Nina Jankowicz was on Stelter’s CNN show & he didn't bring up one single example of her pushing falsehoods. Nina trashed the motivations of her critics & claimed that “I did not post disinformation” & denied spreading disinfo in tweets on 2016 & related to Hunter Biden’s laptop. pic.twitter.com/W4YCHy0QQc

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) July 10, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

Nina Jankowicz was on Stelter’s CNN show & he didn't bring up one single example of her pushing falsehoods. Nina trashed the motivations of her critics & claimed that “I did not post disinformation” & denied spreading disinfo in tweets on 2016 & related to Hunter Biden’s laptop. pic.twitter.com/W4YCHy0QQc

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) July 10, 2022

---

stelter is a potato

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Biden’s erstwhile Truth Czar Nina Jankowicz (@wiczipedia): "I have prided myself over my career of being a really nuanced, reasonable person … To say that I am just a partisan actor was wildly out of context” pic.twitter.com/NieGJOhOmI

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) May 19, 2022

---

Is she lying or is she clueless?

---

One of the things that regularly flummoxes me is the general lack of self-awareness of many people on the left. I think they just have a completely different world view. They genuinely believe they are pure and unbiased. For example, some actually believe parroting the Russia Hoax and ignoring the Biden family corruption is completely unbiased and non-partisan. I realize I'm generalizing, but my lived experience is right leaning folks tend to be more self-aware about where they are being biased.

---

This is one of the problems with putting an activist in a roll like this. Their activism (for whatever cause) supersedes the job they were given.

---

Agreed. But in her mind, and in the minds of many on the left, she never was an activist but just a fair, objective arbiter of truth.

---

Yep. Pushing a blatant lie to her is fairness, because it furthers the cause.

It's all about the cause, not the literal facts.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern:

"We will continue to be your single source of truth… Unless you hear it from us it is not the truth."pic.twitter.com/WV7ZfdP2RR

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) July 25, 2022

BREAKING: Biden administration officially terminates Disinformation Governance Boardhttps://t.co/EjbN65WzvN

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 25, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

BREAKING: Biden administration officially terminates Disinformation Governance Boardhttps://t.co/EjbN65WzvN

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 25, 2022

---

UhOhh. That means they have the same thing set up under a different name, in a different department and, probably a piece of some legislation that's already passed and no one ever read (allegedly).

Judge rules Jen Psaki must be deposed in lawsuit over alleged 'collusion' with Big Tech to censor speech https://t.co/gCYUPLYGMf

— Fox News (@FoxNews) November 21, 2022

Biden may regulate AI for 'disinformation,' 'discriminatory outcomes' https://t.co/sCSKGv6uyf

— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 14, 2023

NEW: I reviewed five high school AP U.S. History textbooks that cover all the way through the Trump presidency.

The historians who wrote them put their liberal bias on full display in what they included and what they left out.

Here's what I found🧵https://t.co/wWuurh1jLw

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) April 18, 2023

Ah yes the ministry of truth. I remember when Sam put his full weight and support behind this failed Biden dystopian proposal.

Mothra said:

---

Ah yes the ministry of truth. I remember when Sam put his full weight and support behind this failed Biden dystopian proposal.

---

Is intentionally misrepresenting posts some sort of fetish for you? Not that anyone other than yourself really cares. I went to the first page to see what you were talking about.

Quote:

---

In reply to Motha
I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is.

---

FULL WEIGHT AND SUPPORT

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Ah yes the ministry of truth. I remember when Sam put his full weight and support behind this failed Biden dystopian proposal.

---

Is intentionally misrepresenting posts some sort of fetish for you? Not that anyone other than yourself really cares. I went to the first page to see what you were talking about.

Quote:

---

In reply to Motha
I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is.

---

FULL WEIGHT AND SUPPORT

---

Man if that's not the pot calling the kettle black. Your lack of self awareness is astounding.

Try reading the whole thread. And then get back to me if you have any more questions.

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Ah yes the ministry of truth. I remember when Sam put his full weight and support behind this failed Biden dystopian proposal.

---

Is intentionally misrepresenting posts some sort of fetish for you? Not that anyone other than yourself really cares. I went to the first page to see what you were talking about.

Quote:

---

In reply to Motha
I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is.

---

FULL WEIGHT AND SUPPORT

---

Funny you only randomly select one of his many posts on this thread about it. And not even his first.

