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
    5,721
    Reaction score
    2,717
    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.

     
    More idiocy from anonymous internet idiots and Nate Silver, lol.
     
    Silver is absolutely right.

    Do you think misinformation is a bigger problem than wars?

    Who was anonymous?
    I think misinformation can cause wars and other atrocities. I think it’s stupid to frame it the way that Silver did. The only reason I can see that a person would argue that misinformation isn’t bad is because that person possibly wants to use misinformation for their own agenda.
     
    I think misinformation can cause wars and other atrocities. I think it’s stupid to frame it the way that Silver did. The only reason I can see that a person would argue that misinformation isn’t bad is because that person possibly wants to use misinformation for their own agenda.
    Silver didn't frame it that way. The poster that he quoted posted the graph that showed misinformation was the biggest threat.

    Do you think misinformation is a bigger problem than wars?

     
    Silver didn't frame it that way. The poster that he quoted posted the graph that showed misinformation was the biggest threat.

    Do you think misinformation is a bigger problem than wars?


    I already clarified my position. Silver is stupid to try to say it that way, or he is deflecting from the issues that we are facing due to disinformation. The question you need to be asking yourself is why are people like Silver so willing to defend lies? Facts do exist. Truth does exist. People don’t get to have their own set of facts tailored to their world view.

    If we are talking threat to US citizens, then I agree that disinformation and misinformation is a bigger threat over all. Hundreds of thousands of American people have died in the last 4 years with disinformation and misinformation playing a huge part in that. War itself won’t threaten US citizens in anything close to that scale.

    Misinformation and disinformation are responsible for radicalizing people to the point where they take a gun and try to shoot up an FBI field office or a DC pizzeria or call in bomb threats or threaten to kill judges.

    People who want to convince you that their lies are truth would be the ones complaining about people who do fact checks, wouldn’t they? I don’t complain about fact checks because I want to operate in a fact-based reality.
     
    I already clarified my position. Silver is stupid to try to say it that way, or he is deflecting from the issues that we are facing due to disinformation. The question you need to be asking yourself is why are people like Silver so willing to defend lies? Facts do exist. Truth does exist. People don’t get to have their own set of facts tailored to their world view.
    You often have to resort to strawman to try to defend your positions. Silver didn't say anything about defending lies. He mocked the survey and the guy who posted it because it laughably listed misinformation as a greater threat than wars.

    If we are talking threat to US citizens, then I agree that disinformation and misinformation is a bigger threat over all. Hundreds of thousands of American people have died in the last 4 years with disinformation and misinformation playing a huge part in that. War itself won’t threaten US citizens in anything close to that scale.
    No we aren't talking the threat to US. The survey was from the World Ecomnomic Forum.

    Your answer indirectly addresses the question of why so many Americans support every war. It's because there is little to no threat to us here. If there was many more people would be against the wars.

    In regards to the world and not just US citizens, what is the bugger threat? Wars or misinformation?
    Misinformation and disinformation are responsible for radicalizing people to the point where they take a gun and try to shoot up an FBI field office or a DC pizzeria or call in bomb threats or threaten to kill judges.
    Sort of like the misinformation that Trump was a Russian agent, the pee tape, Covington catholic kids, Jessie Smollett, covid lab leak was a conspiracy, Steele Dossier, hunter biden laptop is Russian disinformation, Georgia election law was the new Jim Crow, Whitmer kidnapping plot, Duke LaCrosse kids, "peaceful" BLM riots, etc?
    People who want to convince you that their lies are truth would be the ones complaining about people who do fact checks, wouldn’t they? I don’t complain about fact checks because I want to operate in a fact-based reality.
    Misinformation reporter is a made up profession that push for censorship under the guise of stopping misinformation. There is no training or degree that would give someone a greater ability to determine what's true and false.
     
    You often have to resort to strawman to try to defend your positions. Silver didn't say anything about defending lies. He mocked the survey and the guy who posted it because it laughably listed misinformation as a greater threat than wars.


    No we aren't talking the threat to US. The survey was from the World Ecomnomic Forum.

    Your answer indirectly addresses the question of why so many Americans support every war. It's because there is little to no threat to us here. If there was many more people would be against the wars.

    In regards to the world and not just US citizens, what is the bugger threat? Wars or misinformation?

    Sort of like the misinformation that Trump was a Russian agent, the pee tape, Covington catholic kids, Jessie Smollett, covid lab leak was a conspiracy, Steele Dossier, hunter biden laptop is Russian disinformation, Georgia election law was the new Jim Crow, Whitmer kidnapping plot, Duke LaCrosse kids, "peaceful" BLM riots, etc?

    Misinformation reporter is a made up profession that push for censorship under the guise of stopping misinformation. There is no training or degree that would give someone a greater ability to determine what's true and false.
    You are lost. You have swallowed so much disinformation that you no longer live in reality. I do feel sorry for you but I feel more sorry for your loved ones. It would be extremely difficult to deal with a family member so deluded.
     
    There is no training or degree that would give someone a greater ability to determine what's true and false.
    ...

    I mean, there is, obviously. Degrees naturally include training in skills of comprehension and reason, and being able to do things like understand something, to fully comprehend it, to be able to assess sources for credibility and understand the context, to account for bias, and, to put it bluntly, be able to put two and two together and correctly come up with four, those are naturally all a big part in being able to determine whether something is true or not.

