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)
- Thread starter ekbeats
- Start date
Sand
Footballguy
My workday doesn't end until after Tucker - haven't watched him for 6 months, at least. Only news I get these days is a bit of FBN in the morning. So the aspersions can be dropped.
What's actually going on here is a new Committee for Public Information being formed. It's as obvious as a log in one's eye.
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
OK, man. I've explained this as many times as I can. Longtime posters (like yourself) may remember I used to do the exact same thing with people on my side of the aisle during the Trump administration. If you want to reject what I'm saying to you despite the fact that I'm very clearly correct and grab a tin hat instead, go for it. Gotta be honest though: you're one of the guys I would have expected to be smart and open-minded enough to see through this nonsense.
Sand
Footballguy
I have a fundamental mistrust of government when it comes to protecting our constitutionally granted freedoms. There always seems to be some excuse to clamp down and we've seen it over and over and over. It comes from both sides (which is why I'm mostly libertarian), but as of late has come heavily from the left. There is a palpable distaste from that side for the 1st and 2nd amendments. This may be proclaimed to the hills to be a benevolent oversight board. I don't believe it and I have many good, documentable reasons why I don't believe it.
A board like this shouldn't even be conceivable in this country. Yet here it is.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This used to be the default position that all reasonable people were supposed to adopt. You're not wrong to hold this view.
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
1. Who do you think is responsible for protecting our constitutionally granted freedoms?
2. What do you mean "a board like this?" What is this board like? Are you basing your assessment that it shouldn't exist entirely on the name? Does that system mean we can get rid of the Utah Jazz and Truth Social too?
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
No offense but she comes across, in her own posts, as too unhinged to be trusted running a Brownie Troop.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Kind of reminds you of North Korea, TBH, that bastion of freedom and tolerance.
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
No offense, but if we applied this logic to social media posts from all politicians the only people left in the GOP would be Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and all the old guys who can't figure out how to open Twitter on their phones.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Sand
Footballguy
Seeing as I used to go to NO Jazz games (Pistol Pete, et.al.) this is an affront to common decency. In this one instance I'd be ok with suspending Utah's rights here and ban them from using this name.
The citizenry. And to a large part our military.
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
I think our nation can survive an administration that notes the existence of a new advisory board in an extemporaneous response to congressional questioning before it has had a chance to provide the necessary info to head off any outrage from people who are outraged when Minnie Mouse changes her outfit. The last administration wondered aloud whether humans should consume bleach to protect from COVID and we made it through that, sort of.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
No. The citizens are the beneficiaries. The protections come from the judiciary and law enforcement.
Last edited by a moderator:
GordonGekko
Footballguy
Nina Jankowicz is an intentional caricature. She's like a lot of women out there who want to be the next Jenny Slate. ( Thinking doing that will net them the next Chris Evans)
Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, AOC, Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, London Breed, Andrew Cuomo, etc, etc are all unintentional caricatures.
I don't want Jankowicz in any position of public trust because of her public policy viewpoints. I find her singing though, humanizes her. She's the kind of person who will be charismatic in a 1 on 1 situation but will find a way to incite any situation were she's in front of a large group.
The interesting thing is she knows she's a caricature. It's different. It's different enough to separate her from the pack. When you are a caricature, you are going to be treated as harmless by many. Which was probably the design in selecting her.
Her job is to bury investigations, that's it. Outward attacks on half the country's opinions are too toxic for trying to hold onto already fleeing voters.
She's fearless, I give her that. Very likely she's slightly on the spectrum. But her policy jacket screams discount rate social terrorist.
It's becoming more and more clear that Susan Rice has forgotten that the goal is to serve the greater good of the American people. Instead she keeps making choices like she's casting for a sitcom.
Not true. It very much was an official announcement. It was announced by the Secretary of Homeland Security at a House Committee Meeting. It was triggered by a question that seemed to be set up as a lead-in, but he read from a prepared statement. Politico had published that the announcement would be made - and they published that prior to the meeting. So yeah, it wasn't a spontaneous answer to a question, so let's dispel that bit of misinformation by you.