The thread is full of posts from him defending the board, asking how it is bad, what it would do that would be bad, why policing disinformation is bad, ignoring questions about what is disinformation, who will determine what is or isn't disinformation, etc.

Yes he supported it.

---

Pearls before swine. He's too glib to be reasoned with.

Mothra said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Ah yes the ministry of truth. I remember when Sam put his full weight and support behind this failed Biden dystopian proposal.

---

Is intentionally misrepresenting posts some sort of fetish for you? Not that anyone other than yourself really cares. I went to the first page to see what you were talking about.

Quote:

---

In reply to Motha
I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is.

---

FULL WEIGHT AND SUPPORT

---

Funny you only randomly select one of his many posts on this thread about it. And not even his first.

The thread is full of posts from him defending the board, asking how it is bad, what it would do that would be bad, why policing disinformation is bad, ignoring questions about what is disinformation, who will determine what is or isn't disinformation, etc.

Yes he supported it.

---

Pearls before swine. He's too glib to be reasoned with.

---

I don't have time to read all your posts, sorry. Are you telling me he went from explicitly not supporting it to supporting it? I doubt it. I bet he just had some fun poking holes in your posts. Made you mad obviously. Calm down bud.

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Ah yes the ministry of truth. I remember when Sam put his full weight and support behind this failed Biden dystopian proposal.

---

Is intentionally misrepresenting posts some sort of fetish for you? Not that anyone other than yourself really cares. I went to the first page to see what you were talking about.

Quote:

---

In reply to Motha
I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is.

---

FULL WEIGHT AND SUPPORT

---

Funny you only randomly select one of his many posts on this thread about it. And not even his first.

The thread is full of posts from him defending the board, asking how it is bad, what it would do that would be bad, why policing disinformation is bad, ignoring questions about what is disinformation, who will determine what is or isn't disinformation, etc.

Yes he supported it.

---

Pearls before swine. He's too glib to be reasoned with.

---

I don't have time to read all your posts, sorry. Are you telling me he went from explicitly not supporting it to supporting it? I doubt it. I bet he just had some fun poking holes in your posts. Made you mad obviously. Calm down bud.

---

As I said, read the thread. Next time, probably best not to make assumptions based on something said on page 1 of a 16-page thread.

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Ah yes the ministry of truth. I remember when Sam put his full weight and support behind this failed Biden dystopian proposal.

---

Is intentionally misrepresenting posts some sort of fetish for you? Not that anyone other than yourself really cares. I went to the first page to see what you were talking about.

Quote:

---

In reply to Motha
I didn't say I was cool with it. I am 1) amused by hysterical reactions like yours and 2) questioning what exactly the problem is.

---

FULL WEIGHT AND SUPPORT

---

Good call!

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rand is making an ass of himself as usual.

---

He's the only politician I actually like.

Your opinions are straight up the same as legacy media. What's going on man?

---

I'm just trying to look at it without the partisan filter. You've got a person who's interested in the study of disinformation and current topics related to it. She seems well qualified. She's a Democrat, and she's on Twitter, neither of which is surprising. If she were a Republican in a Republican administration doing the same kind of thing, no one here would be upset.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "I'm just trying to look at it without the partisan filter"

Anyone with an IQ over 60 and a real job believe that statement for even a second?

---

Y'all are as hysterical about Biden as the left was about Trump. Yes, he's a terrible president. No, he's not going to censor your speech.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rand is making an ass of himself as usual.

---

He's the only politician I actually like.

Your opinions are straight up the same as legacy media. What's going on man?

---

I'm just trying to look at it without the partisan filter. You've got a person who's interested in the study of disinformation and current topics related to it. She seems well qualified. She's a Democrat, and she's on Twitter, neither of which is surprising. If she were a Republican in a Republican administration doing the same kind of thing, no one here would be upset.

---

Problem is #1 There shouldn't be a "Ministry of Disinformation" or whatever the heck it is.

Problem #2 It sure as hell shouldn't be headed by a completely biased individual, which it is.



So it really isn't a "Ministry of Misinformation", but another propaganda wing of a political party, hiding behind a moniker of virtue.

---

Problem #3 and where Sam is wrong. Whether it be a budget, task force, Exec Order, or new government position (think Drug Czar), the more undefined it is, the more danger it is to become what it shouldn't and doesn't need to become.

---

If you just said there was a danger of it becoming unconstitutional, I don't think anyone would argue. Of course you can say that about a lot of things.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.

---

Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.

---

I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.

