What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Introducing the "Disinformation Governance Board" (1 Viewer)

Since this is aimed at Twitter, how does this affect speech in other countries?  What may be considered appropriate in one country may not be here.

 
Jankovicz is obviously getting a lot of criticism. I wish we had better details about the scope and mission of this board that is being announced. If it's something that makes sense and could work and with real guardrails & transparency, the might happen and she doesn't end up leading it. Kinda like Elizabeth Warren and the Bureau of Consumer Protection.

 
FairWarning said:
Since this is aimed at Twitter, how does this affect speech in other countries?  What may be considered appropriate in one country may not be here.
Click to expand...
What is aimed at Twitter...Jankovicz's tweet about free speech absolutists or this disinformation board? I may have missed it but didn't see anything to indicate this board is aimed at Twitter.

ETA: the AP article some have been discussing does not mention Twitter but directly mentions Facebook and WhatsApp.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-immigration-media-europe-misinformation-4e873389889bb1d9e2ad8659d9975e9d

 
Last edited by a moderator:
VandyMan said:
What is aimed at Twitter...what Jankovicz tweeted about free speech absolutists or this disinformation board? I may have missed it but didn't see anything to indicate this board is aimed at Twitter.
Click to expand...
Well, the timing of this sure seems odd.    

 
Terminalxylem said:
What percentage of the voting population is capable of critical thought? How many of those actually use it?
Click to expand...


Not an answer (and you weren't asking me anyway), but every time this comes up I'm reminded of the following from an interview.

"The problem of fake news isn’t solved by hoping for a referee, but rather because … we as users of these services help each other,” he said. “We talk and we share and we point out what is true. The answer to bad speech is more speech. We have to exercise and spread the idea that critical thinking matters now more than ever.”
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
VandyMan said:
What is aimed at Twitter...what Jankovicz tweeted about free speech absolutists or this disinformation board? I may have missed it but didn't see anything to indicate this board is aimed at Twitter.
Click to expand...
Her tweet was about Elon Musk ie - "free speech absolutist"

 
ekbeats said:
Her tweet was about Elon Musk ie - "free speech absolutist"
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware of that. Wasn't sure if FW was saying this board is aimed at Twitter so requested clarification. From him. He wasn't quoting your post (her tweet) so it wasn't obvious if he was referring to it or the disinformation board in general.

 
VandyMan said:
Yes, I am aware of that. Wasn't sure if FW was saying this board is aimed at Twitter so requested clarification. From him. He wasn't quoting your post (her tweet) so it wasn't obvious if he was referring to it or the disinformation board in general.
Click to expand...
Why is it aimed at Musk and Twitter?  Because “free speech” is threatened.

 
FairWarning said:
Why is it aimed at Musk and Twitter?  Because “free speech” is threatened.
Click to expand...
Ah. It sounded like you were saying this new board is aimed at Twitter specifically. Sounds like you just meant social media companies in general, including Twitter and whatever else. Gotcha. Thanks.

 
VandyMan said:
Ah. It sounded like you were saying this new board is aimed at Twitter specifically. Sounds like you just meant social media companies in general, including Twitter and whatever else. Gotcha. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I do think it’s main focus will be at twitter.

 
VandyMan said:
If some evidence comes out indicating this announcement is related to the Twitter situation, I would not be shocked. For now I'd leave that to the conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...


I would be. And I hope this doesn't sound too egotistical (it would be a weird thing to brag about!) but I probably know more about how federal agencies in this country operate than most people.

 
Toby2ElectricBugaloo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mayorkas announced it at a House Committee meeting Wednesday afternoon.

 
ekbeats said:
Mayorkas announced it at a House Committee meeting Wednesday afternoon.
Click to expand...


Thanks so much! I was totally stumped by this one.

I don't see any mention in his written testimony, so it must have come up in an extemporaneous response to a question. 

My advice to everyone- chill, at least until there's at least something in writing. Longtime posters may remember that my I often said the exact same thing to the folks on my side of the aisle about Trump administration moves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Toby2ElectricBugaloo said:
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.
Click to expand...
You’re just proving my point. They have had a number of people in the administration announce it/address it and there is absolutely nothing concrete yet. You want to take a wait and see approach which is your prerogative. I’m saying the fact that they’ve started announcing it without having all those ducks in a row and out in front is, in itself, highly problematic and concerning.

 
GroveDiesel said:
You’re just proving my point. They have had a number of people in the administration announce it/address it and there is absolutely nothing concrete yet. You want to take a wait and see approach which is your prerogative. I’m saying the fact that they’ve started announcing it without having all those ducks in a row and out in front is, in itself, highly problematic and concerning.
Click to expand...


Bingo...could also be the old trial balloon...put it out there and see how much blowback there so you can gauge just how much you can get away with before you make it concrete.

 
ekbeats said:
Here's what she tweeted 4 days ago:

Free speech makes her shudder.  Lovely.
Click to expand...
Now we know.  A social media outlet is about to be under the control of someone who won't collaborate with the blue team, won't censor speech the left finds distasteful or dangerous, and won't collude with a blue administration in quashing of news stories that are politically injurious.