The announcement of the Board was handled poorly, by Mayorkas's own admission. And when he was given the chance to clarify things yesterday in a planned spot on CNN, he still didn't provide a whole lot of detail on what the Board will actually do. On the positive side he did state clearly that "American citizens will not be monitored." He also said that the Board will not have operational authority. But when pressed twice about what they'd actually do, he resorted to word more salad - "they will gather together best practices."
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
Thanks for this correction in the bolded, I was curious exactly how it came up (but not enough to look through a transcript).
If people want to think the lack of coordination on an announcement on an advisory board that nobody would have cared about if they hadn't chosen a dumb name for it is a sign that the government is falling apart, they are welcome to do so. Seems like a pretty high bar considering, you know, the last six years, but so be it.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there are a few different issues here.
1. Does a "Disinformation Governance Board" sound a little Orwellian and therefore ominous? Yes. I don't know what they should have called it, but something less allusive to the Ministry of Truth would have been good.
2. Did Nina Jankowicz do some tweets that make her seem like a hack, suggesting that she's maybe not a great choice to head up an Orwellian-sounding agency? I think I'd vote yes on this as well.
3. Apart from its name, based on the descriptions from the Associated Press and Wikipedia, does the agency or its powers seem like anything that should be distressing or controversial? I don't think so.
1. Does a "Disinformation Governance Board" sound a little Orwellian and therefore ominous? Yes. I don't know what they should have called it, but something less allusive to the Ministry of Truth would have been good.
2. Did Nina Jankowicz do some tweets that make her seem like a hack, suggesting that she's maybe not a great choice to head up an Orwellian-sounding agency? I think I'd vote yes on this as well.
3. Apart from its name, based on the descriptions from the Associated Press and Wikipedia, does the agency or its powers seem like anything that should be distressing or controversial? I don't think so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Great summary, this sounds about right.
"Disinformation Governance Board". Good lord. Franky the fact that these people can't see how that's a wildly stupid name for anything is a huge concern.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The descriptions I've seen have been vague. Granted, I haven't looked that deeply in to this. But, without more specifics on exactly what this board is going to be doing, what their powers are, and most importantly what the limitations of that power are, I am going to err on the side of caution and concern. Because, we all know once a government entity is created it is rarely if ever disbanded, whether it's still needed or not.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
“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.
So this small working group which is tasked to identiify misinformation, in their first action, basically provides misinformation about their scope. Neat.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
4. If 3 is true, then what is the point of forming this group? If it is completely benign and ineffectual then why bother with it? Is it possible that a governmental agency, headed by unelected appointees can either wrest additional power over time, or simply be used by whomever is in charge as a cudgel?
Like, is it completely outside the realm of possibility for Jen Psaki to simply start referencing this group in response to damaging information on Biden? She can simply say that..."once again Peter, the hardworking folks at the disinformation governence board have concluded that *damaging information* is simply Russian dis-information and we don't need to address it any further."
Literally no good can come from this stupid group and government has proven time and again that any power it is given will be enlarged, abused, and focused on American citizens.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I'm cool with our government monitoring misinformation put out there by hostile governments. That seems like a valid part of any government's counter-intelligence operations.
That said, if Bush had proposed something like this, people would raising holy hell over it for exactly the reasons that you laid out in your last sentence. And they'd have a good point. I would like to know what constraints are being placed on DHS to prevent this program from metastasizing into something unconstitutional. (As a reminder, after 9/11 we debated the appropriateness of using the FBI to surveil certain mosques that were believe to be hotbeds of domestic radicalism. I don't recall exactly how those debates went or how they turned out -- it was 20 years ago and I was torn on this issue at the time -- but we've done stuff like this before.)
I have been under the impression for a long time that our intelligence agencies already did this. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. If I'm not mistaken, why are we creating another agency which seems much more political in nature, to duplicate that effort?
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Well, that's a good question too. And why is this being done by DHS as opposed to the FBI or CIA? There are probably good answers to those questions, but I'd kind of like to hear what they are.
Skepticism is the correct stance that everybody should have about this sort of enterprise. Maybe it's fine, but the burden of proof should always be on the government, and we should remember who is telling us to shut up and just give them the benefit of the doubt. No government agency deserves the benefit of the doubt on much of anything these days, especially when civil liberties are on the table.
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
unckeyherb said:
Are you under the impression that advisory groups in government are unusual? They are not. There are a ton. Their function is usually advising lawmakers and regulators by supplying expertise for people whose jobs require a more broad base of knowledge. People who don't know subject areas very well can misinterpret information they're given and be vulnerable to hysterical narratives presented by media figures instead of the reality of the situation. Ask me how I know this!
On the second question- of course she can just say that. She can also just lie completely and without consequence. She can say the damaging info was created by aliens intending to destabilize America to prepare for their incoming invasion if she wants. Welcome to post-Trump America, where elected officials and their representatives can say anything they want to the press and to the American people without accountability or any other consequence. I didn't want it, but the GOP did, so here we are.
Last edited by a moderator:
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Of course I'm aware of advisory groups in Government. Some areas these are definitely necessary (typically highly specialized areas such as health, science, etc. where the subject matter is really difficult to understand; foreign affairs where a lack of understanding cultural differences could make for poor judgments of situations and/or responses to them.) This is neither of those. Like for real, it is not.
You like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Politicians lie and it didn't start with Trump FFS, regardless of your BUTTRUMP statement. The point is that Psaki coming out and blaming aliens would be quickly dismissed and she'd be recommended for a brain scan. Being able to lean on an advisory board (that presumably just knows more than the average bear) lends credence to her lies to many Americans. I mean, are you under the impression that advisory groups are infallible or even unmotivated by the politics surrounding them? Have you been alive for the Iran hostage crisis, WMD's, the housing crash, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Covid? This government gets it wrong all. the. time.
You seem very willing in this thread to give the benefit of the doubt to a government that 100% does not deserve an ounce of it.
Boston
Footballguy
Honest question...have you always been this willing to give the Government the benefit of the doubt? One of the most fascinating things (politically/culturally) I have seen over my lifetime is how the left went from "fighting the man" to being the man...if something like this happened 40 years ago I can not imagine the outrage from the left.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Your timing is off.
60 years ago the man was selling clandestine war, outing communists, repressing race riots, and recoiling in fear over rampant emergent pacifism and feminism.
40 years ago, the man was fighting against the ermergent greed is good culture and Ronnie Raygun and his portfolio of lies (Iran Contra, ignoring the aids crisis - God's wrath against the homosexual per Jerry Faldwell and the moral mojority, "just say no" as a proxy for abandonment of civic funding, the deconstruction of HUD and creation of the homeless crisis, etc etc.).
Today's counter-culture is groups like the Oathkeepers. Not quite the same thing as hippies.
Boston
Footballguy
This is exactly what I mean...the left just falls in line with what the man wants...it is fascinating.
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
I've worked in or around the federal government for my entire professional life, and I specialize in certain aspects of administrative law. I know the sort of things federal agencies can and cannot do, what they can or cannot trusted with, what is normal and what is eyebrow-raising. I've called out people on both sides of the aisle here for overreacting- anyone who was here in 2017 may recall me talking liberals off the cliff as the GOP rolled back a variety of regulations via the Congressional Review Act.
If something like this happened 40 years ago nobody would know about it, because the only people who would even hear about it would be reporters on the agency beat and people like me, ie groups that have the necessary tools and experience to understand what is and is not being done by federal agencies.
This is a story because of one thing and one thing only: the conservative news grievance machine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston
Footballguy
It is a story because people know about it...I don't think secrecy back in the day is a good excuse...and please, if you can't see both sides constantly gripe then I just don't know what to say.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
With all due respect I think you are outside your mind if you think this is the case. And if it IS the case that conservatives are the only ones concerned about civil liberties then we are through the looking glass with regards to our politics. And that is a frightening thought.
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
Not sure what you mean. It wouldn't have been "secret" back in the day, it's just that the response would have been informed and proportionate because it would get filtered by people who know what they're talking about rather than people who make money by ginning up outrage.
And of course I can that see both sides constantly gripe. That's why I included the anecdote about me having these same conversations with the left during the Trump administration.
Last edited by a moderator:
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
Boston
Footballguy
Wow...you are saying if Ronald Reagan came out with a "Disinformation Governance Board" run by someone who is most likely far right there would not have been outrage from the left? Or one step further if Nixon had done it...you really don't believe the response would have been "informed and proportionate" do you?
Last edited by a moderator:
unckeyherb
Footballguy
The difference being, of course, that Trump's administration rolled back EO's and policies that were well defined. People could disagree with them, but for or against, the policies were clear as they were already in place. That this group's "scope" is so nebulous is why people are not cool with it. Again, the correct response to any new governmental body and/or oversight/advisory panel should be healthy to heavy skepticism.
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
I'm saying that nobody would have known about it, because the only people who would have seen the story would have been beat reporters on the foreign affairs or CBP beat and nerdy career admin types like me who have the tools and experience to know that we need to pull what's actually been said and done and by whom before reaching conclusions. Eventually the name might have caught someone's eye and then they'd change it, which I imagine DHS is now considering for this Board.
Instead we now have pundits and partisan reporters who can simply follow the twitter feed or email distributions of a federal agency or congressional committee and look for anything they can use to feed the grievance machine.
Last edited by a moderator:
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Don't know for sure, but I could see this group being used to chill speech the administration disagrees with. The obvious go-to due to recency bias is the lab-leak theory. This was aggressively targeted as mis- or disinformation or simply 'racist' for a year by legacy media. The folks that mentioned it on twitter were suspended or banned. Hit pieces were written attacking anyone that spoke about it. If you disagreed with the beltway orthodoxy you were slimed as a conspiracy theorist.
A year later it is a very acceptable and viable theory to have. It should be noted, that no new news came out over the previous year to flick the lightbulb on in people's minds. There was a concerted effort to mask this as even a possibility. I don't really even care about the why in this scenario. The how and the what (and the who) are what is interesting.
In the future scenarios you are asking about, the who (elites in Washington and legacy media) and the what (chilling speech that goes against their brand of politics) remain the same. The how remains the same as well except it got a "plus this governmental organization" to further bolster the censorship they've ALREADY taken part in.
ETA: This should really be self evident. That there are people arguing that this is all a big can of nothing is beyond comprehension to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
This is not true. Trump did all kinds of things in his EOs, not even close to all of them were rollbacks.
I have no problem with initial skepticism. My only issue here is people continuing to trust the folks who make millions of dollars selling outrage over someone like me, even after I make an informed and concerted effort to address that skepticism.
I know you guys don't trust me because you think I'm a one-note liberal or something, but like everyone else here the real story is a little more complicated than that. That's why I keep pointing out that I had these same discussions with liberals during the Trump administration, although they were more open to my efforts than you all for obvious and understandable reasons.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Literally zero people have said you're a one-note liberal. I have no idea who you are and certainly don't know your politics. Your concerted effort to assuage people's skepticism has been, "hey I work with these folks and you just don't understand the inner workings. Ask me how! Nothing to see here, you're just listening to conservative radio too much."
I've seen enough bad-actor behavior from government to outweigh an anonymous dude on a message board. Even one that told liberals to calm down w/r/t Trump.
Boston
Footballguy
So the answer is we should have less visibility or no oversight from the public for something called a “Disinformation Governance Board” run by unelected officials because they know better?
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
It would be interesting to see if he feels the same way when Trump appoints Stephen Miller to head this board.
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
No, the answer is to find media sources you can trust to filter the unimaginable quantities of information produced by federal, state and local government information for you and tell you what you need to know. Absent that, the answer is to trust experts who are willing to look at the primary source documents and who understand how the administrative state works to explain those things to you in as much detail as you like. Another answer would be to educate yourself about administrative law enough to do that stuff yourself (FWIW I do not recommend this option unless you are a masochist).
The answer is definitely NOT to trust sensationalized news coverage that depends on your outrage to get ratings and sell ads to filter and interpret the news of the day for you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
OK. I've said what I can say here. If you really want to get yourself wound up over nothing, there's nothing I can do about it. Enjoy that.
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Similar threads