---

What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.

---

Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.

---

If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.

---

Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.

---

Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)

---

Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.

---

Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.

---

I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.

---

What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.

---

Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.

---

Russia, China and other adversaries have used social media to push messages at U.S. audiences that stoke division and spread conspiracy theories or falsehoods. YOU SHOULD BE FINE WITH THAT.

There's no way to get a handle on that if you aren't censoring Americans. Period. That's far worse than dealing with a few thousand people who get conned by another country.

"If I was given a choice between a government with no newspapers or newspapers with no government, I would choose the latter." Thomas Jefferson

---

Russia and China don't have 1st Amendment rights. To the extent it's possible to counter them without violating our rights, you should be fine with that. If our rights are violated, we should be able to figure it out.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.

---

Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.

---

I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.

---

What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.

---

Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.

---

If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.

---

Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.

---

Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)

---

Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.

---

Thank you.

What is the recent impetus for such a committee to even exist now as opposed to in the past? This question has import to me. I haven't been able to see that there is any real change in the threat of disinformation. The only change has become the means of its dissemination. People used to share pamphlets. Now they share tweets. The only real change is in speed of information and the new ability to control information. It is a lot harder to shut down a bunch of printing presses than it is to shut down internet based activity. One of the weaknesses of the internet is it gives a controllable pipeline to governments. Something like radio did in the mid-20th century, only bigger. Notice that the real problem in past mass media was not fringe news, but government control.

U.S. history would also suggest that the intended purpose of DGB will not be limited to fact-checking. The IRS is really a good example. It should have no other purpose than executing tax law based on the letter of the law and not on motives, beliefs, or who they think is misguided. Yet they have been used multiple times by government officials for suppression and it did not take very long. This is the basic argument against the government entering more arenas. Once they are in, they are very hard to get out. And once established, they are ever harder to fight if they are wrong. It is not like there is a choice to vote against an executive action. And if a candidate does run with the idea of getting rid of some departments or government bodies, more often than not the elected candidate ends up being unable to get it done due to pressure and dissent among the government ranks. (See Reagan and the Department of Education) There would have to be a massive election wave against a new body to be rid of it if it exceeds its original intent. Especially if it is embedded in a larger department.

---

I doubt that it's a reaction to the sale of Twitter. It would have been planned for longer than that. These are just two stories that are in the news at the same time, and people are assuming they're connected.

The difference between now and the days of pamphleteering is that critical thinking skills haven't kept up with social media technology. We know that anyone can share a pamphlet. What's in a newspaper or on a video screen used to be more authoritative because not anyone could produce it. It had to go through an editorial process, which included fact-checking. That was already built in. It wasn't perfect, but it was a process and there were standards.

Now anyone can produce a video for thousands or millions to see, and there's no vetting process. That's fine in and of itself, but here's the catch: our brains haven't figured out that the screen lost its authority. No one goes running to their friends and says, "You have GOT to hear what some random drunk told me on the street last night! This guy has it all figured out!" But we'll share a YouTube clip from the same guy, and people will listen because it's on the same screen where they watch the news. Or we'll retweet a quote from who knows where, and people will read it because it's in the same space where they read a (virtual) paper. It takes a lot of cognitive energy to sort the wheat from the chaff, and most people won't or can't take the time.

As for abuses, it is difficult to get rid of a department, but that is rarely if ever a first resort. The more likely remedy is through the courts, as it was with the IRS example. They can handle injuries relatively quickly, on a case-by-case basis, without the need for a groundswell of voter support. In doing so they are also setting precedents that will govern the agency's conduct in the future.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are two elements to content-based restriction: it's content-based and it's a restriction. The government takes sides on all kinds of issues all the time (CDC, FDA, etc.). There's a good reason it's difficult to fit this within the definition of censorship. It isn't.

---

Then couch it as an equal protection claim subject to strict scrutiny. The government doesn't get to treat groups differently based on content (much less viewpoint) of political speech, if it sees the light of day under a good lawyer. The part after the "if" is the problem. Bureaucrats tread all over the Constitution and statutory and common law rights all the time without anything happening because most people don't have the wherewithal (on multiple levels) to do anything about it. Creating an office of bureaucrats aimed just at "misinformation" is as foolhardy as it gets with respect to setting the table for all sorts of silly unconstitutional BS. But you and the underground man would make silly, pedantic arguments all day to try and argue its not *that* bad. Just uninteresting and tiresome.

