RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/

---

They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.

The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.

---

The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.

---

It was sourced through Clinton not Trump!!!

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.

---

Two questions:

1) You seriously can't think of what problems may arise by a Democrat administration's formation of a board designed to fight "disinformation"?

2) Have you been living on another planet the past couple of years?

"Hysterical." LOL. Like the word "conservative," in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

---

1) Of course I can imagine problems that might arise. I don't necessarily assume them as fact, though. Do you see the difference? A lot depends on what powers the board exercises, which no one here seems to know.

2) Yes. It's called Earth, and I send regular dispatches from my outpost here. Stay tuned.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

We need the FBI & CIA. They do a good job.

I would argue that the best work the CIA has done is Cuban missile crisis, finding bin Laden, and Ukraine (predicting Russian invasion, Russian troop movement)

---

Realistically, the best work the CIA, FBI counter Intel, and NSA has done and does is the work you don't know about.

---

Also the worst, considering they go to great lengths trying to cover up their corruption.

---

Wangchung said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Will there be censorship? No one here seems to know.

---

probably not.. they are just gonna take complaints and do nothing like every other blue run enforcement agency.

Good news is if they enforce and jail you, low dollar cash bail might be available if you are wearing a BLM shirt

---

No Cash Bail for the select.

Suspend Habeas Corpus and off to Gitmo for the rest.

Should be about right...

---

if they try to jail me for voicing my first amendment rights then we may have to have a talk about my Second Amendment rights as well

---

The headline will read; "White Nationalist found after making hate speech, arsenal of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammo found in home:"

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Will there be censorship? No one here seems to know.

---

probably not.. they are just gonna take complaints and do nothing like every other blue run enforcement agency.

Good news is if they enforce and jail you, low dollar cash bail might be available if you are wearing a BLM shirt

---

No Cash Bail for the select.

Suspend Habeas Corpus and off to Gitmo for the rest.

Should be about right...

---

if they try to jail me for voicing my first amendment rights then we may have to have a talk about my Second Amendment rights as well

---

The headline will read; "White Nationalist found after making hate speech, arsenal of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammo found in home:"

---

amazing how many POCs are white nationalists these days

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Someone (I'm guessing Hannity or Carlson) obviously told you all to be very, very afraid of something. What that something is doesn't seem to matter.

---

Funny, coming from a guy that's been locked in his Covid bunker for 2 years now.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

Canon said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Canon said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.

---

Two questions:

1) You seriously can't think of what problems may arise by a Democrat administration's formation of a board designed to fight "disinformation"?

2) Have you been living on another planet the past couple of years?

"Hysterical." LOL. Like the word "conservative," in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

---

1) Of course I can imagine problems that might arise. I don't necessarily assume them as fact, though. Do you see the difference? A lot depends on what powers the board exercises, which no one here seems to know.

2) Yes. It's called Earth, and I send regular dispatches from my outpost here. Stay tuned.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

We need the FBI & CIA. They do a good job.

---

One of those is correct. The other is the FBI. The FBI are aimed at Americans and have been used as a political weapon for/by the democrat party since Obama. The Trump presidency demonstrated how far the FBI had sunk into their role as democrat brown shirts.

---

The FBI has a national security role, which can be understood independently from the Commerce Clause as part of Congress' power to provide for the common defense and police violations of the law of nations. The same is true of the DHS and its activities here.

---

Remember, this guy says the FBI is unconstitutional without Wickaerd

---

It is unconstitutional without Wickard. There's no reason an amendment shouldn't have been used to establish it, other than power grabbing.

---

Constitutional amendment for the FBI? I'm always ready to learn. Do you have a link?

---

If you look and are truly interested, you'll find one.

Try this.

https://fee.org/articles/wickard-v-filburn-the-supreme-court-case-that-gave-the-federal-government-nearly-unlimited-power/

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.

---

Two questions:

1) You seriously can't think of what problems may arise by a Democrat administration's formation of a board designed to fight "disinformation"?

2) Have you been living on another planet the past couple of years?

"Hysterical." LOL. Like the word "conservative," in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

---

1) Of course I can imagine problems that might arise. I don't necessarily assume them as fact, though. Do you see the difference? A lot depends on what powers the board exercises, which no one here seems to know.

2) Yes. It's called Earth, and I send regular dispatches from my outpost here. Stay tuned.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

Parents voicing opinions at school board meetings are NOT terrorists. Way to miss the point.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.

---

Two questions:

1) You seriously can't think of what problems may arise by a Democrat administration's formation of a board designed to fight "disinformation"?

