Incorrect political opinions becoming a national-security threat.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Ministry of Truth
34,905 Views |
650 Replies |
Last: 2 mo ago by Cobretti
So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Or turn off your power, bar you from air travel, ruin your credit, shutdown down your business by denying licenses, bar you from internet use, fine you or put you in jail.Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Of course it's targeting citizens. It's information control. This isn't an informing process, it's a discrediting process. That's at the heart of what "disinformation" is.Sam Lowry said:It's not targeting citizens, except to the extent that it's trying to educate them. The DHS did the same thing under Trump. Many other agencies do too.ATL Bear said:Partisan tit for tat is what's exploited. They don't create the divisions, they take advantage of them. Chaos is the objective.Sam Lowry said: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.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.Doc Holliday said:They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.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/
The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.
It was sourced through Clinton not Trump!!!
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.
Is the patriot act patriotic?Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Let's say there's a foreign power like Russia, or a criminal enterprise like a smuggling operation, telling people the US will automatically take any immigrant with a child. We get a flood of refugees as a result, and the government deems it a national security threat. In your mind is that targeting incorrect political opinions?Doc Holliday said:Incorrect political opinions becoming a national-security threat.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Doc Holliday said:Is the patriot act patriotic?Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Yes
Where do you find this power? In what regulation or order does it originate? When does it take effect?Wangchung said:Or turn off your power, bar you from air travel, ruin your credit, shutdown down your business by denying licenses, bar you from internet use, fine you or put you in jail.Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Is it new?Doc Holliday said:Is the patriot act patriotic?Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Discrediting isn't controlling. It's part of informing. I can discredit most of what's on this thread, but I can't control it.ATL Bear said:Of course it's targeting citizens. It's information control. This isn't an informing process, it's a discrediting process. That's at the heart of what "disinformation" is.Sam Lowry said:It's not targeting citizens, except to the extent that it's trying to educate them. The DHS did the same thing under Trump. Many other agencies do too.ATL Bear said:Partisan tit for tat is what's exploited. They don't create the divisions, they take advantage of them. Chaos is the objective.Sam Lowry said: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.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.Doc Holliday said:They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.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/
The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.
It was sourced through Clinton not Trump!!!
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.
So basically, what if Russia starts disseminating Biden policy? Would this be in conjunction with the Biden administration spreading that information or in place of it?Sam Lowry said:Let's say there's a foreign power like Russia, or a criminal enterprise like a smuggling operation, telling people the US will automatically take any immigrant with a child. We get a flood of refugees as a result, and the government deems it a national security threat. In your mind is that targeting incorrect political opinions?Doc Holliday said:Incorrect political opinions becoming a national-security threat.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
"Oh sorry, you'll have to pass it to see what's in it. But trust us, we won't abuse the power THIS time!"Sam Lowry said:Where do you find this power? In what regulation or order does it originate? When does it take effect?Wangchung said:Or turn off your power, bar you from air travel, ruin your credit, shutdown down your business by denying licenses, bar you from internet use, fine you or put you in jail.Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Wangchung said:"Oh sorry, you'll have to pass it to see what's in it. But trust us, we won't abuse the power THIS time!"Sam Lowry said:Where do you find this power? In what regulation or order does it originate? When does it take effect?Wangchung said:Or turn off your power, bar you from air travel, ruin your credit, shutdown down your business by denying licenses, bar you from internet use, fine you or put you in jail.Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
I thought it passed under Trump