---

I can't wait to see you file an equal protection claim because the government endorsed a vaccine and you think it makes people glow in the dark. Government would cease to function if a theory like that were taken seriously. Just absurd.

---

What in hell's half acre are you talking about. Just above in this thread you said denying/delaying tax exempt status based on political viewpoint wasn't unconstitutional and really wasn't a big deal. You also don't know what legal standard to apply in that event. Now that it is apparent how reductionist that is you start talking about vaccines making you glow in the dark, because that's the real issue here. Re-instituting my "you are just a massive waste of time" policy.

---

Learn to read, Bob. I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I said it wasn't censorship. If you saw my posts at the time you should know I thought it was a huge deal.

---

If it is *now* a huge deal, and if it is unconstitutional government action based on political viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you call it censorship, suppression, regulation, restriction, limitation, go find a thesaurus and add 10 more. Unless, of course, you just like wasting time.

---

Or unless you've spent a whole thread dodging my questions and want to nitpick a collateral issue to death instead. In that case it seems to matter a lot.

---

Sam, what is your definition of censorship? (sorry if I missed it earlier)

---

Government restraint or punishment of speech. Refusing to grant a license, for example, can be a form of censorship because it disallows the activity (as opposed to merely discriminating against it).

More important, whether we're talking about censorship or discrimination, there's no reason the DGB has to do either of those things. Fact-checking is not in itself a form of discrimination.

---

Thank you.

What is the recent impetus for such a committee to even exist now as opposed to in the past? This question has import to me. I haven't been able to see that there is any real change in the threat of disinformation. The only change has become the means of its dissemination. People used to share pamphlets. Now they share tweets. The only real change is in speed of information and the new ability to control information. It is a lot harder to shut down a bunch of printing presses than it is to shut down internet based activity. One of the weaknesses of the internet is it gives a controllable pipeline to governments. Something like radio did in the mid-20th century, only bigger. Notice that the real problem in past mass media was not fringe news, but government control.

U.S. history would also suggest that the intended purpose of DGB will not be limited to fact-checking. The IRS is really a good example. It should have no other purpose than executing tax law based on the letter of the law and not on motives, beliefs, or who they think is misguided. Yet they have been used multiple times by government officials for suppression and it did not take very long. This is the basic argument against the government entering more arenas. Once they are in, they are very hard to get out. And once established, they are ever harder to fight if they are wrong. It is not like there is a choice to vote against an executive action. And if a candidate does run with the idea of getting rid of some departments or government bodies, more often than not the elected candidate ends up being unable to get it done due to pressure and dissent among the government ranks. (See Reagan and the Department of Education) There would have to be a massive election wave against a new body to be rid of it if it exceeds its original intent. Especially if it is embedded in a larger department.

---

I doubt that it's a reaction to the sale of Twitter. It would have been planned for longer than that. These are just two stories that are in the news at the same time, and people are assuming they're connected.

The difference between now and the days of pamphleteering is that critical thinking skills haven't kept up with social media technology. We know that anyone can share a pamphlet. What's in a newspaper or on a video screen used to be more authoritative because not anyone could produce it. It had to go through an editorial process, which included fact-checking. That was already built in. It wasn't perfect, but it was a process and there were standards.

Now anyone can produce a video for thousands or millions to see, and there's no vetting process. That's fine in and of itself, but here's the catch: our brains haven't figured out that the screen lost its authority. No one goes running to their friends and says, "You have GOT to hear what some random drunk told me on the street last night! This guy has it all figured out!" But we'll share a YouTube clip from the same guy, and people will listen because it's on the same screen where they watch the news. Or we'll retweet a quote from who knows where, and people will read it because it's in the same space where they read a (virtual) paper. It takes a lot of cognitive energy to sort the wheat from the chaff, and most people won't or can't take the time.

As for abuses, it is difficult to get rid of a department, but that is rarely if ever a first resort. The more likely remedy is through the courts, as it was with the IRS example. They can handle injuries relatively quickly, on a case-by-case basis, without the need for a groundswell of voter support. In doing so they are also setting precedents that will govern the agency's conduct in the future.

---

I also doubt it was just the Twitter sale that was the impetus. I also doubt that this move was seriously thought through. If there is another government body that proves to be untrustworthy, this one will be in the limelight to become just that.

