Introducing the "Disinformation Governance Board" (1 Viewer)

[Terminalxylem]

Honest question to a science guy like you (I did law because I was told there would be no math)....

Advanced mathematics.... let's define that as anything after basic algebra.... is it really necessary anymore before college? Because you can send back to me pretty much any math problem you want and either Google itself or a website I can find on Google will let me copy paste it and give me the answer. 

Probably not. Certainly not calculus. But if being able to google an answer is your stopping point, we don’t need to teach much of anything. 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Probably not. Certainly not calculus. But if being able to google an answer is your stopping point, we don’t need to teach much of anything. 

Exactly. We need to teach differently. 

To me. I think. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I don't think he can because its hard for some people to accept the person they are not seeing eye to eye with is not genuinely ill intended.

Lighten up, man. You can find 100 conservative asides that are worse than that on this site on a typical day. If us left wing snowflakes can ignore them or chuckle at them, you can too.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

We're good; I despise the GOP and am now.... you'll love this....an activist liberal to some on this board; we can have a whole other thread on why left and right are so far apart at the moment but it takes an introspection from both sides neither are willing to have and many are incapable of having. 

And the Catherine Bell thing is from old yeller' and our once proud beautiful women draft that we can't speak about anymore.... like If you say Candyman in the mirror 5 times, Joe or maurile or Elon Musk will suspend you. 

I think.  I lost track of whose in charge at this point.  The boat guy only does BBQ now or something.  I'm getting old. 

Hard to believe this is the place that once hosted the Russian Bride draft.

 

[lazyike]

I got some bad news for you:  It's not just Truth Social where participants are gathering to spread lies.  If you think Truth Social is the only place that happens, then I would suggest you get out of any bubble you may be in.

I don't disagree with you there but I know if there is a site with all Trump supporters there is no internet site  where you will find more lies and or bigger lies.

 

[GordonGekko]

Sadly most here voted for this clown show.

Given the current reality of the "First Past The Post" system, there are only two choices, and the last two general cycles had completely abysmal choices. ( Clinton, Biden, Trump. And even if Sanders had not gotten the DNC ticket stolen from him in 2016, he was also a horrific choice for POTUS)

In that regard, I can't be too punitive on the majority of traditional liberals out there who voted for Biden. Most traditional liberals are actually fairly moderate in their personal politics. Conservatives and traditional liberals have a lot in common. It's the radical left and those who subscribe to it almost religiously that's the problem.

What I can't understand and find both sad and pathetic is the cross section that voted for Biden/Harris that are still relentlessly defending this current administration at all costs. Taking the tribalistic "Defending The Brand" mantle and turning it into their own personal Alamo.

Obama/Biden/Harris/Rice are literally destroying this Republic before our very eyes. Every major facet of what should be functional governance is going into a free fall of total chaos.

I get "why" people voted as they did. I cannot fathom though, how some, mostly the hard radical left, can keep up the rationalizations, while feeding into their cognitive dissonance, about the actual damage inflicted on every day working class Americans.

 

[bigbottom]

We're good; I despise the GOP and am now.... you'll love this....an activist liberal to some on this board; we can have a whole other thread on why left and right are so far apart at the moment but it takes an introspection from both sides neither are willing to have and many are incapable of having. 

And the Catherine Bell thing is from old yeller' and our once proud beautiful women draft that we can't speak about anymore.... like If you say Candyman in the mirror 5 times, Joe or maurile or Elon Musk will suspend you. 

I think.  I lost track of whose in charge at this point.  The boat guy only does BBQ now or something.  I'm getting old. 

Catherine Bell, LOL. And then a group of us stuffed the ballot box to get a trans woman in the bracket and advance her past the first round. That may have been a dozen or more years ago. I guess we were woke before woke was popular and then unpopular. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

While I don’t think it’s the government’s job, how do people suggest misinformation be combatted? Or is it just the price of free speech?

