has given an entity affiliated with a foreign government such sway over American civil liberties."

    The Biden White House and Facebook have been in close contact on fighting alleged COVID-19 disinformation, with the U.S. government in 2021 going so far as to send posts to the social media company it determined to be tied to the CCDH's "Disinformation Dozen," a report the group published labeling certain social media accounts as peddling coronavirus-related falsehoods, according to emails first reported by the Washington Examiner.

     
    A self-described "disinformation" tracker that Republicans accuse of helping to censor conservative voices online has shared ties with the British government, according to records.

    As part of his sprawling "censorship" investigation, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) in August subpoenaed the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a United States charity with a London-based arm the White House has cited as an expert on thwarting purported disinformation. But the U.K. entity has other affiliations raising eyebrows among watchdog groups: Its board of directors has included British politicians, officials, and their staffers.

    “The CCDH has been one of the government’s go-to organizations to justify censoring conservative content," Tom Jones, president of the American Accountability Foundation, told the Washington Examiner. "Americans should be very concerned that the Biden administration has given an entity affiliated with a foreign government such sway over American civil liberties."

    The Biden White House and Facebook have been in close contact on fighting alleged COVID-19 disinformation, with the U.S. government in 2021 going so far as to send posts to the social media company it determined to be tied to the CCDH's "Disinformation Dozen," a report the group published labeling certain social media accounts as peddling coronavirus-related falsehoods, according to emails first reported by the Washington Examiner.


    So countering the Internet Research Agency is a bad thing?

    Btw, the Washington Examiner is the OAN of RW birdcage liners.
     
    It is a conspiracy
    I bet.
    Should a former CIA official be involved in policing/censoring social media posts that involved vaccine hesitancy(even if it was true) the Ukraine War, Covid, & US elections?
    The answer to your question is yes, why not? If the person is qualified for the position. But you assume bad intent because you have been told to assume bad intent from your preferred sources.

    And the highlighted portion, that tells a lot about you. How could you not want accurate information in that regard? Why would you want the spread of the sort of misinformation that could get people killed? Just because of your political affiliation? Just to zig when the liberals zag?

    That happened and was talked about in the Twitter threads I posted. That has nothing to do with clearly illegal things like fraud, drug trafficking, etc.

    Can you define misinformation? Who gets to decide what is misinformation?

    I'm not pro-misinformation, but I definitely don't want the government being the arbiter of what's true and what's not considering the massive amount of government propaganda that's out there.

    People pushing to control or restrict misinformation are usually people who want censorship of views they dislike.

    So, what you are saying, is that you are pro-misinformation, no matter who or how many or in the misinformation hurts, regardless of the subject at hand, as long as you get your misinformation from the political sources you follow, and you will fight "censorship" as long as it doesn't involve CRT or LGBTQ+...
     
    I bet.

    The answer to your question is yes, why not? If the person is qualified for the position. But you assume bad intent because you have been told to assume bad intent from your preferred sources.
    Ah I see. You don't support the 1st ammendment. It's pretty scary that you think the CIA, whose job it is to deceive and obscure the truth, should be in charge of determining what the public can say online.

    And the highlighted portion, that tells a lot about you. How could you not want accurate information in that regard? Why would you want the spread of the sort of misinformation that could get people killed? Just because of your political affiliation? Just to zig when the liberals zag?
    Nah. I support the 1st ammendment. Do you not trust the citizens to determine what they think is the truth? Why would you trust the government to be the arbiter of the truth? It sounds like you are the one who wants to be led around by your nose by the CIA.
    So, what you are saying, is that you are pro-misinformation, no matter who or how many or in the misinformation hurts, regardless of the subject at hand, as long as you get your misinformation from the political sources you follow, and you will fight "censorship" as long as it doesn't involve CRT or LGBTQ+...
    I figured you couldn't definie misinformation which is ironic because you continue to lecture me about it.
     

    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