As to the issue of "if it's on the internet it must be true" - I really don't think that has been an issue since over a decade ago. People learn and adapt. What has happened is the lack of trust in media makes it harder to get good information, so many have resorted to getting a few sources they feel good about, even if not the most reliable. Hence talk radio for conservatives and TV shows for liberals (like The View) have become "news" sources. Traditional cable news has seen this and just followed the viewership to one side or another. The old network news (NBC, CBS, ABC) have all become much more shrill over the last 4 decades. Just watch the first minute announcing all the main headlines like they are the old paper boy selling extra editions due to a big breaking story. Make that a scared, over-dramatic paper boy.


I'm afraid the IRS has been in court many times, but likely not enough times due to protection under the law. Also, court cases with the IRS are not quickly resolved and are complex due to the laws governing it. Thant means it gets real expensive to fight the IRS (or any other government agency). The case represented in the link took 5 years to get to the first half of resolution. That's as long as it took the Nazis to get to the point of threatening war after Hitler became Chancellor. Much harm can be done before such a case can be resolved.

Also, in this case, this unit of Homeland Security needs to be squashed soon, as a first resort. It has no where good to grow its power without limiting speech. The government does not need to have anyone but the FBI, CDC, State Department, FCC, FEC, SBA, Justice Department, etc. putting out corrections and warnings on any possible foreign or domestic disinformation that falls within their purview. The experts in the know and not some central information aack-of-all-trades filtering body need to be sending out the U.S. Government viewpoint. DGA will likely be a laughingstock very soon. It will be either ineffective since it requires that the people trust it, or it will exceed its power trying to exert authority to overcome that weakness.

---

"Internet must be true" and lack of trust in media are both part of it -- though of course the lack of trust is selective and often more rhetorical than real. How many times have you seen a social media post screaming "why aren't mainstream media reporting this!" accompanied by a link to a mainstream media report?

The DGB seems to be little more than a working group that helps the DHS and other agencies operate. It's hard to argue that such a thing isn't within the secretary's discretion. If it does anything that requires complex litigation, injunctions are always possible to stop too much harm from being done while the case is resolved.

---

SLAM DUNK

Slang. something regarded as certain to occur or be accomplished, typically something desirable THAT REQUIRES LITTLE FURTHER EFFORT:

ex: Sam was posterized when Mothra slam dunked on him in that thread.

Thanks for taking time to read the thread and admit your mistake. Could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you'd done it sooner, but better late than never.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thanks for taking time to read the thread and admit your mistake. Could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you'd done it sooner, but better late than never.

---

Believe it or not, I really wish I had been wrong in my characterization. But as the posts referenced above prove, this thread is full of posters trying to explain to you the dangers posed by a partisan govt. board dispensing its version of the "truth," while attacking as untrue the opposite party's version, which you flippantly wrote off and had no issue with. We don't agree on much of anything anymore given your TDS and the scare that COVID gave you, but I thought there was still some semblance of libertarianism underlying your belief system.

In light of the recent disclosures that the Biden admin was actually working hand in hand with social media to censor and shut down conservative thought, I was hopeful you finally recognized the error of your thought process. But in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you'd prefer to double down on poor positions than admit your error.

But hey, at least we can hold out hope that we can reverse the damage done by such overreaching executive action in 2 to 6 years!

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thanks for taking time to read the thread and admit your mistake. Could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you'd done it sooner, but better late than never.

---

Believe it or not, I really wish I had been wrong in my characterization. But as the posts referenced above prove, this thread is full of posters trying to explain to you the dangers posed by a partisan govt. board dispensing its version of the "truth," while attacking as untrue the opposite party's version, which you flippantly wrote off and had no issue with. We don't agree on much of anything anymore given your TDS and the scare that COVID gave you, but I thought there was still some semblance of libertarianism underlying your belief system.

In light of the recent disclosures that the Biden admin was actually working hand in hand with social media to censor and shut down conservative thought, I was hopeful you finally recognized the error of your thought process. But in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you'd prefer to double down on poor positions than admit your error.

But hey, at least we can hold out hope that we can reverse the damage done by such overreaching executive action in 2 to 6 years!

---

As I've explained over and over, I was not taking a position but was challenging you to think about yours.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thanks for taking time to read the thread and admit your mistake. Could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you'd done it sooner, but better late than never.

---

Believe it or not, I really wish I had been wrong in my characterization. But as the posts referenced above prove, this thread is full of posters trying to explain to you the dangers posed by a partisan govt. board dispensing its version of the "truth," while attacking as untrue the opposite party's version, which you flippantly wrote off and had no issue with. We don't agree on much of anything anymore given your TDS and the scare that COVID gave you, but I thought there was still some semblance of libertarianism underlying your belief system.