Pass what? Is there a bill pending approval?Wangchung said:"Oh sorry, you'll have to pass it to see what's in it. But trust us, we won't abuse the power THIS time!"Sam Lowry said:Where do you find this power? In what regulation or order does it originate? When does it take effect?Wangchung said:Or turn off your power, bar you from air travel, ruin your credit, shutdown down your business by denying licenses, bar you from internet use, fine you or put you in jail.Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Insofar as that propaganda exists, there's no way to prevent it from entering the conversation and replicating unless you censor American voices.Sam Lowry said:Let's say there's a foreign power like Russia, or a criminal enterprise like a smuggling operation, telling people the US will automatically take any immigrant with a child. We get a flood of refugees as a result, and the government deems it a national security threat. In your mind is that targeting incorrect political opinions?Doc Holliday said:Incorrect political opinions becoming a national-security threat.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Oh that's right, it's just a demand from Biden, not anything voted on by congress. I must have TOTALLY forgotten that part.Sam Lowry said:Pass what? Is there a bill?Wangchung said:"Oh sorry, you'll have to pass it to see what's in it. But trust us, we won't abuse the power THIS time!"Sam Lowry said:Where do you find this power? In what regulation or order does it originate? When does it take effect?Wangchung said:Or turn off your power, bar you from air travel, ruin your credit, shutdown down your business by denying licenses, bar you from internet use, fine you or put you in jail.Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
When did Biden demand they turn off your power or put you in jail for your opinions?Wangchung said:Oh that's right, it's just a demand from Biden, not anything voted on by congress. I must have TOTALLY forgotten that part.Sam Lowry said:Pass what? Is there a bill?Wangchung said:"Oh sorry, you'll have to pass it to see what's in it. But trust us, we won't abuse the power THIS time!"Sam Lowry said:Where do you find this power? In what regulation or order does it originate? When does it take effect?Wangchung said:Or turn off your power, bar you from air travel, ruin your credit, shutdown down your business by denying licenses, bar you from internet use, fine you or put you in jail.Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
How many Jews had the Nazis killed by 1920?Sam Lowry said:When did Biden demand they turn off your power or put you in jail for your opinions?Wangchung said:Oh that's right, it's just a demand from Biden, not anything voted on by congress. I must have TOTALLY forgotten that part.Sam Lowry said:Pass what? Is there a bill?Wangchung said:"Oh sorry, you'll have to pass it to see what's in it. But trust us, we won't abuse the power THIS time!"Sam Lowry said:Where do you find this power? In what regulation or order does it originate? When does it take effect?Wangchung said:Or turn off your power, bar you from air travel, ruin your credit, shutdown down your business by denying licenses, bar you from internet use, fine you or put you in jail.Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
The Nazis didn't have power in 1920. According to you the DHS has all kinds of power they never had before. Where did it come from? Did Biden sign an executive order? Did he just make a phone call? How does this all work?Wangchung said:How many Jews had the Nazis killed by 1920?Sam Lowry said:When did Biden demand they turn off your power or put you in jail for your opinions?Wangchung said:Oh that's right, it's just a demand from Biden, not anything voted on by congress. I must have TOTALLY forgotten that part.Sam Lowry said:Pass what? Is there a bill?Wangchung said:"Oh sorry, you'll have to pass it to see what's in it. But trust us, we won't abuse the power THIS time!"Sam Lowry said:Where do you find this power? In what regulation or order does it originate? When does it take effect?Wangchung said:Or turn off your power, bar you from air travel, ruin your credit, shutdown down your business by denying licenses, bar you from internet use, fine you or put you in jail.Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
You'd be framing your narrative with the intention to influence, which is exactly the purpose the government does/would use it for.Sam Lowry said:Discrediting isn't controlling. It's part of informing. I can discredit most of what's on this thread, but I can't control it.ATL Bear said:Of course it's targeting citizens. It's information control. This isn't an informing process, it's a discrediting process. That's at the heart of what "disinformation" is.Sam Lowry said:It's not targeting citizens, except to the extent that it's trying to educate them. The DHS did the same thing under Trump. Many other agencies do too.ATL Bear said:Partisan tit for tat is what's exploited. They don't create the divisions, they take advantage of them. Chaos is the objective.Sam Lowry said: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.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.Doc Holliday said:They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.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/
The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.
It was sourced through Clinton not Trump!!!
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.
That's still not control.ATL Bear said:You'd be framing your narrative with the intention to influence, which is exactly the purpose the government does/would use it for.Sam Lowry said:Discrediting isn't controlling. It's part of informing. I can discredit most of what's on this thread, but I can't control it.ATL Bear said:Of course it's targeting citizens. It's information control. This isn't an informing process, it's a discrediting process. That's at the heart of what "disinformation" is.Sam Lowry said:It's not targeting citizens, except to the extent that it's trying to educate them. The DHS did the same thing under Trump. Many other agencies do too.ATL Bear said:Partisan tit for tat is what's exploited. They don't create the divisions, they take advantage of them. Chaos is the objective.Sam Lowry said: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.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.Doc Holliday said:They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.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/
The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.
It was sourced through Clinton not Trump!!!
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.
