Truth Cops: Leaked Documents Outline DHS Plan To Police Disinformation (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    4,798
    Reaction score
    2,300
    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.

     
    Dan Bishop? lol

    He’s an election denier and crazy MAGA
     
    Election deniers....

    So? You actually think some public grousing about a lost election is equivalent to an actual scheme to overturn election results? Complete with false electors and fraudulent claims?

    That’s just ridiculous on its face.

    Dan Bishop is someone who enthusiastically supported overturning a valid presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. He should be expelled from Congress.
     
    So? You actually think some public grousing about a lost election is equivalent to an actual scheme to overturn election results? Complete with false electors and fraudulent claims?
    Do I think that the Democrats denying the election results means they are election deniers? Yes
    That’s just ridiculous on its face.

    Dan Bishop is someone who enthusiastically supported overturning a valid presidential election and continues to lie about it to this day. He should be expelled from Congress.
    That's quite authoritarian of you.
     
    Do I think that the Democrats denying the election results means they are election deniers? Yes
    Did they carry out any schemes to overturn said election? Did Obama carry out a full and graceful and - most importantly - peaceful transfer of power?

    Nobody should take you seriously for this stupid of a take.

    Yeah, I think that US Reps who violate their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution should be removed from office. That’s not authoritarian. You don’t know what words mean, evidently.
     
    Did they carry out any schemes to overturn said election? Did Obama carry out a full and graceful and - most importantly - peaceful transfer of power?

    Nobody should take you seriously for this stupid of a take.

    Yeah, I think that US Reps who violate their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution should be removed from office. That’s not authoritarian. You don’t know what words mean, evidently.
    You said election deniers. The Democrats were clearly guilty of being election deniers as well. The rest is you trying to move the gaolposts

    You seem to get upset when you are shown that the the Democrats have done the same thing you are complaining about the Republicans doing.
     
    You said election deniers. The Democrats were clearly guilty of being election deniers as well. The rest is you trying to move the gaolposts

    You seem to get upset when you are shown that the the Democrats have done the same thing you are complaining about the Republicans doing.
    Election denier is just a shortcut term. Nobody who isn’t delusional would ever try to argue that what Democrats did after Trump won was in any way the same as what the GOP led by Trump did after he lost. Are you trying to sell the idea that what the GOP did is the same?

    If you are, what you are doing is being pedantic about terms while ignoring reality.
     
    You know none of this involves the US, right? What is the “censorship industry”? lolololol
    The video is about the UK, but it's the same type of thing that you and the Democrats want here to protect us from "misinformation."

    What is the censorship industry? This thread goes over that in detail.
     
    I would be willing to bet this is a mischaracterization of what was said. Since you posted it, why don’t you post a link to the actual filing so we can see for ourselves?
    Of course you would without actually showing that it was a mischaracterization. That's your game. Hide behind vague accusations.

    That Stanford doctor was censored by the Biden administration and I believe he's part of the case of Missouri vs Biden. I don't have the transcript, but we already know that the Biden administration was censoring information that was actually true.

    Here's one example

     
    So you can’t post the actual findings? That figures.
     

    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