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
    6,121
    Reaction score
    2,892
    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.

     
    Of course they can, but why would they remove a historical document from the only place it was posted online? They didn't find it objectable for the 20 years or so that the Guardian had it on their website. Why would they suddenly find it objectable after 20 years just because people were discussing it on Tik Tok?
    Well, you would have to ask them, but if I had to hazard a guess it was because several people were using it to say that the terror attacks on 9/11 were justified, and they found that pretty disgusting, and didn’t want to be associated with that viewpoint?

    Who said that is the only place you can find the letter? It is easily available from a link on the Wikipedia article about the letter. I just looked it up, took about 10 seconds.
     
    Not sure if I'm on your ignore or not but...

    What would you say if the government was putting out video's like this today? Would you support it or be against it?


    I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as we all knew it was made by the government.
     
    I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as we all knew it was made by the government.

    I do think it would be a good idea to have basic PSAs about things like propaganda.

    I just am not sure we could get enough agreement on how to do it.

    I think we could just bring back a bunch of those old videos they made back in the WWII area. Anything new we make will end up pissing off half of us depending on who decides to be mad about it.
     
    I do think it would be a good idea to have basic PSAs about things like propaganda.

    I just am not sure we could get enough agreement on how to do it.

    I think we could just bring back a bunch of those old videos they made back in the WWII area. Anything new we make will end up pissing off half of us depending on who decides to be mad about it.
    That's fine if the government wants to do that, but how would one trust the government when they are a big purveyors of propaganda?
     
    I hate Ken Paxton. He is scum.
    Luckily he's addressing a major issue. What do you hate worse? Paxton or the federal government who was allegedly engaging in a conspiracy to censor, deplatform, and demonetize American media outlets disfavored by the federal government?
     
    That's fine if the government wants to do that, but how would one trust the government when they are a big purveyors of propaganda?

    Well, there is the problem.

    I think everyone agrees that the public needs more education about propaganda, but who can we even agree to provide that education?

    That's why i suggested we just use videos from 60+ years ago. It's not a new problem. The same principles apply today that applied back then.
     
    Luckily he's addressing a major issue. What do you hate worse? Paxton or the federal government who was allegedly engaging in a conspiracy to censor, deplatform, and demonetize American media outlets disfavored by the federal government?
    At least you use the word allegedly. There's simply no evidence to back up that allegation, and Paxton is himself indicted for fraud. Meanwhile, your champion is promising to do exactly what Paxton is falsely alleging the government has done should he be elected. Yet, you care not one bit about that. In fact, you say that reporting on these promises to censor media companies is a conspiracy against Trump, somehow.

    I simply cannot understand how you can be so one-sided.
     
    At least you use the word allegedly. There's simply no evidence to back up that allegation, and Paxton is himself indicted for fraud. Meanwhile, your champion is promising to do exactly what Paxton is falsely alleging the government has done should he be elected. Yet, you care not one bit about that. In fact, you say that reporting on these promises to censor media companies is a conspiracy against Trump, somehow.

    I simply cannot understand how you can be so one-sided.
    How in the world can you claim there is no evidence? How would you know that? You don't.

    You still claim there wasn't any government censorship which the case at the Supreme Court shows you are wrong on that too.

    You are more worried about Trump supposedly censoring media companies in the future than you are from the Biden Administration's current and past censorship.
     
    How in the world can you claim there is no evidence? How would you know that? You don't.

    You still claim there wasn't any government censorship which the case at the Supreme Court shows you are wrong on that too.

    You are more worried about Trump supposedly censoring media companies in the future than you are from the Biden Administration's current and past censorship.

    Trump isn't threatening censorship. He's threatening to arrest journalists.
     
    Well, there is the problem.

    I think everyone agrees that the public needs more education about propaganda, but who can we even agree to provide that education?

    That's why i suggested we just use videos from 60+ years ago. It's not a new problem. The same principles apply today that applied back then.
    Facts are just facts, I think we cannot abandon them.
     
    How in the world can you claim there is no evidence? How would you know that? You don't.

    You still claim there wasn't any government censorship which the case at the Supreme Court shows you are wrong on that too.

    You are more worried about Trump supposedly censoring media companies in the future than you are from the Biden Administration's current and past censorship.
    I haven’t seen any evidence, real evidence, and you haven’t either. There is a political agenda, however, and it’s sad when judges and potentially justices buy into it, but it has happened before.

    Chuck laid it all out for you in a detailed post. There is no evidence uncovered that what you claimed happened actually happened.

    This is what you claimed:
    federal government who was allegedly engaging in a conspiracy to censor, deplatform, and demonetize American media outlets disfavored by the federal government?
    And there is simply no proof that any of that happened.
     

    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