The point isn't to eliminate the speech but to stop it from being used in certain harmful ways. Sharing instructions to make a gun is free speech. Sharing it as part of a conspiracy may be a crime. Countering the criminal activity isn't censorship.Doc Holliday said:Insofar as that propaganda exists, there's no way to prevent it from entering the conversation and replicating unless you censor American voices.Sam Lowry said:Let's say there's a foreign power like Russia, or a criminal enterprise like a smuggling operation, telling people the US will automatically take any immigrant with a child. We get a flood of refugees as a result, and the government deems it a national security threat. In your mind is that targeting incorrect political opinions?Doc Holliday said:Incorrect political opinions becoming a national-security threat.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
You can stop auditioning. I think they already sent out the board invites.Sam Lowry said:The point isn't to eliminate the speech but to stop it from being used in certain harmful ways. Sharing instructions to make a gun is free speech. Sharing it as part of a conspiracy may be a crime. Countering the criminal activity isn't censorship.Doc Holliday said:Insofar as that propaganda exists, there's no way to prevent it from entering the conversation and replicating unless you censor American voices.Sam Lowry said:Let's say there's a foreign power like Russia, or a criminal enterprise like a smuggling operation, telling people the US will automatically take any immigrant with a child. We get a flood of refugees as a result, and the government deems it a national security threat. In your mind is that targeting incorrect political opinions?Doc Holliday said:Incorrect political opinions becoming a national-security threat.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Malbec said:You can stop auditioning. I think they already sent out the board invites.Sam Lowry said:The point isn't to eliminate the speech but to stop it from being used in certain harmful ways. Sharing instructions to make a gun is free speech. Sharing it as part of a conspiracy may be a crime. Countering the criminal activity isn't censorship.Doc Holliday said:Insofar as that propaganda exists, there's no way to prevent it from entering the conversation and replicating unless you censor American voices.Sam Lowry said:Let's say there's a foreign power like Russia, or a criminal enterprise like a smuggling operation, telling people the US will automatically take any immigrant with a child. We get a flood of refugees as a result, and the government deems it a national security threat. In your mind is that targeting incorrect political opinions?Doc Holliday said:Incorrect political opinions becoming a national-security threat.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
You can bet he'd love to have the thought police on his resume.
That is correct, the Nazis didn't commit atrocities until they had the power to do so. You're pretending that what you don't know protects the intentions and power of the new Ministry of Truth while condemning those who see that void of information as proof there are nefarious intentions. The only difference is those who see the dangers in that void of information concerning this new arm of the DHS are going off of history, you're just going off of...hopes? Dreams? Wishes?Sam Lowry said:The Nazis didn't have power in 1920. According to you the DHS has all kinds of power they never had before. Where did it come from? Did Biden sign an executive order? Did he just make a phone call? How does this all work?Wangchung said:How many Jews had the Nazis killed by 1920?Sam Lowry said:When did Biden demand they turn off your power or put you in jail for your opinions?Wangchung said:Oh that's right, it's just a demand from Biden, not anything voted on by congress. I must have TOTALLY forgotten that part.Sam Lowry said:Pass what? Is there a bill?Wangchung said:"Oh sorry, you'll have to pass it to see what's in it. But trust us, we won't abuse the power THIS time!"Sam Lowry said:Where do you find this power? In what regulation or order does it originate? When does it take effect?Wangchung said:Or turn off your power, bar you from air travel, ruin your credit, shutdown down your business by denying licenses, bar you from internet use, fine you or put you in jail.Sam Lowry said:So they can burn your books if they wish? Throw you in prison?Wangchung said:The power to deem anything they like as "wrong speak" and respond as they wish.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Only because you're not an entity with enough breadth to overwhelm an informational domain, like say a government, or in the case of business a large corporation.Sam Lowry said:That's still not control.ATL Bear said:You'd be framing your narrative with the intention to influence, which is exactly the purpose the government does/would use it for.Sam Lowry said:Discrediting isn't controlling. It's part of informing. I can discredit most of what's on this thread, but I can't control it.ATL Bear said:Of course it's targeting citizens. It's information control. This isn't an informing process, it's a discrediting process. That's at the heart of what "disinformation" is.Sam Lowry said:It's not targeting citizens, except to the extent that it's trying to educate them. The DHS did the same thing under Trump. Many other agencies do too.ATL Bear said:Partisan tit for tat is what's exploited. They don't create the divisions, they take advantage of them. Chaos is the objective.Sam Lowry said: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.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.Doc Holliday said:They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.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/
The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.
It was sourced through Clinton not Trump!!!
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.
Robert Wilson said:Eh. "Foreign interference" is becoming a scare tactic to do whatever partisan garbage you want.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said: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.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.Doc Holliday said:They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.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/
The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.
It was sourced through Clinton not Trump!!!
We are on same page there!
"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?
Kinda like calling someone or some thing a racist.
