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
    4,979
    Reaction score
    2,407
    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.

     
    I'm up in arms about the US government infringing on US citizens 1st amendment rights by pressuring social media companies to restrict what can be said online.

    No, you are up in arms because the government wants to curb disinformation/propaganda from foreign interests domestic zealots to harm the U.S. populace through social media. You couldn't care less when books are banned and education is suppressed, but foreigners and crazies on Twitter, OMGZ!!!!! Censorship!!!!.

    BTW, foreigners, bots or people, don't have 1st Amendment rights.
     
    Neither? That's not an answer. Why are you evading the question? I don't like false information either, but the government should have no role in determining what US citizens are saying on social media outside of anything illegal.
    Because you are presenting it disingenuously as only a "democrat" thing, and it "depends" on the exact situation. So, per your framed question, I'm not for or against it. And since you were allegedly seeking clarification of my original post, I'm telling you I wasnt taking a hard stance on it.

    However, to be kind... I'm generally not for censorship. However, there are exceptions to that. I think government and certain institutions have a duty to the truth and that duty should be safe guarded. At the same time, you do make good points that the govt (those in power) may not be the best ones tasked with that. It is both on govt's interest and sometimes against it.

    My original point is that this is a DHS and other govt agency thing, not so much a partisan thing.

    Edit: let me clarify. I dont think you are disingenuous. I think your argument making it all aboit democrats is. I fully believe you 100% believe that.
     
    I’m just here for someone to bring up the fact that SFL is actually fine with government censorship when it is curtailing stuff he wants curtailed. But for some reason he thinks disinformation from foreign sources should be protected. Thanks, SS! ❤️
     
    No, you are up in arms because the government wants to curb disinformation/propaganda from foreign interests domestic zealots to harm the U.S. populace through social media. You couldn't care less when books are banned and education is suppressed, but foreigners and crazies on Twitter, OMGZ!!!!! Censorship!!!!.

    BTW, foreigners, bots or people, don't have 1st Amendment rights.
    They have some, but it depends.
     
    What about US propaganda?
    I think the 1st amendment puts the US at a disadvantage compared to other countries on this problem.

    We are going through a transition and it is going to take a generation or two for us to adapt to the level of propaganda that the Information Age has made possible.

    Our government has the least amount to legal authority to protect us from all types of propaganda until our collective BS meter has adapted.
     


    Also, Mike Masnick’s thread on the article is worth the read. It’s quoted above by Popehat.

    Couple of points made:

     
    One wonders who these people will side with if there is a pearl harbor moment today. I mean trump did say he believes putin over our ic.
    If 9/11 happened today you would see many people in red states celebrating... just like they did in the Middle East when it happened. Believe it.
     
    I’m just here for someone to bring up the fact that SFL is actually fine with government censorship when it is curtailing stuff he wants curtailed. But for some reason he thinks disinformation from foreign sources should be protected. Thanks, SS! ❤️
    Please list the things I want censored because I haven't heard of any.
     
    Please list the things I want censored because I haven't heard of any.
    You have defended censoring books in schools. Which is actual censorship, BTW, since it comes from the government. Unlike Twitter exercising it’s own freedom of what it will or will not host on its service.
     
    You have defended censoring books in schools. Which is actual censorship, BTW, since it comes from the government. Unlike Twitter exercising it’s own freedom of what it will or will not host on its service.
    The pornographic books that have no place in schools? Do you think those should be at schools? What about a playboy magazine?
     
    The pornographic books that have no place in schools? Do you think those should be at schools? What about a playboy magazine?
    Was that book actually at the school? I don’t believe it was proven. We only have a crazy person‘s word for it and an out of date suggested reading list from a different school.

    What about “Beloved” and “Maus”? Should these books be banned from schools? What about a simple children’s book called “Everywhere Babies” that was removed from a school in FL?

     
    You get so upset about a private company determining what it can have on its own website, but say nothing about actual government censorship in schools.
     

    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