    Presumably, though, you don't think being able to understand something is necessary to determining truth. Which, to be fair, you do back up with your habit of posting endless nonsense tweets that you frequently don't appear to have even read.
     
    You are lost. You have swallowed so much disinformation that you no longer live in reality. I do feel sorry for you but I feel more sorry for your loved ones. It would be extremely difficult to deal with a family member so deluded.
    Look how you go to the vague silly talking points instead of directly addressing what I said.

    You misrepresented what Silver said and you refuse to answer the simple question. What is more of a threat? Misinformation or wars. You clearly think it's Misinformation but you don't want to say that. Thinking Misinformation is a bigger threat than wars is batshirt crazy.
     
    Look how you go to the vague silly talking points instead of directly addressing what I said.

    You misrepresented what Silver said and you refuse to answer the simple question. What is more of a threat? Misinformation or wars. You clearly think it's Misinformation but you don't want to say that. Thinking Misinformation is a bigger threat than wars is batshirt crazy.
    I’ve answered the question two times. This is how lost you are.

    You have been ducking multiple issues and questions for days now though.
     
    ...

    I mean, there is, obviously. Degrees naturally include training in skills of comprehension and reason, and being able to do things like understand something, to fully comprehend it, to be able to assess sources for credibility and understand the context, to account for bias, and, to put it bluntly, be able to put two and two together and correctly come up with four, those are naturally all a big part in being able to determine whether something is true or not.
    That sounds good for some professions, but not for misinformation reporters. They are normally activists pushing for censorship. Also when you consider that those misinformation reporters are usually funded by governments, NATO, weapons manufacturers, billionaires, then it's ridiculous to think that they should be the arbiters of what's true and not.
    Presumably, though, you don't think being able to understand something is necessary to determining truth. Which, to be fair, you do back up with your habit of posting endless nonsense tweets that you frequently don't appear to have even read.
    You are obviously okay with governments, weapons manufacturers, billionaires, NATO, corporate media, etc telling you what you should and shouldn't believe. You apparently are naive enough to think that restricting what we can and can't say online under the guise of fighting misinformation is okay.
     
    I’ve answered the question two times. This is how lost you are.

    You have been ducking multiple issues and questions for days now though.
    No you didn’t. The first time you said misinformation can cause wars and the 2nd time you said for US citizens misinformation was a bigger threat than wars which is absolutely not true.

    Once again, is misinformation a bigger threat than wars for the global population? I'm not expecting an actual answer from you which is pretty telling.
     
    That sounds good for some professions, but not for misinformation reporters. They are normally activists pushing for censorship. Also when you consider that those misinformation reporters are usually funded by governments, NATO, weapons manufacturers, billionaires, then it's ridiculous to think that they should be the arbiters of what's true and not.
    This is simply a bunch of nonsense. It’s strictly opinion for one thing not rooted in facts for the first two sentences. And the funding part is something you apply to sources you don’t like, but ignore whenever you find someone who says what you like said. Plus you have zero proof for “funding” for the most part. And saying they are arbiters of what’s true is a complete mischaracterization of what they are doing. They don’t control the truth, they deal in facts. When they see someone pushing something that isn’t factual, they point that out.

    What is happening, and what you are parroting, is that people who deal in lies are pushing back against people who deal in facts. It should be obvious why, shouldn’t it?
     
    No you didn’t. The first time you said misinformation can cause wars and the 2nd time you said for US citizens misinformation was a bigger threat than wars which is absolutely not true.

    Once again, is misinformation a bigger threat than wars for the global population? I'm not expecting an actual answer from you which is pretty telling.
    The question was answered by me two times. You even posted my answer. Just stop acting like you deserve anything further from me while you completely ignore multiple questions that have been posed to you for over a week at least.

    Just because you don’t like my answer doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered.

    What is actually telling is that you are defending misinformation. But it goes along with your defense of Putin.
     
    The question was answered by me two times. You even posted my answer. Just stop acting like you deserve anything further from me while you completely ignore multiple questions that have been posed to you for over a week at least.

    Just because you don’t like my answer doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered.

    What is actually telling is that you are defending misinformation. But it goes along with your defense of Putin.
    I knew you wouldn't answer the question lol because you think misinformation is a bigger threat than wars. You have been brainwashed by the corporate media.
     
    This is simply a bunch of nonsense. It’s strictly opinion for one thing not rooted in facts for the first two sentences. And the funding part is something you apply to sources you don’t like, but ignore whenever you find someone who says what you like said. Plus you have zero proof for “funding” for the most part. And saying they are arbiters of what’s true is a complete mischaracterization of what they are doing. They don’t control the truth, they deal in facts. When they see someone pushing something that isn’t factual, they point that out.

    What is happening, and what you are parroting, is that people who deal in lies are pushing back against people who deal in facts. It should be obvious why, shouldn’t it?
    You are lying. I've posted links to their own websites to show who funds them multiple times.

    Just admit that you like governments telling you what you should and shouldn't believe.
     
    You are lying. I've posted links to their own websites to show who funds them multiple times.

    Just admit that you like governments telling you what you should and shouldn't believe.
    Like I said, you use this funding angle when it is convenient for you but you never care about it when it’s someone saying something you like.

    Which disinformation reporters have you shown “funding” for? I know you have posted for people who are subject matter experts. But which reporters?
     

    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