Truth Cops: Leaked Documents Outline DHS Plan To Police Disinformation (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    4,979
    Reaction score
    2,406
    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.

     
    Well, well, well. Then: It's a conspiracy theory.
    Now: It's good they restricted those dangerous accounts



     
    Well, well, well. Then: It's a conspiracy theory.
    Now: It's good they restricted those dangerous accounts





    Shadow-banning is something that people made up and never even defined.

    Now they can just claim that anything twitter did to alter how certain posts were promoted as "shadow-banning".
     
    Shadow-banning is something that people made up and never even defined.

    Now they can just claim that anything twitter did to alter how certain posts were promoted as "shadow-banning".
    Musk said the other day that he would alter the promotion of problematic accounts. Which is exactly what these idiots are having a cow about now. Lol. This is truly embarrassing. They should be ashamed.
     
    Not to mention the dishonest prior postings from both Project Veritas and Weiss. Project Veritas has been in legal trouble for their dishonesty. I don’t know why anyone would listen to them lie more.
     
    Not to mention the dishonest prior postings from both Project Veritas and Weiss. Project Veritas has been in legal trouble for their dishonesty. I don’t know why anyone would listen to them lie more.
    Don't listen to the Twitter employees, on video, explain how they targeted, shadowbanned, or restricted conservatives?
     
    Don't listen to the Twitter employees, on video, explain how they targeted, shadowbanned, or restricted conservatives?
    Don’t consider that Project Veritas always has used deceptive editing to frame comments in order to deceive their viewers.

    Don‘t consider that Musk has already declared his intent to do the exact same thing to accounts he doesn’t like.

    Embarrassing
     
    Libs of TikTok has violated Twitter policies many times. They have doxxed people, also they routinely used deceptively edited videos to target vulnerable people and have celebrated when said people were driven to suicide.

    You can support this hate speech if you want, but Twitter cannot be forced to support it. Nobody can be forced to support it. That would violate Twitter’s first amendment rights.

    You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Twitter doesn’t even need a reason to ban someone. They are allowed to do it just because they want to.
     
    Yeah we can't have any black conservatives amrite? Are all black conservatives Uncle Toms?
    Way to miss the point completely. There’s no evidence that Twitter used to unjustly restrict anyone. Zero, none. There is some evidence now that they moderated in an even-handed manner, thanks to Musk releasing even his cherry-picked files that he’s trying to gaslight people into believing shows the opposite.

    If people broke the rules, they got moderated. There were earnest discussions about moderation. They were trying to get things right.

    Recently Musk has indicated he agrees with QAnon sources and has labeled real people as pedophiles with no evidence. By name. He has called for Fauci to be “prosecuted” without saying for what crime. He has promised transparency but only releases what he chooses and then only to biased sources who have agreed to unspecified “conditions”.

    He has openly encouraged voters to vote for Republicans, yet you haven’t complained once about that. He has promised a balanced council to moderate, and hasn’t done that. Moderation is either absent or applied seemingly by him at a whim.

    He is openly pushing your views, so you don’t see that as a problem at the same time you hyperventilate about files that only show Twitter used to have rules and was trying to abide by them.

    To be extremely clear, Musk can certainly run Twitter this way. It’s within his rights to do so. But complaining about the way Twitter used to be run and not seeing anything wrong with the way it is being run now exposes you. Completely.
     
    Oh cool. So you support suspending accounts that didn't violate any Twitter policies? Good to know.
    Reading comprehension is your friend if only you will use it. Don’t just swallow what your extremely biased sources tell you. They’re lying to you.
     

    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