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
    7,313
    Reaction score
    3,404
    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.

     
    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.

    The 1st amendment protects speech, but it doesn't give anyone carte blanche to say anything and everything they want to say. You should know that, but not surprising you don't.

    That a former CIA employee is doing something for their current civilian employer, it doesn't mean they are doing it for the CIA. This is the paranoia that has been injected in your brain by the misinformation feeds you are so prone to listen to.

    Nah. I support the 1st ammendment. Do you not trust the citizens to determine what they think is the truth?

    That's a silly statement to make, "determine what they think is true". Of course you are going to determine what you think is true, even if the facts contradict what you think is true (see: religion, GOP). However, when what you determine as true potentially harms a lot of people, and your truth is formed by ideology rather than the facts, that's a different story.

    You think telling people to drink bleach to treat a virus that can't be treated by drinking bleach and can severely affect people's health including death is "free speech". I don't.


    Why would you trust the government to be the arbiter of the truth?
    It's not a question of merely blinding trusting the government.

    It sounds like you are the one who wants to be led around by your nose by the CIA.
    I really try to keep matters civil when having this sort of discussions, but asinine statements like that one make it really hard. You think I want to be led by the nose by the CIA because you believe the CIA is controlling social media because an ex-employee of the CIA is working with META. Brilliant logic.

    If there is one thing that leads me by the nose, it is the scientific method, which really can be applied to most every situation: observe, hypothesize, try proving the hypothesis wrong; and in doing so, I rely on many different sources, from many different places, outside bias-confirming circles. It helps that I speak more than one language.

    I figured you couldn't definie misinformation which is ironic because you continue to lecture me about it.
    And yet, another one of those statements that tests my will to stay civil.

    In any case, it's been well established that you do the same things you accuse others of, for the ideology you believe in, regardless of facts. Any accusation you can make rings hollow.
     
    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.


    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.

    I figured you couldn't definie misinformation which is ironic because you continue to lecture me about it.
    Sure. People can determine what is the truth. That’s why we had an insurrection because the Velveeta Vulgarian™️ lied about the election being stolen. That’s why we had the Internet Research Agency flooding Facebook et al with bots and trolls that the Reich wing fell for.
     
    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.


    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.

    I figured you couldn't definie misinformation which is ironic because you continue to lecture me about it.

    Do you think spell check is censorship?

    I can only assume that you think those red lines under "ammendment" and "definie", were Joe Biden trying to violate your first amendment rights.
     
    The 1st amendment protects speech, but it doesn't give anyone carte blanche to say anything and everything they want to say. You should know that, but not surprising you don't.

    That a former CIA employee is doing something for their current civilian employer, it doesn't mean they are doing it for the CIA. This is the paranoia that has been injected in your brain by the misinformation feeds you are so prone to listen to.



    That's a silly statement to make, "determine what they think is true". Of course you are going to determine what you think is true, even if the facts contradict what you think is true (see: religion, GOP). However, when what you determine as true potentially harms a lot of people, and your truth is formed by ideology rather than the facts, that's a different story.

    You think telling people to drink bleach to treat a virus that can't be treated by drinking bleach and can severely affect people's health including death is "free speech". I don't.



    It's not a question of merely blinding trusting the government.


    I really try to keep matters civil when having this sort of discussions, but asinine statements like that one make it really hard. You think I want to be led by the nose by the CIA because you believe the CIA is controlling social media because an ex-employee of the CIA is working with META. Brilliant logic.

    If there is one thing that leads me by the nose, it is the scientific method, which really can be applied to most every situation: observe, hypothesize, try proving the hypothesis wrong; and in doing so, I rely on many different sources, from many different places, outside bias-confirming circles. It helps that I speak more than one language.


    And yet, another one of those statements that tests my will to stay civil.

    In any case, it's been well established that you do the same things you accuse others of, for the ideology you believe in, regardless of facts. Any accusation you can make rings hollow.
    Get back to me when you can define misinformation.
     
    Mike Benz of The Foundation for Freedom Online and formerly of the State Department gives an excellent breakdown of how the government censorship networks operate including how they use government cut outs to get the information that the government can't get because it requires a warrant. His videos are very specific and detailed.

    He also talks about how the media, like the Washington Post, use tricks and traps in their verbiage when reporting on government censorship.


     
    Mike Benz of The Foundation for Freedom Online and formerly of the State Department gives an excellent breakdown of how the government censorship networks operate including how they use government cut outs to get the information that the government can't get because it requires a warrant. His videos are very specific and detailed.