It must be stopped.

Someone in this administration (not Joe, obviously) has a man crush on Woodrow Wilson and his propaganda machine.  With this Committee on Public Information... errr... Disinformation Governance Board I await the establishment of the requisite subdivisions - The News Division, The Social Network Division, The Streaming Division, and most important The Twitter Division.

Who are we hiring as the assistant director - Lois Lerner?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackstraw said:
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.
Click to expand...
And the other side of the uni-party does nothing to stop the march to agenda 2030. Leviathan creates the problem so they can come in with the pre-packaged solution. Order out of chaos. Same as it ever was. 

 
ekbeats said:
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:

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.
Click to expand...
I think it is well known and widely accepted that all politicians lie at some point. How is a government department going to fight disinformation when they are the main purveyor of the disinformation in the first place? These days if you disagree with the government you are a domestic terrorist. If the CDC can cancel your rent contracts what will this department get to do to us?

 
Sand said:
Now we know.  A social media outlet is about to be under the control of someone who won't collaborate with the blue team, won't censor speech the left finds distasteful or dangerous, and won't collude with a blue administration in quashing of news stories that are politically injurious.

It must be stopped.

Someone in this administration (not Joe, obviously) has a man crush on Woodrow Wilson and his propaganda machine.  With this Committee on Public Information... errr... Disinformation Governance Board I await the establishment of the requisite subdivisions - The News Division, The Social Network Division, The Streaming Division, and most important The Twitter Division.

Who are we hiring as the assistant director - Lois Lerner?
Click to expand...
This Disinformation Governance Board led by Nina is like a True Crime Governance board led by OJ Simpson to find the real killer. It's so ridiculous that you can't even make it up. We live in the upside down now. 

 
VandyMan said:
Jankovicz is obviously getting a lot of criticism. I wish we had better details about the scope and mission of this board that is being announced. If it's something that makes sense and could work and with real guardrails & transparency, the might happen and she doesn't end up leading it. Kinda like Elizabeth Warren and the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
Click to expand...
This woman is clearly a partisan hack and a propagandist at that and will be running some sort of ‘counter disinformation’ outfit for one of the most fundamentally authoritarian institutions that George Bush dreamed up.  What do you think’s gonna happen?  I mean come on.  

 
VandyMan said:
Not an answer (and you weren't asking me anyway), but every time this comes up I'm reminded of the following from an interview.
Click to expand...
That quote sounds great, but the reality is problematic, as we’re already flooded with data, with algorithms concentrating bias-confirming misinformation. Even if one is able to think critically (a big if imo), there’s way too much cr@p to sift through, and not enough time to gain all the required expertise. And most people surround themselves/follow like-minded individuals.

It would be interesting to see if the potential to be swayed by misinformation increases as social media engagement goes up. I’m not advocating ignorance, but sometimes disengaging is necessary to reflect and gain perspective, not “more speech”.

 
ekbeats said:
This lady’s a loon.  How many more songs are out there?  Good Lord.

https://youtu.be/60PLEXY-yHY
Click to expand...
I think they are just screwing with us at this point to see how far they can take it. They picked a Russian collusion hoaxer to run this authoritarian nightmare and, the current nominee for the FEC filed suit on behalf of Stacey Abrams for “insecure and unreliable” electronic voting machines.

 
So, who exactly is going to be on "The Ministry of Truth?" board.

They will decide what is right or wrong for the masses? Or what we can and can`t consume?

What is frightening is this has to be passed as an EO, meaning if the GOP takes over the whole board will be switched around and we will be going back and forth on who decides.

Regardless of what side you are on this should scare all of us.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Summer Wheat said:
So, who exactly is going to be on "The Ministry of Truth?" board.

They will decide what is right or wrong for the masses? Or what we can and can`t consume?

What is frightening is this has to be passed as an EO, meaning if the GOP takes over the whole board will be switched around and we will be going back and forth on who decides.

Regardless of what side you are on this should scare all of us.
Click to expand...
At least we now know what cards the lefties are holding

 
Watching democratic leadership try to do anything against the headwind of republican leadership has devolved to watching Revenge of the Nerds Part 7.  I'm disgusted with all parties.

 
 
On a more serious note, her book How to Be a Woman Online opens with a hypothetical where men say implausibly trolly things to her, such as "It's a shame about the [Ukraine] war, but this is probably the first time a young pretty thing like you is hearing of it."  She later postulates that if these things were said on the streets we would "call the police" and "law enforcement might make some arrests."

 
Awful idea. I can't believe this has been offered up for consideration, never mind at the executive level of the federal government. 

This sounds like a bad PR idea coming from Res Life at Wesleyan University in Middletown, CT, because somebody posted Leviticus quotes in the gay dorm. 

 
ekbeats said:
On a more serious note, her book How to Be a Woman Online opens with a hypothetical where men say implausibly trolly things to her, such as "It's a shame about the [Ukraine] war, but this is probably the first time a young pretty thing like you is hearing of it."  She later postulates that if these things were said on the streets we would "call the police" and "law enforcement might make some arrests."
Click to expand...
She seems to have a very high opinion of herself. 