“Nassim Taleb on Why Being Nonsucker is More Important Than Being Right” https://t.co/nN6sea9vd0 #philosophy #decisionmaking
— Flaneur's Alley (@flaneursalley) June 22, 2018
Sam Lowry said:Discrediting isn't controlling. It's part of informing. I can discredit most of what's on this thread, but I can't control it.ATL Bear said:Of course it's targeting citizens. It's information control. This isn't an informing process, it's a discrediting process. That's at the heart of what "disinformation" is.Sam Lowry said:It's not targeting citizens, except to the extent that it's trying to educate them. The DHS did the same thing under Trump. Many other agencies do too.ATL Bear said:Partisan tit for tat is what's exploited. They don't create the divisions, they take advantage of them. Chaos is the objective.Sam Lowry said: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.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:The Steele dossier was largely sourced from Russia.Doc Holliday said:They'll reinforce information like the Steele dossier which they falsely attributed to Russia instead of a failed Brit agent and HRC.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/
The Feds don't have the responsibility to manage this. It's that simple.
It was sourced through Clinton not Trump!!!
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.
If discrediting isn't controlling, then any teacher should be able to discredit any religion and it not be considered a problem with controlling religion by the government.
This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.Sam Lowry said:They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?cowboycwr said:Then what will they do?Sam Lowry said:I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.cowboycwr said: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?Sam Lowry said:
What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?
How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?
And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?
Declaring parents terrorists for voicing opinions, asking questions and going to school board meetings, with them then placed on watch lists is an abuse. The fact you can't see it shows how blind you are to this leftist control attempt.Sam Lowry said:How so?cowboycwr said:Except this is not potential for abuse. This is abuse and proof the agency should not exist.Sam Lowry said:The point is that the potential for abuse doesn't mean the agency or program shouldn't exist.cowboycwr said:Parents voicing opinions at school board meetings are NOT terrorists. Way to miss the point.Sam Lowry said:So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?4th and Inches said: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.Sam Lowry said:What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.Malbec said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:Two questions: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.
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."
2) Yes. It's called Earth, and I send regular dispatches from my outpost here. Stay tuned.
The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.
100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."cowboycwr said:This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.Sam Lowry said:They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?cowboycwr said:Then what will they do?Sam Lowry said:I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.cowboycwr said: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?Sam Lowry said:
What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?
How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?
And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?
Stop it from being used how?Sam Lowry said:The point isn't to eliminate the speech but to stop it from being used in certain harmful ways. Sharing instructions to make a gun is free speech. Sharing it as part of a conspiracy may be a crime. Countering the criminal activity isn't censorship.Doc Holliday said:Insofar as that propaganda exists, there's no way to prevent it from entering the conversation and replicating unless you censor American voices.Sam Lowry said:Let's say there's a foreign power like Russia, or a criminal enterprise like a smuggling operation, telling people the US will automatically take any immigrant with a child. We get a flood of refugees as a result, and the government deems it a national security threat. In your mind is that targeting incorrect political opinions?Doc Holliday said:Incorrect political opinions becoming a national-security threat.Sam Lowry said:What new power are we talking about again, specifically?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.
Think that through.
So you're saying the FBI shouldn't exist?cowboycwr said:Declaring parents terrorists for voicing opinions, asking questions and going to school board meetings, with them then placed on watch lists is an abuse. The fact you can't see it shows how blind you are to this leftist control attempt.Sam Lowry said:How so?cowboycwr said:Except this is not potential for abuse. This is abuse and proof the agency should not exist.Sam Lowry said:The point is that the potential for abuse doesn't mean the agency or program shouldn't exist.cowboycwr said:Parents voicing opinions at school board meetings are NOT terrorists. Way to miss the point.Sam Lowry said:So the FBI shouldn't monitor terrorists?4th and Inches said: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.Sam Lowry said:What is "such a board?" What are the characteristics that make it alarming?JXL said:Sam Lowry said:What exactly are we running with? Do you know? What I've heard so far is...there's a board.Malbec said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:Two questions: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.
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."
2) Yes. It's called Earth, and I send regular dispatches from my outpost here. Stay tuned.
The fact that people are even talking about such a board is itself cause for alarm.
And you know this because…Robert Wilson said:100%. That's its primary reason for existence - to reign in people or ideas that run afoul of the administration. They've already been working on expanding the definition of terrorist to include "people who don't agree with me."cowboycwr said:This new disinformation board will certainly try to regulate speech.Sam Lowry said:They don't regulate speech. Maybe you have them confused with the FCC?cowboycwr said:Then what will they do?Sam Lowry said:I would see an issue if that's what they were doing. Evidently it is not.cowboycwr said: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?Sam Lowry said:
What exactly is this "ministry" going to be doing that you think is unconstitutional?
How do you honestly not see an issue with the government regulating speech?
And I will ask again, how can you be ok with a government agency that will regulate speech?