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.

     
    Rejected. The SC as rejected the plaintiffs case and is allowing the government can continue to inform social media companies when people are posting blatant misinformation and lies. A small minor win for truth.

    ===========
    The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the White House and federal agencies such as the FBI may continue to urge social media platforms to take down content the government views as misinformation, handing the Biden administration a technical if important election-year victory.

    Of immediate significance, the decision means that the Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts to social media companies such as Facebook and X that it believes may be the work of foreign agents seeking to disrupt this year’s presidential race.

    Rather than delving into the weighty First Amendment questions raised by the case, the court ruled that the state and social media users who challenged the Biden administration did not have standing to sue.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority.

    “To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
    =============

    Also, in another positive development:

    =============
    The opinion is another sign the Supreme Court may be exasperated with the 5th Circuit, said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. Earlier this month, the court rejected an attempt to block the use of the abortion pill mifepristone.

    “For the second time in 13 days, a cross-ideological majority has thrown out a controversial lawsuit that right-wing plaintiffs had deliberately steered to the 5th Circuit,” Vladeck said.

    “Just like in the mifepristone case, the lawsuit was brought in a single-judge division; the district court entered nationwide relief; the 5th Circuit upheld much of the relief; and the Supreme Court held that these plaintiffs should never have been allowed to bring this case in the first place,” Vladeck added. “The real question is whether, given this pattern, the lower courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas actually get the message.”
    =============

     
    As a reminder, Benz utilized an anonymous account for years that posted the most vile racist and anti-Semitic content imaginable. He’s probably filled with self-loathing and could be mentally ill.


    “The pseudonym, Frame Game, posted videos and participated in podcasts and livestreams during the rise of the alt-right following Donald Trump’s election. Frame Game avoided showing his face in his videos or appearances, during which he pushed a variety of far-right narratives including the “Great Replacement Theory” that posits the white race is being eradicated in America for politics and profits. In others, Frame Game said he was a white identitarian, railed against the idea of diversity and made montages urging white viewers to unite under the banner of race.

    In interviews with white nationalists, Frame Game blamed Jews for “controlling the media” and for the decline of the white race. “If you were to remove the Jewish influence on the West,” he said in one video, “white people would not face the threat of white genocide that they currently do.””
     
    I'm not sure why are acting as if we don't know that the courts twice(once on appeal) said that the Biden Administration violated the 1st ammendment.
    ...
    You should probably drop the talking points.

    Rejected. The SC as rejected the plaintiffs case and is allowing the government can continue to inform social media companies when people are posting blatant misinformation and lies. A small minor win for truth.

    ===========
    The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the White House and federal agencies such as the FBI may continue to urge social media platforms to take down content the government views as misinformation, handing the Biden administration a technical if important election-year victory.

    Of immediate significance, the decision means that the Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts to social media companies such as Facebook and X that it believes may be the work of foreign agents seeking to disrupt this year’s presidential race.

    Rather than delving into the weighty First Amendment questions raised by the case, the court ruled that the state and social media users who challenged the Biden administration did not have standing to sue.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority.

    “To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
    =============

    Also, in another positive development:

    =============
    The opinion is another sign the Supreme Court may be exasperated with the 5th Circuit, said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. Earlier this month, the court rejected an attempt to block the use of the abortion pill mifepristone.

    “For the second time in 13 days, a cross-ideological majority has thrown out a controversial lawsuit that right-wing plaintiffs had deliberately steered to the 5th Circuit,” Vladeck said.

    “Just like in the mifepristone case, the lawsuit was brought in a single-judge division; the district court entered nationwide relief; the 5th Circuit upheld much of the relief; and the Supreme Court held that these plaintiffs should never have been allowed to bring this case in the first place,” Vladeck added. “The real question is whether, given this pattern, the lower courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas actually get the message.”
    =============

    @SaintForLife the Supreme Court says it's time for you to drop your false talking points that Biden was censoring people in violation of the First Amendment.

    The Supreme Court says you were dead wrong. Take your medicine, son.
     