If someone believes everything they read on the internet or watch on the news, then a misinformation agency isn't going to make a difference in their lives or how they process the information the receive.  It just becomes another source to either blindly agree with or treat as propaganda.  How does something get classified as "misinformation" anyway.

Ivan brought up a great point, if Trump was in control of the misinformation agency, would any individual who was a never Trumper really have faith in anything the agency says anyway.  This just seems like a big waste of taxpayer money.   

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We're good; I despise the GOP and am now.... you'll love this....an activist liberal to some on this board; we can have a whole other thread on why left and right are so far apart at the moment but it takes an introspection from both sides neither are willing to have and many are incapable of having. 

I agree, but I think it goes way beyond a simple lack of introspection -- that's really just human nature TBH.  

If I was forced to narrow it down to just one thing, it would be the fact that in 1982 (to pick a random year when things were normal) both parties were liberal and shared the same general set of liberal values.  We used to talk about "liberals" like Ted Kennedy vs. "conservatives" like Reagan, but both those guys were liberals in the historical/European sense of the word.  They both agreed that we need a government, but that that government should be sharply limited in its ability to interact with its citizens.  They both supported freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and so on.  They both supported free-market capitalism.  

Now obviously those two guys drew some lines in slightly different places.  Ted Kennedy's preferred version of capitalism looked different than Reagan's, but they were mainly arguing about stuff on the margin, like the correct generosity of the welfare state.  Likewise, Reagan was friendlier to evangelical Christians than Kennedy, but it's not as if either guy wanted to impose a state-sanctioned religion or actively suppress religion either.  At the end of the day, these guys were on the same general team.  

And those gentlemen are just random examples of "opposites" who shared a lot of the same values.  You could make a similar argument involving Clinton and Gingrich, Romney and Obama, and so on.  

People on the far right are not having it with liberalism anymore.  And people on the far left use "liberal" as an epithet like they were at the 1988 GOP convention.  Ideas that we normally think of as part and parcel to liberalism -- tolerance, free speech, pluralism, etc. -- don't really enjoy a lot of support these days.  Instead, more people are simply unwilling to accept that other adults might hold different beliefs than them or want to structure their lives differently than they would.  Free societies don't work well when people won't leave each other alone.  

 

[FairWarning]

Hard to believe this is the place that once hosted the Russian Bride draft.

Classic

 

[Boston]

I agree, but I think it goes way beyond a simple lack of introspection -- that's really just human nature TBH.  

If I was forced to narrow it down to just one thing, it would be the fact that in 1982 (to pick a random year when things were normal) both parties were liberal and shared the same general set of liberal values.  We used to talk about "liberals" like Ted Kennedy vs. "conservatives" like Reagan, but both those guys were liberals in the historical/European sense of the word.  They both agreed that we need a government, but that that government should be sharply limited in its ability to interact with its citizens.  They both supported freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and so on.  They both supported free-market capitalism.  

Now obviously those two guys drew some lines in slightly different places.  Ted Kennedy's preferred version of capitalism looked different than Reagan's, but they were mainly arguing about stuff on the margin, like the correct generosity of the welfare state.  Likewise, Reagan was friendlier to evangelical Christians than Kennedy, but it's not as if either guy wanted to impose a state-sanctioned religion or actively suppress religion either.  At the end of the day, these guys were on the same general team.  

And those gentlemen are just random examples of "opposites" who shared a lot of the same values.  You could make a similar argument involving Clinton and Gingrich, Romney and Obama, and so on.  

People on the far right are not having it with liberalism anymore.  And people on the far left use "liberal" as an epithet like they were at the 1988 GOP convention.  Ideas that we normally think of as part and parcel to liberalism -- tolerance, free speech, pluralism, etc. -- don't really enjoy a lot of support these days.  Instead, more people are simply unwilling to accept that other adults might hold different beliefs than them or want to structure their lives differently than they would.  Free societies don't work well when people won't leave each other alone.  