2) Have you been living on another planet the past couple of years?

"Hysterical." LOL. Like the word "conservative," in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

---

1) Of course I can imagine problems that might arise. I don't necessarily assume them as fact, though. Do you see the difference? A lot depends on what powers the board exercises, which no one here seems to know.

2) Yes. It's called Earth, and I send regular dispatches from my outpost here. Stay tuned.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

Parents voicing opinions at school board meetings are NOT terrorists. Way to miss the point.

---

The point is that the potential for abuse doesn't mean the agency or program shouldn't exist.

---

Twitter page mocking Biden admin's new disinformation board reels in 150K followers in two days @USMiniTru https://t.co/i02cbwqwqt

— Fox News (@FoxNews) May 2, 2022

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/

---

They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.

The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.

---

The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.

---

It was sourced through Clinton not Trump!!!

---

I know that. We should be less concerned with partisan tit-for-tat and more concerned about what foreign rivals are doing to our country.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/

---

They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.

The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.

---

The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.

---

It was sourced through Clinton not Trump!!!

---

I know that. We should be less concerned with partisan tit-for-tat and more concerned about what foreign rivals are doing to our country.

---

We are on same page there!

---

Eh. "Foreign interference" is becoming a scare tactic to do whatever partisan garbage you want.

"Trump colluded with Russia!" Really?

"This Disinformation Administration (headed by a lady who touted the Steele dossier and who said the Hunter Biden laptop was fake) is primarily aimed at foreign interference. We would never do anything unconstitutional." Really?

"I (WaPo journalist) doxxed that conservative twitter handle because I thought they might be foreign (even though I had to have found out who they were before I completed my work)." Really?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/

---

They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.

The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.

---

The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.

---

It was sourced through Clinton not Trump!!!

---

I know that. We should be less concerned with partisan tit-for-tat and more concerned about what foreign rivals are doing to our country.

---

We are on same page there!

---

Eh. "Foreign interference" is becoming a scare tactic to do whatever partisan garbage you want.

"Trump colluded with Russia!" Really?

"This Disinformation Administration (headed by a lady who touted the Steele dossier and who said the Hunter Biden laptop was fake) is primarily aimed at foreign interference. We would never do anything unconstitutional." Really?

"I (WaPo journalist) doxxed that conservative twitter handle because I thought they might be foreign (even though I had to have found out who they were before I completed my work)." Really?

---

True, but does not mean they are not still trying. At Bragg we had PsyOps units that did nothing but try to win the hearts and minds. We would be naive to think Russians. Chinese, and a host of others are not doing it.

Media has used it lately to push their agenda or undermine what they don't like. It is all basically a cesspool.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.

---

Two questions:

1) You seriously can't think of what problems may arise by a Democrat administration's formation of a board designed to fight "disinformation"?

2) Have you been living on another planet the past couple of years?

"Hysterical." LOL. Like the word "conservative," in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

---

1) Of course I can imagine problems that might arise. I don't necessarily assume them as fact, though. Do you see the difference? A lot depends on what powers the board exercises, which no one here seems to know.

2) Yes. It's called Earth, and I send regular dispatches from my outpost here. Stay tuned.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

We need the FBI & CIA. They do a good job.

I would argue that the best work the CIA has done is Cuban missile crisis, finding bin Laden, and Ukraine (predicting Russian invasion, Russian troop movement)

---

Realistically, the best work the CIA, FBI counter Intel, and NSA has done and does is the work you don't know about.

---

Also the worst, considering they go to great lengths trying to cover up their corruption.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Someone (I'm guessing Hannity or Carlson) obviously told you all to be very, very afraid of something. What that something is doesn't seem to matter.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?

---

What do you think they will do when they determine something in the media, a social media post, a book, etc to be disinformation? Ban it? Require private companies to put a disclaimer on it?

How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?

---

I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.

---

Then what will they do?


And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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. As far as I can tell Doc's response pretty well sums up the issue. They are not creating a new agency, by the way.

---

Two questions:

1) You seriously can't think of what problems may arise by a Democrat administration's formation of a board designed to fight "disinformation"?

2) Have you been living on another planet the past couple of years?

"Hysterical." LOL. Like the word "conservative," in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

---

1) Of course I can imagine problems that might arise. I don't necessarily assume them as fact, though. Do you see the difference? A lot depends on what powers the board exercises, which no one here seems to know.

2) Yes. It's called Earth, and I send regular dispatches from my outpost here. Stay tuned.