    Rejected. The SC as rejected the plaintiffs case and is allowing the government can continue to inform social media companies when people are posting blatant misinformation and lies. A small minor win for truth.

    ===========
    The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the White House and federal agencies such as the FBI may continue to urge social media platforms to take down content the government views as misinformation, handing the Biden administration a technical if important election-year victory.

    Of immediate significance, the decision means that the Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts to social media companies such as Facebook and X that it believes may be the work of foreign agents seeking to disrupt this year’s presidential race.

    Rather than delving into the weighty First Amendment questions raised by the case, the court ruled that the state and social media users who challenged the Biden administration did not have standing to sue.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority.

    “To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
    =============

    Also, in another positive development:

    =============
    The opinion is another sign the Supreme Court may be exasperated with the 5th Circuit, said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. Earlier this month, the court rejected an attempt to block the use of the abortion pill mifepristone.

    “For the second time in 13 days, a cross-ideological majority has thrown out a controversial lawsuit that right-wing plaintiffs had deliberately steered to the 5th Circuit,” Vladeck said.

    “Just like in the mifepristone case, the lawsuit was brought in a single-judge division; the district court entered nationwide relief; the 5th Circuit upheld much of the relief; and the Supreme Court held that these plaintiffs should never have been allowed to bring this case in the first place,” Vladeck added. “The real question is whether, given this pattern, the lower courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas actually get the message.”
    =============

    They didn't rule on if the Biden violated the 1st ammendment by censoring. They punted on the case saying that they didn't have standing. What a cop out.

    It just means Congress needs to pass a law preventing the government from censoring people's social. That will probably happen after the election.

    Why in the world would anyone want the government, who is the biggest source of misinformation, to be the arbiter of what's true? That's crazy.
     
    They didn't rule on if the Biden violated the 1st ammendment by censoring. They punted on the case saying that they didn't have standing. What a cop out.

    It just means Congress needs to pass a law preventing the government from censoring people's social. That will probably happen after the election.

    Why in the world would anyone want the government, who is the biggest source of misinformation, to be the arbiter of what's true? That's crazy.
    Says the guy whose entire political party continues to push disinformation and misinformation.

    Nobody has a monopoly on true including, especially, wealth.
     
    They didn't rule on if the Biden violated the 1st ammendment by censoring. They punted on the case saying that they didn't have standing.
    You're wrong as usual. The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not prove they were injured by Biden. That's the Supreme Court saying the plaintiff did not prove that Biden violated their First Amendment rights.

    The court ruled that the states and users who had challenged those interactions had not suffered the sort of direct injury that gave them standing to sue.
    “The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct,..."
    Justice Barrett wrote critically of Judge Doughty’s “factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous.” Among her examples was a supposed “censorship request” from the administration cited in the judge’s opinion.

    “The record it cites says nothing about ‘censorship requests,’” Justice Barrett wrote. “Rather, in response to a White House official asking Twitter to remove an impersonation account of President Biden’s granddaughter, Twitter told the official about a portal that he could use to flag similar issues.”
    Surprise, surprise, surprise. The plaintiffs used obviously false information to make false claims and the 5th Circuit chose to just lap it up and used it to mistakenly rule that Biden was running a censor regime. But wait, there's more.

    Justice Barrett wrote that the plaintiffs had failed to overcome at least two daunting hurdles in their attempt to establish what was required to show standing: that the government had caused their injuries and that they faced a prospect of future injury.
    So no censorship from Biden then and no threat of it now or in the future.

    The first problem, she said, was that the social media companies were independent actors with a demonstrated commitment to addressing misinformation before and apart from the government’s encouragement.

    You were completely wrong about there being any sort of Biden Censorship Regime. The only one who is copping out is you by not accepting and admitting you were wrong.

     
    Last edited:
    "Because we do not reach the merits, we express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action."


     
    "Because we do not reach the merits, we express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action."
    This is what Justice Barrett wrote for the majority opinion:

    Justice Barrett wrote that the plaintiffs had failed to overcome at least two daunting hurdles in their attempt to establish what was required to show standing: that the government had caused their injuries and that they faced a prospect of future injury.