Excellent post…reading the reaction to Musk buying Twitter here and elsewhere it was fascinating to me how quickly free speech seems to have turned into a negative for many and how open they are about limiting it (as long as it does not apply to them)…I just don’t see that as a path that will eventually end well.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Excellent post…reading the reaction to Musk buying Twitter here and elsewhere it was fascinating to me how quickly free speech seems to have turned into a negative for many and how open they are about limiting it (as long as it does not apply to them)…I just don’t see that as a path that will eventually end well.

Well there is a difference..... at least there seems to be. Government is different than Twitter.  

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Fun thread. Been awhile. 

 

[DocHolliday]

If someone believes everything they read on the internet or watch on the news, then a misinformation agency isn't going to make a difference in their lives or how they process the information the receive.  It just becomes another source to either blindly agree with or treat as propaganda.  How does something get classified as "misinformation" anyway.

Ivan brought up a great point, if Trump was in control of the misinformation agency, would any individual who was a never Trumper really have faith in anything the agency says anyway.  This just seems like a big waste of taxpayer money.   

We need less government, not more.  Once these departments are put in place, they just grow and bloat.  

 

[Van Dyman]

No, this is not from a George Orwell novel.  It's actually happening - in the United States of America.  Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testified Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security is creating a "Disinformation Governance Board" to combat misinformation.  According to Mayorkas:

“I think that we are seeing, indeed, a greater connectivity between misinformation and false narratives propagated on social media and the threat landscape,[…] I think it’s very important to state that words matter. False narratives about a stolen election have an impact on the threat landscape. The words of leaders matter a lot. So I think we’re seeing a greater connectivity”

Also mentioned as another cause for this Board being needed?  How about the misinformation on Covid.  You know, the "Lab Leak" theory, which is now endorsed by some high profile former health officials.

The Government is now interjecting itself in the highly subjective realm of what is and isn't misinformation.

Your quoted section is from January 4th, not really part of yesterday's announcement. The context of that quote was discussing the upcoming 1-year anniversary of J6.

I'm not saying he didn't say that, but the context in which the quote is placed within your concern about the "Disinformation Governance Board" could be misleading. The way you put those together some people could read it and think the quote was related to the new announcement. Maybe it is related (similar topic) but the way you have it there is problematic, imo.

 

[Insein]

This honestly seems like a good thing to me. I mean, the election wasn’t stolen and millions still think it was. And that led directly to the January 6 riot. So let’s get the truth out there. 

Now preface your thoughts on the likely hood of Republicans winning in the fall and having control of these same powers.

 

[jrt103]

Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia

 

[Jackstraw]

What? I don't see what the problem is. Just spitting troof. 

Good lord thats laying it on a little thick even for Trump. I mean if that isn't straight out of the authoritarian playbook I'm not sure what is. Absolute demagoguery. 

The very same people who piously claimed to be defending democracy are the ones throwing open your borders, surrendering your sovereignty, defunding your police, prosecuting your politicians — like nobody's ever seen before, by the way… desecrating your laws, crushing your wages, diluting your vote, and handing your country over millions and millions of illegal foreign nationals — illegal aliens, I would call them — all without your consent.

You haven't consented to that. On top of that you, had a fake, phony election….

But no matter how big or powerful these corrupt radicals may be, you must never forget this nation does not belong to them. This nation belongs to you. This is your home. This is your heritage, and your great American liberty is your God-given right.

In this moment together, we're standing up against some of the most menacing forces, entrenched interests, and vicious opponents our people have ever seen or fought against. Despite great outside powers and dangers, our biggest threat remains the sick, sinister and evil people from within our own country.

There is no threat as dangerous to democracy as they are. Just look at the un-select committee of political hacks and what they're doing to our country while radical-left murderers, rapists, and insurrectionists roam free: Nothing happens to them.

 

[djmich]

  

 

[Philo Beddoe]

  

 

[ekbeats]

Your quoted section is from January 4th, not really part of yesterday's announcement. The context of that quote was discussing the upcoming 1-year anniversary of J6.