In light of the recent disclosures that the Biden admin was actually working hand in hand with social media to censor and shut down conservative thought, I was hopeful you finally recognized the error of your thought process. But in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you'd prefer to double down on poor positions than admit your error.

But hey, at least we can hold out hope that we can reverse the damage done by such overreaching executive action in 2 to 6 years!

---

As I've explained over and over, I was not taking a position but was challenging you to think about yours.

---

Thanks Sam, but I have enough fertilizer for my garden already. You have supplied more BS than this board can use in a season.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thanks for taking time to read the thread and admit your mistake. Could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you'd done it sooner, but better late than never.

---

Believe it or not, I really wish I had been wrong in my characterization. But as the posts referenced above prove, this thread is full of posters trying to explain to you the dangers posed by a partisan govt. board dispensing its version of the "truth," while attacking as untrue the opposite party's version, which you flippantly wrote off and had no issue with. We don't agree on much of anything anymore given your TDS and the scare that COVID gave you, but I thought there was still some semblance of libertarianism underlying your belief system.

In light of the recent disclosures that the Biden admin was actually working hand in hand with social media to censor and shut down conservative thought, I was hopeful you finally recognized the error of your thought process. But in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you'd prefer to double down on poor positions than admit your error.

But hey, at least we can hold out hope that we can reverse the damage done by such overreaching executive action in 2 to 6 years!

---

As I've explained over and over, I was not taking a position but was challenging you to think about yours.

---

Oh Sam. You don't believe anyone really buys that do you? You must take everyone on this board but yourself for a fool. Of course you were taking a position.

And as I pointed out, your position was absurd.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thanks for taking time to read the thread and admit your mistake. Could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you'd done it sooner, but better late than never.

---

Believe it or not, I really wish I had been wrong in my characterization. But as the posts referenced above prove, this thread is full of posters trying to explain to you the dangers posed by a partisan govt. board dispensing its version of the "truth," while attacking as untrue the opposite party's version, which you flippantly wrote off and had no issue with. We don't agree on much of anything anymore given your TDS and the scare that COVID gave you, but I thought there was still some semblance of libertarianism underlying your belief system.

In light of the recent disclosures that the Biden admin was actually working hand in hand with social media to censor and shut down conservative thought, I was hopeful you finally recognized the error of your thought process. But in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you'd prefer to double down on poor positions than admit your error.

But hey, at least we can hold out hope that we can reverse the damage done by such overreaching executive action in 2 to 6 years!

---

As I've explained over and over, I was not taking a position but was challenging you to think about yours.

---

Councilor, if you were hired to represent Mothra's position, you'd be salivating over the easy, slam dunk position, you'd be in.

Just give it up and either admit you were wrong or admit that you are in full support of government censorship.

You've painted yourself into a corner and are either too dumb or too proud to admit it.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thanks for taking time to read the thread and admit your mistake. Could have saved yourself some embarrassment if you'd done it sooner, but better late than never.

---

Believe it or not, I really wish I had been wrong in my characterization. But as the posts referenced above prove, this thread is full of posters trying to explain to you the dangers posed by a partisan govt. board dispensing its version of the "truth," while attacking as untrue the opposite party's version, which you flippantly wrote off and had no issue with. We don't agree on much of anything anymore given your TDS and the scare that COVID gave you, but I thought there was still some semblance of libertarianism underlying your belief system.

In light of the recent disclosures that the Biden admin was actually working hand in hand with social media to censor and shut down conservative thought, I was hopeful you finally recognized the error of your thought process. But in typical Sam Lowry fashion, you'd prefer to double down on poor positions than admit your error.

But hey, at least we can hold out hope that we can reverse the damage done by such overreaching executive action in 2 to 6 years!

---

As I've explained over and over, I was not taking a position but was challenging you to think about yours.

---

Oh Sam. You don't believe anyone really buys that do you? You must take everyone on this board but yourself for a fool. Of course you were taking a position.

And as I pointed out, your position was absurd.

---

No, not everyone. Obviously Porteroso gets it.

Mothra said:

---

Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"

---

Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam: "Republicans: 'You can take my misinformation when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.'"

---

Which turned out to be pretty accurate, based on this thread.

---

If there was any doubt that Sam has gone full-on Left Wing at Warp Speed ...