    The first problem, she said, was that the social media companies were independent actors with a demonstrated commitment to addressing misinformation before and apart from the government’s encouragement.

    “The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’(Biden's) conduct,..."


    Justice Barrett wrote critically of Judge Doughty’s “factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous.” Among her examples was a supposed “censorship request” from the administration cited in the judge’s opinion.

    “The record it cites says nothing about ‘censorship requests,’” Justice Barrett wrote. “Rather, in response to a White House official asking Twitter to remove an impersonation account of President Biden’s granddaughter, Twitter told the official about a portal that he could use to flag similar issues.”

    You and you're misinformation sources are wrong SaintForLife. Now take your medicine like an adult, son.
     
    "Because we do not reach the merits, we express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action."



    What you just quoted says that SCOTUS found that the Fifth Circuit was wrong in their finding. Actually, they say that the Fifth relied on DC Court’s findings - which were clearly erroneous. So you can do the dance saying that it wasn’t decided on the merits, but it’s just a cop-out. This is just another example of you either ignoring what you actually post, or not even reading what you actually post.

    Salient quote:

    “The majority says in a footnote that "The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous."”

    So, take the L. You deserve this one. You’ve been harping on this for months and scoffing at anyone who pointed out to you that this case wasn’t over yet, and that the court’s findings so far were rather suspicious.
     
    "Because we do not reach the merits, we express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action."

    1000005602.png
     
    A new report from the House Judiciary Committee released on Wednesday, and confirming our previous reporting, casts the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) under scrutiny, suggesting potential violations of federal antitrust laws due to its outsized influence in the advertising sector.

    Established in 2019 by Rob Rakowitz and the World Federation of Advertisers, GARM has been accused of leveraging this influence to systematically restrict certain viewpoints online and sideline platforms advocating divergent views.

    The organization, initially conceived to manage the surge of free speech online, is reported to coordinate with major industry players including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Unilever, Diageo, GroupM, and others. The collaboration appears to stretch across the largest ad agency holding companies worldwide, known collectively as the Big Six. Such collaboration raises concerns about a concerted effort to police content, especially content that challenges mainstream narratives.

    Specifically, the report highlights GARM’s actions following the rebranding of Twitter by Elon Musk and its attempts to silence discussions on controversial topics like COVID-19 vaccines on Spotify’s “The Joe Rogan Experience.” Despite no “brand safety” risks acknowledged by GroupM, GARM still pressed for advertising restrictions on Rogan’s podcast.

    Moreover, internal communications within GARM reveal selective targeting against platforms like The Daily Wire, categorized under the “Global High Risk exclusion list” for purportedly promoting “Conspiracy Theories.” The report also includes examples where GARM leaders expressed disdain towards conservative outlets such as Fox News, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart News, aiming to curtail their advertising revenue by labeling their content as objectionable.

    The committee’s findings suggest that GARM’s methods not only potentially contravene Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits conspiracies that restrain commerce but also infringe upon fundamental American freedoms by censoring protected speech. This has raised significant concerns about the implications for democratic values and the diversity of voices in the American public sphere.

     
    Dude. This is no more correct or salient now than it was when you said it a while ago. Read the post just before your new repeat post that says nothing new. Explain what you think it means when the majority says this:

    The majority says in a footnote that "The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous.

    So they actually do comment on the merits even if the case didn’t reach them.
     
    Dude. This is no more correct or salient now than it was when you said it a while ago. Read the post just before your new repeat post that says nothing new. Explain what you think it means when the majority says this:

    The majority says in a footnote that "The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous.

    So they actually do comment on the merits even if the case didn’t reach them.
    They wouldn't comment on the legal merits of whether or not Biden had violated the plaintiffs rights.

    But as you and others have clearly pointed out, they absolutely went out of their way to point out that the factual findings the Fifth Circuit and the District Court used to justify their rulings was almost all false.
     

    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