---

There is a reason your grandmother told you not to run with scissors. You might not "assume" something bad was going to happen, but she gave you that warning nonetheless. If you still can see out of both eyes, you can thank granny.

---

What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.

---

The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.

---

What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?

---

the same characteristics that alarm people when the FBI are adding concerned parents who voice opinions at school board meetings to domestic terrorist watch lists.

---

So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?

---

Parents voicing opinions at school board meetings are NOT terrorists. Way to miss the point.

---

The point is that the potential for abuse doesn't mean the agency or program shouldn't exist.

---

Except this is not potential for abuse. This is abuse and proof the agency should not exist.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/

---

They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.

The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.

---

The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/

---

They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.

The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.

---

The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.

---

It was sourced through Clinton not Trump!!!

---

I know that. We should be less concerned with partisan tit-for-tat and more concerned about what foreign rivals are doing to our country.

---

Partisan tit for tat is what's exploited. They don't create the divisions, they take advantage of them. Chaos is the objective.

But we have gobs of agencies working at efforts to address this. They're not out countering the answers to bot farm information, they're shutting them down through Intel work.

The newest group idea is both laughable and frightening to just be considered, because it isn't targeting the foreign purveyors of information, but the recipients/citizens. We don't need government information filterers or guides. Otherwise, they only become part of the apparatus to create discord in a free society. We've seen multiple times how government messaging can be manipulated. They don't even need to censor or act from a legal perspective, their overt existence alone is enough to muddy the water.

The inference that we can't handle disparate ideas, disagreements, or oddities in the public sphere is a direct nod to the concept that the citizens can't be trusted to stay in line. That's frightening on a multitude of levels, because that's exactly how we've created discord in authoritarian regimes in our Intel efforts and how they tend to react/control the social response.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/

---

They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.

The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.

---

The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.

---

I want to know what they have the ability and scope to do prior to their startup.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The tempest over DHS's Disinformation Governance Board
By Aaron Blake
Staff writer
April 29, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Disinformation Governance Board has set off a backlash on the right -- even as it's not entirely clear what the perhaps unfortunately named board will do.

Under questioning from Democrats, Mayorkas said the board was part of an effort whose "goal is to bring the resources of the department together to address this threat," specifically citing misinformation disseminated to Spanish speakers. In a separate hearing, he mentioned it briefly as part of efforts to combat Russian misinformation.

Ultimately, Mayorkas conceded Sunday that DHS "could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." He called it an "internal working group" and said it wouldn't, in fact, monitor Americans.

"The board does not have any operational authority or capability," he said. "What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/29/disinformation-governance-board-dhs/

---

They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.

The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.

---

The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.

---

I want to know what they have the ability and scope to do prior to their startup.

---

Careful, some would say a post like that is trolling.

---

while others would make a snide comment rather than addressing the content of the post.

Which one are you again?

---

Wangchung said:

---

First, the left has zero credibility with which to ask anyone to trust them not to abuse this new power. From attempting to kill the filibuster to trying to pack the scotus, it's become obvious power is all that matters and the ends justifies the means.

Second, the Ministry of Truth only came to be after Musk successfully bought Twitter, a move that was itself a massive reaction to leftist censorship run amok. So of COURSE everyone sees this as a move against what Musk did which would make it pro-leftist censorship.

All the "Hey, relax, they won't abuse this new power! We pinky swear" in the world won't buy that credibility back.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

First, the left has zero credibility with which to ask anyone to trust them not to abuse this new power. From attempting to kill the filibuster to trying to pack the scotus, it's become obvious power is all that matters and the ends justifies the means.

Second, the Ministry of Truth only came to be after Musk successfully bought Twitter, a move that was itself a massive reaction to leftist censorship run amok. So of COURSE everyone sees this as a move against what Musk did which would make it pro-leftist censorship.

All the "Hey, relax, they won't abuse this new power! We pinky swear" in the world won't buy that credibility back.

---

What new power are we talking about again, specifically?

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

First, the left has zero credibility with which to ask anyone to trust them not to abuse this new power. From attempting to kill the filibuster to trying to pack the scotus, it's become obvious power is all that matters and the ends justifies the means.

Second, the Ministry of Truth only came to be after Musk successfully bought Twitter, a move that was itself a massive reaction to leftist censorship run amok. So of COURSE everyone sees this as a move against what Musk did which would make it pro-leftist censorship.

All the "Hey, relax, they won't abuse this new power! We pinky swear" in the world won't buy that credibility back.

---

What new power are we talking about again, specifically?

---

The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.

---