I'm not saying he didn't say that, but the context in which the quote is placed within your concern about the "Disinformation Governance Board" could be misleading. The way you put those together some people could read it and think the quote was related to the new announcement. Maybe it is related (similar topic) but the way you have it there is problematic, imo.

Sloppy.  I revised the post.  Lesson learned - don't post past midnight while you're also multi-tasking.

 

[ekbeats]

Details are still sketchy (a separate problem entirely), but the best case scenario is that this Board will only be involved in combating foreign misinformation.  At first blush this would seem like a good thing, and perhaps not even problematic as free speech doesn't apply to the messages of other countries.  But it's not black and white.

Let's examine the Steele Report, which was never really considered disinformation and was talked about by virtually all media sources.  If you consider that the Report was written by an English spy, using intelligence he received from Russian sources, with possible interference in the course of the 2016 election - how would that be handled by today's new Board?  How on earth do they determine what is misinformation and disinformation?  And how is that not influenced by the political bias of the person running the Board?

Nina Jankowicz didn't have a problem with the Steele Report when it came out.  But when the Hunter Biden laptop story broke she said:

"Disinformation experts say there are multiple red flags that raise doubts about their authenticity, including questions about whether the laptop actually belongs to Hunter Biden.  We should view it as a Trump campaign product.”

She concluded this without having any hard proof.  In fact, there was proof that it wasn't disinformation - namely the statement put out by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe that the information on Biden’s laptop “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."  The FBI and Justice Department also concurred that it wasn't Russian disinformation.  And they would all know, because they had been reviewing its contents for almost a full year.  But Nina Jankowicz still insinuated it was disinformation.  I wonder why?

You guys can argue all you want that she made the right calls at the time.  But from a results standpoint she made the wrong call in both instances.  Here's a good article about her views and conclusions.   I'm certainly not comfortable having read that.

Even if the Board's charter is to limit its involvement to foreign disinformation only, it's never going to be clear-cut.  Let's take the Steele dossier.  It was paid for and released by Fusion GPS, a domestic product if you will.  But its content contained Russian disinformation within it.  What the hell is the Board going to do with it?  Prevent it from being published?  Attach a disclaimer to it?  Their charge is to combat disinformation, so they are going to do something.

It's a fallacy to think that our polarized Government can fairly evaluate and "combat" disinformation.  I don't care how they structure this, or how well-intentioned they are, I can guarantee that at some point they will infringe on the 1st Amendment.  But even more important - I don't have any confidence they will do a good job at it. Disinformation is often highly subjective.  A couple years ago the lab leak theory was disinformation.  Today there are several high profile health officials who believe the lab leak theory, including former FDA Commission Scott Gottlieb and former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield.  Information evolves over time, sometimes it takes years to determine if something was true or false.  Yet elections are time sensitive, and I'm concerned this Board will act way too prematurely.  Maybe it will work out, but I highly doubt it.  I trust the wisdom of large groups and the free-flow of ideas a whole lot more than I trust partisan bureaucrats.

 

[sho nuff]

She concluded that based on its appearance and it came from Bannon and Giuliani.

 

[parasaurolophus]

She concluded that based on its appearance and it came from Bannon and Giuliani.

Its appearance? Like photo evidence? 

 

[ekbeats]

She concluded that based on its appearance and it came from Bannon and Giuliani.

So?  If that alone makes something "disinformation" then I've proven my point that this Board is doomed to fail.  And to be exact, this is what she said:

"Disinformation experts say there are multiple red flags that raise doubts about their authenticity, including questions about whether the laptop actually belongs to Hunter Biden.  We should view it as a Trump campaign product.”

In no uncertain terms she is doubting the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop.  She also said this during the debates:

"Back on the 'laptop from hell,' apparently—Biden notes 50 former natsec officials and 5 former CIA heads that believe the laptop is a Russian influence op," Jankowicz said.

She later tried to say that she was just live-posting what was going on, but it's entirely clear by the tone of her post where she stands on this.  She mocks it all as the "laptop from hell".  And none of that really matters anyway, because in the end she communicated disinformation.  That's a fact, and no spin by you or others will change that reality.  She also said this:

Not to mention that the emails don’t need to be altered to be part of an influence campaign. Voters deserve that context, not a fairly tale about a laptop repair shop.

I'm not even sure what point she is trying to make here, but she does refer to the laptop as "a fairy tale about a laptop repair shop". There is no basis for this allegation.  None.  And if you can cite proof that Hunter didn't voluntarily give his laptop to the repair shop then post it.

I'm actually glad you posted what you did, because it highlights just how much bias is involved in these decisions.  You've been given the absolute best proof that the Hunter Biden laptop was credible.  I've posted it two times.  I will now post it a third time.  Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe put out a statement, at the time, that the information on Biden’s laptop “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."  The FBI and Justice Department also concurred with this assessment.  And they would know, because they had been reviewing its contents for almost a full year.  

This information was readily available.  It was published.  Nina Jankowicz was aware of it, yet she still questioned its authenticity despite there being no evidence that it was Russian disinformation.  She and the mainstream media decided to draw their conclusion not based on evidence, but on a gut feeling that since it came from Giuliani, it must be disinformation.  This is a textbook example of bias, both with Nina and with you.  Bottom line, if Nina Jankowicz were ruling on the Hunter Biden laptop in 2020, she most certainly would have ruled and acted with the position that the Hunter Biden laptop was not credible. AND SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG, AS HISTORY HAS SHOWN.

It's a perfect illustration of the fallacy of the "Disinformation Governance Board."

 

[RCon]

Sloppy.  I revised the post.  Lesson learned - don't post past midnight while you're also multi-tasking.

What was the second task? 

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Dems: Obamacare will reduce premiums by $2500

Dems: If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

Dems: trump collided with Russia

Dems: hunters laptop is Russia disinformation 

Dems: Inflation is transitory

Dems: white supremacy is the greatest threat to America.

Dems: voter fraud is a myth

Dems: coronavirus came from bats

Dems: masks and lockdowns work

Dems: the vaccine will stop the spread … …

Dems: we need a Ministry of Truth to fight disinformation

 

[sho nuff]

So?  If that alone makes something "disinformation" then I've proven my point that this Board is doomed to fail.  And to be exact, this is what she said:

In no uncertain terms she is doubting the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop.  She also said this during the debates:

She later tried to say that she was just live-posting what was going on, but it's entirely clear by the tone of her post where she stands on this.  She mocks it all as the "laptop from hell".  And none of that really matters anyway, because in the end she communicated disinformation.  That's a fact, and no spin by you or others will change that reality.  She also said this:

I'm not even sure what point she is trying to make here, but she does refer to the laptop as "a fairy tale about a laptop repair shop". There is no basis for this allegation.  None.  And if you can cite proof that Hunter didn't voluntarily give his laptop to the repair shop then post it or shut up.  Respectfully.

I'm actually glad you posted what you did, because it highlights just how much bias is involved in these decisions.  You've been given the absolute best proof that the Hunter Biden laptop was credible.  I've posted it two times.  I will now post it a third time.  Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe put out a statement, at the time, that the information on Biden’s laptop “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."  The FBI and Justice Department also concurred with this assessment.  And they would know, because they had been reviewing its contents for almost a full year.  

This information was readily available.  It was published.  Nina Jankowicz was aware of it, yet she still questioned its authenticity despite there being no evidence that it was Russian disinformation.  She and the mainstream media decided to draw their conclusion not based on evidence, but on a gut feeling that since it came from Giuliani, it must be disinformation.  This is a textbook example of bias, both with Nina and with you.  Bottom line, if Nina Jankowicz were ruling on the Hunter Biden laptop in 2020, she most certainly would have ruled and acted with the position that the Hunter Biden laptop was not credible. AND SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG, AS HISTORY HAS SHOWN.

It's a perfect illustration of the fallacy of the "Disinformation Governance Board."

I don't think that is all that makes it disinformation.  I was replying directly to your quote that she did so without any hard proof.  When the intel community says what it did...and you then see who its coming from...an initial reaction like her quote "Disinformation experts say there are multiple red flags that raise doubts about their authenticity, including questions about whether the laptop actually belongs to Hunter Biden.  We should view it as a Trump campaign product"...  I think that is a reasonable quote from anyone who looked at this as it was coming out.  It should have been doubted based on those things.   Similar if such experts would have said that and Bezos was delivering something to Vox, it would be reasonable to treat it as such.  As did even right wing sources...they questioned it and would not touch what Rudy was pushing at that time.

What she stated she was live posting...was when she was directly quoting Biden in the debates.  Which appears to have happened...did it not?  

 

[sho nuff]

Dems: Obamacare will reduce premiums by $2500

Dems: If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

Dems: trump collided with Russia

Dems: hunters laptop is Russia disinformation 

Dems: Inflation is transitory

Dems: white supremacy is the greatest threat to America.

Dems: voter fraud is a myth

Dems: coronavirus came from bats

Dems: masks and lockdowns work

Dems: the vaccine will stop the spread … …

Dems: we need a Ministry of Truth to fight disinformation

 Definitely as much of this being said it was "DEMS" and not an individual...or selling a thing like Obamacare....and the bolded coming directly from the FBI and not exactly what was being said either.  Along with that not being exactly what people are saying about Voter Fraud.  Seems you are doing a good job at spreading part truths (at best).

 

[Sand]

Details are still sketchy (a separate problem entirely), but the best case scenario is that this Board will only be involved in combating foreign misinformation.   

I'm wondering under what department this thing is being setup.  DHS is an domestic tuned government agency.

It would seem much more appropriate that this, if needed, would be a CIA function.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I'm wondering under what department this thing is being setup.  DHS is an domestic tuned government agency.

It would seem much more appropriate that this, if needed, would be a CIA function.

DHS houses both the federal cybersecurity efforts and CBP, which would seem like the two most appropriate agencies for the two things mentioned in the AP story (Russian propaganda and human trafficking).

 

[knowledge dropper]

Its appearance? Like photo evidence? 

Sources over content.  Same as it ever was.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sorry for honda.

https://twitter.com/DanSanchezV/status/1519776435199750145?s=20&t=F0kN_Y0rqOyjaKO78pEEYQ

Dan Sanchez

Elon Musk buys Twitter to save free speech and days later President Biden announces a Ministry of Truth. It's like we're living through an Ayn Rand/George Orwell novel mash-up.

 

[GroveDiesel]

It absolutely does make sense to dig deeper. As I suggested, the best way to know what's actually going on is when the agency does something official (Sec Order, proposed rulemaking, whatever).

It also makes sense to hold off on being outraged at something until you know something about it, but here we are.

Well I would take the opposite tact. If you are going to create something as ominous sounding as a Disinformation Board and announce it, you’d better have ALL of the details nailed down and be able to detail exactly what it does and does not do, where it’s authority comes from, what they are authorized to do and not authorized to do, who they are targeting, what kind of oversight there will be, etc.

If you don’t do that when announcing it, I’m going to assume that there IS no clearly defined scope and that there will be mission creep, abuse, and corruption like every other ill-defined agency/program.

 

[Van Dyman]

Sorry for honda.

https://twitter.com/DanSanchezV/status/1519776435199750145?s=20&t=F0kN_Y0rqOyjaKO78pEEYQ

Dan Sanchez

Is there some reason to think this "Disinformation Governance Board" was started (or announced earlier than planned) as a reaction to Musk buying Twitter? Or are we just saying "thing B happened after thing A, therefore thing A must have caused thing B"?

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Is there some reason to think this "Disinformation Governance Board" was started (or announced earlier than planned) because Musk bought Twitter? Or are we just saying "thing B happened after thing A, therefore thing A must have caused thing B"?

