Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For another example, think of red flag laws. As you probably know, they allow the government to temporarily confiscate a firearm if it's determined that the owner is a danger to himself or others. This raises some obvious concerns. How do they determine who's a danger? What if there's bias or prejudice? What if they use the determination as a pretext to disarm political enemies? These are valid questions because the government has the power to confiscate in some circumstances. We know that because the law says so.

Now suppose the DHS board has the power to censor your speech if and when it's determined that you're spreading Russian disinformation. Again, there are similar concerns. Who makes the determination? What if that person has a partisan bias? What if they use the determination as a pretext to silence political enemies? These are all valid questions if in fact the board has the power to censor. But no one can tell me where this power is. If it exists, shouldn't someone be able to identify it?

---

You're using an outdated concept of information control. Censorship is antiquated and difficult. Instead, this is targeting citizens directly in venues where organizations like Hamas, the Taliban, and dozens of others that function to undermine the US operate freely.

The power is the pulpit and trend manipulation that uses the same tools the aforementioned bad actors do. Without one use of legal action or order, we've seen how chosen voices are silenced with the support of government narrative. You think it's warranted. I think it's dangerous to freedom. This is one script of how populism destroys freedom, but instead of a ballot it's a like or share.

---

Why should we care if it's targeting enemy territory? It's not like they don't target us. That's all part of the game.

I do object to social media companies getting special treatment as free forums while acting as de facto publishers. Add the influence of a government fact arbiter, and I agree there could be a problem. But influence isn't control, much less censorship, and calling it that doesn't make it so. The solution isn't to unilaterally disarm ourselves in the information war.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For another example, think of red flag laws. As you probably know, they allow the government to temporarily confiscate a firearm if it's determined that the owner is a danger to himself or others. This raises some obvious concerns. How do they determine who's a danger? What if there's bias or prejudice? What if they use the determination as a pretext to disarm political enemies? These are valid questions because the government has the power to confiscate in some circumstances. We know that because the law says so.

Now suppose the DHS board has the power to censor your speech if and when it's determined that you're spreading Russian disinformation. Again, there are similar concerns. Who makes the determination? What if that person has a partisan bias? What if they use the determination as a pretext to silence political enemies? These are all valid questions if in fact the board has the power to censor. But no one can tell me where this power is. If it exists, shouldn't someone be able to identify it?

---

Yeah, they probably won't lean on big tech (or flat out threaten) to censor conservative speech while labeling it Russian disinformation.

I mean, its not like the government has ever lied to us before

---

But can they censor conservative speech? Otherwise it would be an empty threat, would it not?

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For another example, think of red flag laws. As you probably know, they allow the government to temporarily confiscate a firearm if it's determined that the owner is a danger to himself or others. This raises some obvious concerns. How do they determine who's a danger? What if there's bias or prejudice? What if they use the determination as a pretext to disarm political enemies? These are valid questions because the government has the power to confiscate in some circumstances. We know that because the law says so.

Now suppose the DHS board has the power to censor your speech if and when it's determined that you're spreading Russian disinformation. Again, there are similar concerns. Who makes the determination? What if that person has a partisan bias? What if they use the determination as a pretext to silence political enemies? These are all valid questions if in fact the board has the power to censor. But no one can tell me where this power is. If it exists, shouldn't someone be able to identify it?

---

Yeah, they probably won't lean on big tech (or flat out threaten) to censor conservative speech while labeling it Russian disinformation.

I mean, its not like the government has ever lied to us before

---

But can they censor conservative speech? Otherwise it would be an empty threat, would it not?

---

I guess you believe the government never oversteps its authority or targets groups of people
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups
https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/law-bulletins/breaking-supreme-court-halts-osha-mandate
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2021/09/eviction-moratorium/

Doesn't matter if they "can", we know they will.

Sure, the dems won't admit it and they label it something innocuous like "disinformation" board. They'll convince you (looks like they already have) that's it's no big deal. That they just want to make sure we're fighting "foreign" disinformation, that there's nothing to see here. This board will start small then it will grow in size and power and will eventually look and act completely different than when it started out.

it's not like democrats want to regulate speech or anything
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/us/nyc-illegal-alien-discrimination-guidance/index.html

Hell, you have a private citizen that agrees to buy a company in part to fight for freedom of speech, then you have democrats saying that regulation has to be part of the answer to fight disinformation online and now a new governance board will be formed - under the DHS no less, a enforcement arm of the federal gov't.

Only an idiot can't see what's going on here. So, I'm not surprised your compltely oblivious.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For another example, think of red flag laws. As you probably know, they allow the government to temporarily confiscate a firearm if it's determined that the owner is a danger to himself or others. This raises some obvious concerns. How do they determine who's a danger? What if there's bias or prejudice? What if they use the determination as a pretext to disarm political enemies? These are valid questions because the government has the power to confiscate in some circumstances. We know that because the law says so.

Now suppose the DHS board has the power to censor your speech if and when it's determined that you're spreading Russian disinformation. Again, there are similar concerns. Who makes the determination? What if that person has a partisan bias? What if they use the determination as a pretext to silence political enemies? These are all valid questions if in fact the board has the power to censor. But no one can tell me where this power is. If it exists, shouldn't someone be able to identify it?

---

You're using an outdated concept of information control. Censorship is antiquated and difficult. Instead, this is targeting citizens directly in venues where organizations like Hamas, the Taliban, and dozens of others that function to undermine the US operate freely.

The power is the pulpit and trend manipulation that uses the same tools the aforementioned bad actors do. Without one use of legal action or order, we've seen how chosen voices are silenced with the support of government narrative. You think it's warranted. I think it's dangerous to freedom. This is one script of how populism destroys freedom, but instead of a ballot it's a like or share.

---

Why should we care if it's targeting enemy territory? It's not like they don't target us. That's all part of the game.

I do object to social media companies getting special treatment as free forums while acting as de facto publishers. Add the influence of a government fact arbiter, and I agree there could be a problem. But influence isn't control, much less censorship, and calling it that doesn't make it so. The solution isn't to unilaterally disarm ourselves in the information war.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For another example, think of red flag laws. As you probably know, they allow the government to temporarily confiscate a firearm if it's determined that the owner is a danger to himself or others. This raises some obvious concerns. How do they determine who's a danger? What if there's bias or prejudice? What if they use the determination as a pretext to disarm political enemies? These are valid questions because the government has the power to confiscate in some circumstances. We know that because the law says so.

Now suppose the DHS board has the power to censor your speech if and when it's determined that you're spreading Russian disinformation. Again, there are similar concerns. Who makes the determination? What if that person has a partisan bias? What if they use the determination as a pretext to silence political enemies? These are all valid questions if in fact the board has the power to censor. But no one can tell me where this power is. If it exists, shouldn't someone be able to identify it?

---

Yeah, they probably won't lean on big tech (or flat out threaten) to censor conservative speech while labeling it Russian disinformation.

I mean, its not like the government has ever lied to us before

---

But can they censor conservative speech? Otherwise it would be an empty threat, would it not?

---

I guess you believe the government never oversteps its authority or targets groups of people
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups
https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/law-bulletins/breaking-supreme-court-halts-osha-mandate
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2021/09/eviction-moratorium/

Doesn't matter if they "can", we know they will.

Sure, the dems won't admit it and they label it something innocuous like "disinformation" board. They'll convince you (looks like they already have) that's it's no big deal. That they just want to make sure we're fighting "foreign" disinformation, that there's nothing to see here. This board will start small then it will grow in size and power and will eventually look and act completely different than when it started out.

it's not like democrats want to regulate speech or anything
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/us/nyc-illegal-alien-discrimination-guidance/index.html

Hell, you have a private citizen that agrees to buy a company in part to fight for freedom of speech, then you have democrats saying that regulation has to be part of the answer to fight disinformation online and now a new governance board will be formed - under the DHS no less, a enforcement arm of the federal gov't.

Only an idiot can't see what's going on here. So, I'm not surprised your compltely oblivious.

---

sam is anything but oblivious..

Sam is smart. Sam is well read. Sam is.. Sam. I will let yall get back to it.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For another example, think of red flag laws. As you probably know, they allow the government to temporarily confiscate a firearm if it's determined that the owner is a danger to himself or others. This raises some obvious concerns. How do they determine who's a danger? What if there's bias or prejudice? What if they use the determination as a pretext to disarm political enemies? These are valid questions because the government has the power to confiscate in some circumstances. We know that because the law says so.

Now suppose the DHS board has the power to censor your speech if and when it's determined that you're spreading Russian disinformation. Again, there are similar concerns. Who makes the determination? What if that person has a partisan bias? What if they use the determination as a pretext to silence political enemies? These are all valid questions if in fact the board has the power to censor. But no one can tell me where this power is. If it exists, shouldn't someone be able to identify it?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

They're acting under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, same as the rest of DHS. There's nothing in that law that gives them the power to do the things people are talking about here, so the question is whether any new law has been passed that would authorize such. Of course there hasn't been. What basically happened is that DHS formed a new committee to do the same old stuff, and people are freaking out over the name.

The left and the right are both saying flat out insane things these days. I don't completely trust either of them. But we do have a president, and he runs the executive branch. Presumably he at least tries to appoint people who can do their jobs. I think he's entitled to a modicum of trust in that respect, just as Trump was.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For another example, think of red flag laws. As you probably know, they allow the government to temporarily confiscate a firearm if it's determined that the owner is a danger to himself or others. This raises some obvious concerns. How do they determine who's a danger? What if there's bias or prejudice? What if they use the determination as a pretext to disarm political enemies? These are valid questions because the government has the power to confiscate in some circumstances. We know that because the law says so.

Now suppose the DHS board has the power to censor your speech if and when it's determined that you're spreading Russian disinformation. Again, there are similar concerns. Who makes the determination? What if that person has a partisan bias? What if they use the determination as a pretext to silence political enemies? These are all valid questions if in fact the board has the power to censor. But no one can tell me where this power is. If it exists, shouldn't someone be able to identify it?

---

When I say they're going to be a mouthpiece, that's not direct power over others. They're not shutting down free speech or silencing anyone through direct force. It's indirect power at hand.

Jen Psaki says the board will "prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities". My understanding of how the DGB will operate is them making public statements about topics they deem are misinformation.

Imagine that they existed last year and issued a statement saying Hunters laptop is Russian disinformation. Then the vast majority of media points to their statement and says "anyone claiming hunters laptop is real is pushing foreign disinformation per the DGB". In that scenario the actual truth gets shut down. It changes public perception and influences elections.

Boiled down, we can't have the federal government being an arbiter of truth that our society points to as factual.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For another example, think of red flag laws. As you probably know, they allow the government to temporarily confiscate a firearm if it's determined that the owner is a danger to himself or others. This raises some obvious concerns. How do they determine who's a danger? What if there's bias or prejudice? What if they use the determination as a pretext to disarm political enemies? These are valid questions because the government has the power to confiscate in some circumstances. We know that because the law says so.

Now suppose the DHS board has the power to censor your speech if and when it's determined that you're spreading Russian disinformation. Again, there are similar concerns. Who makes the determination? What if that person has a partisan bias? What if they use the determination as a pretext to silence political enemies? These are all valid questions if in fact the board has the power to censor. But no one can tell me where this power is. If it exists, shouldn't someone be able to identify it?

---

When I say they're going to be a mouthpiece, that's not direct power over others. They're not shutting down free speech or silencing anyone through direct force. It's indirect power at hand.

Jen Psaki says the board will "prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities". My understanding of how the DGB will operate is them making public statements about topics they deem are misinformation.

Imagine that they existed last year and issued a statement saying Hunters laptop is Russian disinformation. Then the vast majority of media points to their statement and says "anyone claiming hunters laptop is real is pushing foreign disinformation per the DGB". In that scenario the actual truth gets shut down. It changes public perception and influences elections.

Boiled down, we can't have the federal government being an arbiter of truth that our society points to as factual.

---

I don't think there was ever an official determination whether the laptop was Russian disinformation. There were just people giving first impressions and speculating on TV. If the board had existed at the time and made a determination, they would have used a specific set of criteria and been accountable for the results. I don't see that as a bad thing.

---

Nina Jankowicz, who will head the DGB helped dismiss the Hunter Biden laptop in 2020 by saying "we should view it as a Trump campaign product."

She didn't use a specific set of criteria to make that determination and felt comfortable telling the public a lie. So I'm supposed to believe under the DGB her behavior will change and there will be checks and balances?

I don't buy that man. The fact that they could be wrong is enough for me to say they shouldn't exist.

---

KENNEDY: "When the department picked [Nina Jankowicz], was the department aware of her Tik Tok videos? They're really quite precocious."

MAYORKAS: "I was not aware of those videos." pic.twitter.com/eBgbwDMpok

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 4, 2022

Yikes: Secretary Mayorkas admits he didn't know his pick to lead DHS' new "disinformation board," Nina Jankowicz, had called the Hunter Biden laptop "Russian disinformation" or vouched for the Steele dossier. pic.twitter.com/QZJ6QZWty7

— John Cooper (@thejcoop) May 4, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

Yikes: Secretary Mayorkas admits he didn't know his pick to lead DHS' new "disinformation board," Nina Jankowicz, had called the Hunter Biden laptop "Russian disinformation" or vouched for the Steele dossier. pic.twitter.com/QZJ6QZWty7

— John Cooper (@thejcoop) May 4, 2022

---

whitetrash said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Yikes: Secretary Mayorkas admits he didn't know his pick to lead DHS' new "disinformation board," Nina Jankowicz, had called the Hunter Biden laptop "Russian disinformation" or vouched for the Steele dossier. pic.twitter.com/QZJ6QZWty7

— John Cooper (@thejcoop) May 4, 2022

---

To be fair, Mayorkas doesn't know a lot of things, including the difference between his *ss and a hole in the ground.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Yikes: Secretary Mayorkas admits he didn't know his pick to lead DHS' new "disinformation board," Nina Jankowicz, had called the Hunter Biden laptop "Russian disinformation" or vouched for the Steele dossier. pic.twitter.com/QZJ6QZWty7

— John Cooper (@thejcoop) May 4, 2022

---

To be fair, Mayorkas doesn't know a lot of things, including the difference between his *ss and a hole in the ground.

---

Hard to sort out what he does not know from what he just claims he does not know.

But Sam would say Mayorkas must do his job and be truthful (neither of which he's doing).

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Yikes: Secretary Mayorkas admits he didn't know his pick to lead DHS' new "disinformation board," Nina Jankowicz, had called the Hunter Biden laptop "Russian disinformation" or vouched for the Steele dossier. pic.twitter.com/QZJ6QZWty7

— John Cooper (@thejcoop) May 4, 2022

---

To be fair, Mayorkas doesn't know a lot of things, including the difference between his *ss and a hole in the ground.

---

Hard to sort out what he does not know from what he just claims he does not know.

But Sam would say Mayorkas must do his job and be truthful (neither of which he's doing).

---

He couldn't have known those things because they're not true.

The disinformation reference was part of a series of live tweets reporting what Biden said during a presidential debate. The dossier reference was a tweet recommending a podcast featuring Steele, which she said "provides great historical context about the evolution of disinfo."

---

FormerFlash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Yikes: Secretary Mayorkas admits he didn't know his pick to lead DHS' new "disinformation board," Nina Jankowicz, had called the Hunter Biden laptop "Russian disinformation" or vouched for the Steele dossier. pic.twitter.com/QZJ6QZWty7

— John Cooper (@thejcoop) May 4, 2022

---

To be fair, Mayorkas doesn't know a lot of things, including the difference between his *ss and a hole in the ground.

---

Hard to sort out what he does not know from what he just claims he does not know.

But Sam would say Mayorkas must do his job and be truthful (neither of which he's doing).

---

He couldn't have known those things because they're not true.

The disinformation reference was part of a series of live tweets reporting what Biden said during a presidential debate. The dossier reference was a tweet recommending a podcast featuring Steele, which she said "provides great historical context about the evolution of disinfo."

---

Same energy.

---

Nina Jankowicz: “Republicans and other disinformers use CRT for profit” https://t.co/9UAnoYGiyD

— Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) May 5, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

This like watching a lion feast on a gazelle.

One delicious bite at a time. pic.twitter.com/Z4mz94dRX3

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) May 5, 2022

---

Nina Jankowicz - "Gender disinformation is a threat to national security."

What is gender disinformation you ask? pic.twitter.com/6ekomXJLoY

— Maze (@mazemoore) May 6, 2022

Cobretti said:

---

Nina Jankowicz: “Republicans and other disinformers use CRT for profit” https://t.co/9UAnoYGiyD

— Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) May 5, 2022

---

Cobretti said:

---

Nina Jankowicz - "Gender disinformation is a threat to national security."

What is gender disinformation you ask? pic.twitter.com/6ekomXJLoY

— Maze (@mazemoore) May 6, 2022

---