 
I guess I don`t understand how this will work.  Nina and her people will decide what they think is disinformation.  Then what?   

Will they have access to all outlets? Will it be all partisan?   Are the Dem that scared of losing power they resort to this?

 
Summer Wheat said:
I guess I don`t understand how this will work.  Nina and her people will decide what they think is disinformation.  Then what?   

Will they have access to all outlets? Will it be all partisan?   Are the Dem that scared of losing power they resort to this?
Click to expand...
Are we going to need another ministry that combats the disinformation from this one?

 
GroveDiesel said:
You’re just proving my point. They have had a number of people in the administration announce it/address it and there is absolutely nothing concrete yet. You want to take a wait and see approach which is your prerogative. I’m saying the fact that they’ve started announcing it without having all those ducks in a row and out in front is, in itself, highly problematic and concerning.
Click to expand...


I was saying that they didn't really announce anything "officially"- the info last week was gleaned from an answer to a question at a hearing, not even from prepared hearing testimony, let alone an official publication.

That's fine, though. I'm learning that people on both sides are always gonna think what they want to think about politics and government, no matter how much expertise someone else has and how politely they first offer it.

I look forward to calming people down about the next innocuous administrative law development that some grievance merchant convinces everyone is the end of America after I am inevitably proven right about this one.

 
During a pair of television interviews on Sunday, Mayorkas cast those concerns as misplaced but said DHS should have defined the board’s role more clearly.

“Those criticisms are precisely the opposite of what this small working group within the Department of Homeland Security will do,” Mayorkas told CNN. “I think we probably could have done a better job of communicating what it does and does not do.”

Mayorkas said that part of the group’s mandate is “to ensure that the way in which we address threats … [occurs without] infringing on free speech, protecting civil rights and civil liberties, the right of privacy.”

The agency initially said the board would focus on countering disinformation coming from Russia ahead of the midterm elections and from human smugglers targeting migrants on the U.S.-Mexico border. But it said relatively little about what exact function it would serve, and its critics on the right seized on the board’s broad-sounding name to suggest something more nefarious was afoot.

Jillian York, director for international freedom of expression at the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation:

But beyond its ill-fated name, there’s no indication that the board will do what its critics have insinuated: surveil or censor Americans. 

On Sunday, Mayorkas repeatedly called the board a “small working group” without “any operational authority or capability” and said it would be focused on foreign threats to homeland security, not domestic ones.

“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,” he said.

Asked whether the board would monitor American citizens, Mayorkas replied, “No. … We at the Department of Homeland Security don’t monitor American citizens.”
Click to expand...


link

Wow what a surprise. Who could have possibly seen that coming.  bOn to being manipulated by multimillionaire media personalities into thinking the next innocuous thing produced by hardworking public servants is the real danger, I guess.

 
ekbeats said:
On a more serious note, her book How to Be a Woman Online opens with a hypothetical where men say implausibly trolly things to her, such as "It's a shame about the [Ukraine] war, but this is probably the first time a young pretty thing like you is hearing of it."  She later postulates that if these things were said on the streets we would "call the police" and "law enforcement might make some arrests."
Click to expand...
Nothing like pretend, hypothetical conversations to generate demand for 1st amendment controls.  Mayorkas actually lauded her and wants her in this position.  

I'm at a loss how either her, this position, or Mayorkas can be defended here.

 
knowledge dropper said:
She seems to have a very high opinion of herself. 
Click to expand...


Maybe she should? 

While critics have zeroed in on Jancowicz’s past statements about U.S. politics, her background has focused heavily on international affairs, lending credence to DHS’s claims the board’s work will not be domestically focused.

Jankowicz previously served as a global fellow at the Wilson Center international think tank and as an adviser to the Ukrainian government as a Fulbright public policy fellow. According to her Wilson Center biography, her studies focus on “the intersection of democracy and technology in Central and Eastern Europe,” and she’s authored a book on Russian disinformation. (We interviewed Jankowicz about Russian disinformation around the war in Ukraine in February.)
Click to expand...



 
Sand said:
Nothing like pretend, hypothetical conversations to generate demand for 1st amendment controls.  Mayorkas actually lauded her and wants her in this position.  

I'm at a loss how either her, this position, or Mayorkas can be defended here.
Click to expand...


It starts with understanding what's actually going on instead of what Tucker Carlson told you was going on.

Pretty good advice in general, to be honest.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did "Canceling" Babylon Bee's Political Satire Change The Future Of All Social Media Forever? (6/5/22 12:30 PST)
Replies
18
Views
757
Juxtatarot
Juxtatarot
LawFitz
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?
5 6 7
Replies
307
Views
9K
LawFitz
LawFitz
BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
6K
El Floppo
El Floppo

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top