Absolutely no reason at all. In fact it seems almost impossible that it was a reaction to Musk. Nothing in the federal government moves that fast. It would take DHS longer than that to replace office equipment. This is irresponsible and divisive nonsense that fuels dangerous conspiracy theories.

Also, AFAIK none of us as seen any official document from the government about this.  There's nothing on the DHS home page, or their press releases from the past week or so, or in their twitter feed over the same time frame (other than this). I believe the most accurate information we have about this thing is the AP article, and a lot of people are skipping even that in favor of conservative reports about it that omit the stuff about it being focused on Russian misinformation and human trafficking at the border.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Well I would take the opposite tact. If you are going to create something as ominous sounding as a Disinformation Board and announce it, you’d better have ALL of the details nailed down and be able to detail exactly what it does and does not do, where it’s authority comes from, what they are authorized to do and not authorized to do, who they are targeting, what kind of oversight there will be, etc.

If you don’t do that when announcing it, I’m going to assume that there IS no clearly defined scope and that there will be mission creep, abuse, and corruption like every other ill-defined agency/program.

Have you seen an announcement?  I haven't, and I've looked.  We're depending on media reports, most of which we've already seen omitting vital details in their stories about it if the AP account is correct.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Is there some reason to think this "Disinformation Governance Board" was started (or announced earlier than planned) as a reaction to Musk buying Twitter? Or are we just saying "thing B happened after thing A, therefore thing A must have caused thing B"?

I can't imagine something as big and involved as a Ministry of Truth was put together super quickly. Maybe the government can move that quickly but I'd be surprised.

I'd guess the real point of his not too serious  "It's like we're living through an Ayn Rand/George Orwell novel mash-up." tweet was just that they're happening at roughly the same time. 

 

[PhillipPhoto]

While I don’t think it’s the government’s job, how do people suggest misinformation be combatted? Or is it just the price of free speech?

With critical thinking.

 

[knowledge dropper]

She seems stable and objective.  Perfect fit to lead this nefarious department 

https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1519874519015608320?s=21&t=b_VADfGdqXreLOYzHMIeMw

 

[GroveDiesel]

Have you seen an announcement?  I haven't, and I've looked.  We're depending on media reports, most of which we've already seen omitting vital details in their stories about it if the AP account is correct.

This AP News article specifically says “A newly formed Disinformation Governance Board announced Wednesday”

It has been addressed several times now by folks in the administration. So I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

This AP News article specifically says “A newly formed Disinformation Governance Board announced Wednesday”

It has been addressed several times now by folks in the administration. So I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm looking for a primary source document. So far it seems like maybe "ammounced Wednesday" was just a mention at a press briefing or something, because I can't find anything in any of the places that federal agencies usually announce stuff like this. Not sure why.

 

[Joe Bryant]

She seems stable and objective.  Perfect fit to lead this nefarious department 

https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1519874519015608320?s=21&t=b_VADfGdqXreLOYzHMIeMw

What is the clip there? Who is the person singing the song? Is that a real thing?

 

[knowledge dropper]

What did I watch there? Who is the person singing the song? Is that a real thing?

That’s Nina Jankovicz. She is singing a song about Rudi being a liar.  She’s a loon. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

That’s Nina Jankovicz. She is singing a song about Rudi being a liar.  She’s a loon. 

And the person singing the song is going to be leading the Disinformation Board?

 

[John123]

And the person singing the song is going to be leading the Disinformation Board?

She also has a history of tweeting disinformation herself, so at least they chose someone who knows how to spot generate misinformation to head the board.

 

[knowledge dropper]

And the person singing the song is going to be leading the Disinformation Board?

Yes.  That’s her. 

 

[BladeRunner]

And the person singing the song is going to be leading the


Board


of Misinformation?

Yep, that's her.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yes.  That’s her. 

Thank you. 

 

[ekbeats]

Here's what she tweeted 4 days ago:

I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities…which are already shouldering…disproportionate amounts of this abuse.

Free speech makes her shudder.  Lovely.