    He also talks about how the media, like the Washington Post, use tricks and traps in their verbiage when reporting on government censorship.



    So, Trump lying is OK by you. Thanks for clearing that up. Trump and the Republican Partyare the biggest threats to democracy here and around the world. They are domestic terrorists who also support RW authoritarians in other countries.
     
    You serious? LOL
    Ok.

    misinformation

    noun​

    1. Wrong information; false account or intelligence.
    2. Untrue or incorrect information.
    3. Information that is incorrect.
    Any other questions or definitions I can clarify for you?
    Who determines what is true or false information?
     
    What gives those fact checkers an expertise to better determine what's true or false compared to the public.

    For crying out loud :loopy:

    That comment was meant to poke fun at you, since you have an issue with fact checkers, but really, anyone and everyone can check facts... some subject matters may require some expertise, but overall, it only requires time and access to data, which your nemeses have.

    So again, even you can fact check me and determine if I told you the truth or lied to you if I told you I had a beach house in Arizona. You won't draw a salary for it, though.

    There is also something to be said about sources. A statement like "drinking bleach kills the coronavirus" can be fact checked on the Mayo Clinic's website, where you'll be told that "gargling diluted bleach, and also putting bleach on cotton plugs and putting it in the nose are extraordinarily dangerous and unhelpful things to do." Or, you can go to the Q-Anon Twitter/Truth Social feed, and be told "big pharma doesn't want you to know this".... unfortunately for the poor saps in the Q-Anon Twitter/Truth Social feed, they don't realize there is science outside the U.S. of A. where there is no "big pharma", and their health organizations post things like "don't be stupid like the 'Muricans, don't drink bleach for COVID".

    Reality is, misinformation is not hard to figure out. The problem is gullibility combined with ideologies that create their own "facts" based solely on denying anything those not within their ideology say, made exponentially worse when misinformation can negatively affect people other people outside your ideology circle.
     
    For crying out loud :loopy:

    That comment was meant to poke fun at you, since you have an issue with fact checkers, but really, anyone and everyone can check facts... some subject matters may require some expertise, but overall, it only requires time and access to data, which your nemeses have.
    Fact checkers don't have better ability to ascertain what's true and false.
    So again, even you can fact check me and determine if I told you the truth or lied to you if I told you I had a beach house in Arizona. You won't draw a salary for it, though.

    There is also something to be said about sources. A statement like "drinking bleach kills the coronavirus" can be fact checked on the Mayo Clinic's website, where you'll be told that "gargling diluted bleach, and also putting bleach on cotton plugs and putting it in the nose are extraordinarily dangerous and unhelpful things to do." Or, you can go to the Q-Anon Twitter/Truth Social feed, and be told "big pharma doesn't want you to know this".... unfortunately for the poor saps in the Q-Anon Twitter/Truth Social feed, they don't realize there is science outside the U.S. of A. where there is no "big pharma", and their health organizations post things like "don't be stupid like the 'Muricans, don't drink bleach for COVID".
    Still going with the beach house in Arizona despite me clarifying that I'm talking about political fact checking?

    Reality is, misinformation is not hard to figure out. The problem is gullibility combined with ideologies that create their own "facts" based solely on denying anything those not within their ideology say, made exponentially worse when misinformation can negatively affect people other people outside your ideology circle.
    There is plenty of things online that aren't true. The people highlighting misinformation are usually people who want censorship. Misinformation reporters are partisan frauds that try to make their activism seem scientific.

    Relying on the corporate press, who are some of the biggest purveyors of misinformation(Saddam/WMD/al qaeda, Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation, Covid lab leak "misinformation", Russia seized control of the US with blackmail, the Pee tape, Steele Dossier, the Alfa Bank Hoax, etc) as well as the former CIA, NSA, FBI employees that now work at social media companies to be the arbiters of truth is completely idiotic and Orwellian.
     
    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?
    I overlooked what you said above about the government censoring information about vaccine hesitancy. That information about vaccine hesitancy that they got censored was true information. It wasn't misinformation.
     
    Do you think the media and the government should be the arbiters of truth?

    Given that there is a large swath of the public that has immense difficulty determining reality from fantasy, I don't mind the government pitching in a little.
     
    The people highlighting misinformation are usually people who want censorship. Misinformation reporters are partisan frauds that try to make their activism seem scientific.
    These are opinions. And we have seen nothing to prove they have any basis in fact.

    Fact checkers don't have better ability to ascertain what's true and false.
    That depends on who is doing the fact checking, and their expertise. Not all humans have the same cognitive ability. There are some people who are better at discerning facts from falsities.
     

    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.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom