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)

Maurile Tremblay said:
I would direct that question at Toby2? Or do some googling? I don't know.

I don't know of any already existing agency dedicated to looking out for foreign malign disinformation and advising other agencies about it, but there are a lot of things I don't know.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a job for Adam Schiff.

 
BladeRunner said:
To deny that the world was built by men is to deny human history.

Human history is steeped in violence and blood mostly done by men, but it's also steeped in some pretty good things too - mostly done by men.  Thing like the Declaration of Independence.  Like the 19th amendment.  Like the Civil Rights Act.  Like modern advances in technology, science, medicine, farming and a whole host of other things that make things easier, better and faster for EVERYONE.  

I'm just trying to bring some reality about the world we live in, not the world some people THINK we live in.  This woman clearly hates men and while I'm not saying there aren't some pretty horrible guys out there now, currently, and in history, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are also some pretty horrible women too.

This constant disparaging of men from women - mostly feminists in 1st world countries - completely ignores how they're able to even do that in the first place.  That's not to say women can't criticize men - we certainly have our faults - but the criticism you're seeing today is rooted in money, power and revenge.  They want to take down men, not work together.

Make no mistake, these women you're seeing - like this Nina Jankowicz imbecile - if they had their way men would be relegated to serf status if not completely removed from society. These are man haters thru and thru and we're seeing more and more of these women in today's world and in positions of power.

Treating the sexes equal is certainly something we should be doing, because as a team men and women can supplement each other with our strengths and move the world forward to a better place with the inputs of both.  This is not what you're seeing from the Nina Janckowicz types and, frankly, 3rd and 4th wave feminists and those MEN that support that.

Anyways, this is probably way more than what I wanted to type but I wanted to put some more context and thoughts around my previous statement.

Also, this is probably a topic for another thread.
Click to expand...
I would guess the retort is if the women had much of a choice in the matter, and if not really - how much thanks need to be given?  I get that there are probably men haters out there, just like we can find any POV or opinion on the webs.   Just thought it was an interesting POV and puts some of our conversations in better perspective.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
I would guess the retort is if the women had much of a choice in the matter, and if not really - how much thanks need to be given?  I get that there are probably men haters out there, just like we can find any POV or opinion on the webs.   Just thought it was an interesting POV and puts some of our conversations in better perspective.  
Click to expand...


Why didn't women have a choice in the matter?  

Answer that question and you'll see what I'm getting at. 

 
knowledge dropper said:
Wants the Misinformation Board editing tweets and cracking down on who gets blue checks
Click to expand...
Fact check: False. The clip in that article (good god, I actually clicked on it) has nothing to do with the Disinformation Governance Board, and there is no indication that this lady thinks the Board should have any role whatsoever in any aspect of Twitter.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Fact check: False. The clip in that article (good god, I actually clicked on it) has nothing to do with the Disinformation Governance Board, and there is no indication that this lady thinks the Board should have any role whatsoever in any aspect of Twitter.
Click to expand...
So the video is prior to her getting this position, but it was probably known to those that appointed her to run this board? Very comforting.  

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Fact check: False. The clip in that article (good god, I actually clicked on it) has nothing to do with the Disinformation Governance Board, and there is no indication that this lady thinks the Board should have any role whatsoever in any aspect of Twitter.
Click to expand...
Are you telling me The GatewayPundit was not being completely honest with their presentation of a story?

 
BladeRunner said:
To deny that the world was built by men is to deny human history.

Human history is steeped in violence and blood mostly done by men, but it's also steeped in some pretty good things too - mostly done by men.  Thing like the Declaration of Independence.  Like the 19th amendment.  Like the Civil Rights Act.  Like modern advances in technology, science, medicine, farming and a whole host of other things that make things easier, better and faster for EVERYONE.  

I'm just trying to bring some reality about the world we live in, not the world some people THINK we live in.  This woman clearly hates men and while I'm not saying there aren't some pretty horrible guys out there now, currently, and in history, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are also some pretty horrible women too.

This constant disparaging of men from women - mostly feminists in 1st world countries - completely ignores how they're able to even do that in the first place.  That's not to say women can't criticize men - we certainly have our faults - but the criticism you're seeing today is rooted in money, power and revenge.  They want to take down men, not work together.

Make no mistake, these women you're seeing - like this Nina Jankowicz imbecile - if they had their way men would be relegated to serf status if not completely removed from society. These are man haters thru and thru and we're seeing more and more of these women in today's world and in positions of power.

Treating the sexes equal is certainly something we should be doing, because as a team men and women can supplement each other with our strengths and move the world forward to a better place with the inputs of both.  This is not what you're seeing from the Nina Janckowicz types and, frankly, 3rd and 4th wave feminists and those MEN that support that.

Anyways, this is probably way more than what I wanted to type but I wanted to put some more context and thoughts around my previous statement.

Also, this is probably a topic for another thread.
Click to expand...
I’m glad I don’t live in your bubble. 

 
knowledge dropper said:
I must have misinterpreted.  

Regardless, she does not seem like someone you would trust running a Brownie Troop much less being the head of the Truth Ministry of the USA.  
Click to expand...
Sure...no more than I want GatewayPundit opining at all about misinformation given their rather poor record with the truth.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Fact check: False. The clip in that article (good god, I actually clicked on it) has nothing to do with the Disinformation Governance Board, and there is no indication that this lady thinks the Board should have any role whatsoever in any aspect of Twitter.
Click to expand...
... yet.

:P

 
Nugget said:
I’m glad I don’t live in your bubble. 
Click to expand...


No bubble here, my friend.  :thumbup:

You can deny things all you want, but the truth is the truth.  Unless you think the world wasn't mostly built by men?  And that men haven't done any good?  Is that your position?

But I think there is a larger question to be asked about your reply to mine:  Do you even know what I'm talking about?  Seriously, it seems like you're not really understanding what I'm trying to say.  Whether that's on purpose or not, I don't know.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Philo Beddoe said:
Why hasn’t this thing been scrapped yet? I am assuming there is context missing here and it’s an older clip but this is some serious Orwellian verbal diarrhea coming out of this woman’s mouth.

Biden's "Ministry of Truth" director says she wants "verified people" like her to be able to edit people's tweets so they can "add context to certain tweets"
 

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1524422163725434881?s=20&t=LnRd4jZkn2Xwgil2dgpNkA
Click to expand...


That clip appears to be going viral on Twitter today. People seem to think it has something to do with the Disinformation Governance Board, and isn't just a discussion that occured over a year ago between private citizens discussing Twitter policies.

I can't find a date for that clip, but it's almost certainly from before the Disinformation Governance Board was a thing, and has nothing to do with any government agency.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
That clip appears to be going viral on Twitter today. People seem to think it has something to do with the Disinformation Governance Board, and isn't just a discussion that occured over a year ago between private citizens discussing Twitter policies.

I can't find a date for that clip, but it's almost certainly from before the Disinformation Governance Board was a thing, and has nothing to do with any government agency.
Click to expand...
I agree i said it’s probably missing context. I am more concerned that the person headed to run this agency thinks this way.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
That clip appears to be going viral on Twitter today. People seem to think it has something to do with the Disinformation Governance Board, and isn't just a discussion that occured over a year ago between private citizens discussing Twitter policies.

I can't find a date for that clip, but it's almost certainly from before the Disinformation Governance Board was a thing, and has nothing to do with any government agency.
Click to expand...


Ya, people. Just a group of private citizens coming together virtually to discuss Twitter policy.

Who among us haven't donned face masks to hop on zoom to discuss who we should be verified, who should have ability to edit tweets?

 
Cheen said:
Ya, people. Just a group of private citizens coming together virtually to discuss Twitter policy.

Who among us haven't donned face masks to hop on zoom to discuss who we should be verified, who should have ability to edit tweets?
Click to expand...


I don't think that part is weird. People sometimes discuss Twitter policies. I've seen it happen right here on these forums.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
That clip appears to be going viral on Twitter today. People seem to think it has something to do with the Disinformation Governance Board, and isn't just a discussion that occured over a year ago between private citizens discussing Twitter policies.

I can't find a date for that clip, but it's almost certainly from before the Disinformation Governance Board was a thing, and has nothing to do with any government agency.
Click to expand...


??? Is one of those 'people' now not the Czar of your Disinfo Board?

I don't care when she said it - for her to state something so radical and now be the head of disinformation policy is disturbing. Her being bold enough to state this on camera in any forum at any point is absolutely relevant to her role today, and it's perfectly reasonable for Twitter and the rest to have serious concerns due to this clip. 

 
LawFitz said:
??? Is one of those 'people' now not the Czar of your Disinfo Board?

I don't care when she said it - for her to state something so radical and now be the head of disinformation policy is disturbing. Her being bold enough to state this on camera in any forum at any point is absolutely relevant to her role today, and it's perfectly reasonable for Twitter and the rest to have serious concerns due to this clip. 
Click to expand...
Before deciding whether it's radical, don't you want to hear more than a one-minute clip so you can discern what she's talking about? It sounds like she's trying to describe a policy that Twitter was actually implementing (although I know of no such implementation). I don't think I'm being overly mistrustful in suspecting that the context is missing for a reason. If she was simply describing (or attempting to describe) something that Twitter was doing or considering, I wouldn't consider that to be radical.

Also, I don't think it's accurate to describe her as the head of disinformation policy. It doesn't sound like her role is to make policy.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Before deciding whether it's radical, don't you want to hear more than a one-minute clip so you can discern what she's talking about? It sounds like she's trying to describe a policy that Twitter was actually implementing (although I know of no such implementation). I don't think I'm being overly mistrustful in suspecting that the context is missing for a reason. If she was simply describing (or attempting to describe) something that Twitter was doing or considering, I wouldn't consider that to be radical.

Also, I don't think it's accurate to describe her as the head of disinformation policy. It doesn't sound like her role is to make policy.
Click to expand...


If the quote is out of context, fine, let's hear her say that and explain what she meant and how she feels about censorship - because as it stands, it's a terrible look.

What is her role on this board? I thought she was the head. If she has any say with this Disinfo Board at all, that clip is plenty concerning as it stands.

 
LawFitz said:
If the quote is out of context, fine, let's hear her say that and explain what she meant and how she feels about censorship - because as it stands, it's a terrible look.

What is her role on this board? I thought she was the head. If she has any say with this Disinfo Board at all, that clip is plenty concerning as it stands.
Click to expand...
I agree that it'd be nice to get more context. I believe Gateway Pundit first posted the clip that has since been tweeted and retweeted, but neither Gateway Pundit nor anybody else that I could find has linked to the original video. I wish they would, but I have a guess about why they haven't.

Yes, she's the head of the Disinformation Governance Board. That's not a policy-making position, as the board isn't charged with making policy. Based on the info available (including an AP article and the Wikipedia article), the board will be on the lookout for malign foreign disinformation so that it can advise relevant U.S. agencies about it. For example, if foreign drug cartels start falsely telling Central Americans that anyone who shows up at the U.S. border will be granted entry (which causes chaos and makes smuggling easier), the Disinformation Governance Board can make the U.S. Border Patrol and other relevant agencies aware of it so they can prepare for the impending chaos.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, she's the head of the Disinformation Governance Board. That's not a policy-making position, as the board isn't charged with making policy. Based on the info available (including an AP article and the Wikipedia article), the board will be on the lookout for malign foreign disinformation so that it can advise relevant U.S. agencies about it. For example, if foreign drug cartels start falsely telling Central Americans that anyone who shows up at the U.S. boarder will be granted entry (which causes chaos and makes smuggling easier), the Disinformation Governance Board can make the U.S. Border Patrol and other relevant agencies aware of it so they can prepare for the impending chaos.
Click to expand...


Thanks.

If this is all this board is really tasked with doing, they did a HORRIBLE job naming it and should clarify its positioning immediately. I don't like how it all seems opaque - see: 'based on the info available' - given the name they chose for this board, and especially if the head has any legit history of being in favor of censorship of Americans.

 
LawFitz said:
Thanks.

If this is all this board is really tasked with doing, they did a HORRIBLE job naming it and should clarify its positioning immediately. I don't like how it all seems opaque - see: 'based on the info available' - given the name they chose for this board, and especially if the head has any legit history of being in favor of censorship of Americans.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this.

 
LawFitz said:
Thanks.

If this is all this board is really tasked with doing, they did a HORRIBLE job naming it and should clarify its positioning immediately. I don't like how it all seems opaque - see: 'based on the info available' - given the name they chose for this board, and especially if the head has any legit history of being in favor of censorship of Americans.
Click to expand...
We have an FBI and NSA found to be illegally spying on Americans.  Do I think for a second that they will stay within the lines?  I don't trust for a second they will.

 
It's Taylor Lorenz, so you have to sort through some ideological craziness to get there, but it sounds like they're pulling the plug on this one.

Now, just three weeks after its announcement, the Disinformation Governance Board is being “paused,” according to multiple employees at DHS, capping a back-and-forth week of decisions that changed during the course of reporting of this story. On Monday, DHS decided to shut down the board, according to multiple people with knowledge of the situation. By Tuesday morning, Jankowicz had drafted a resignation letter in response to the board’s dissolution.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/18/disinformation-board-dhs-nina-jankowicz/

 
Imagine trying to explain to a normal person in, say, 2010 that by 2022 the Washington Post's most celebrated "reporter" would be some dirtbag who goes around harassing random people over their social media accounts.

And then explaining how people just don't understand why trust in major institutions has bottomed out.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
It's Taylor Lorenz, so you have to sort through some ideological craziness to get there, but it sounds like they're pulling the plug on this one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/18/disinformation-board-dhs-nina-jankowicz/
Click to expand...
That article is consistent with my observations regarding how this unfolded. The Biden administration's roll-out of the Disinformation Governance Board was shockingly incompetent from the start. The name is horrible, the intended scope of its activities was poorly communicated, the person chosen to lead it appeared to be a left-wing ideologue, and even after facing a disinformation campaign from Jack Posobiec and similar right-wing provocateurs, nobody at DHS made an effort to publicly correct the record. (How can a new agency that's supposed to deal with disinformation be so incompetent at dealing with disinformation?)

In at least one way, though, Nina Jankowicz ended up being the perfect person to head up the agency. Whoever led it was going to face extreme online harassment from trolls and other bad-faith actors. Having written a whole book about how to deal with such things, she was at least better prepared for it, psychologically and emotionally, than most people would have been.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good take from Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald

@ggreenwald

Summary of the rules from the WPost and @TaylorLorenz

in case you're confused:

-- High-level officials of the Department of Homeland Security: off-limits from investigation and criticism!

-- Anonymous citizens who tweet bad ideologies: Dox, Unmask, Bang on relatives' doors!

@ggreenwald

In sum, a free press exists to unmask and punish private citizens with the wrong politics ("shoe-lace reporting"), not to investigate and scrutinize the beliefs, conduct and claims of powerful government officials ("harassment" and bullying).
Click to expand...

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
That article is consistent with my observations regarding how this unfolded. The Biden administration's roll-out of the Disinformation Governance Board was shockingly incompetent from the start. The name is horrible, the intended scope of its activities was poorly communicated, the person chosen to lead it appeared to be a left-wing ideologue, and even after facing a disinformation campaign from Jack Posobiec and similar right-wing provocateurs, nobody at DHS made an effort to publicly correct the record. (How can a new agency that's supposed to deal with disinformation be so incompetent at dealing with disinformation?)

In at least one way, though, Nina Jankowicz ended up being the perfect person to head up the agency. Whoever led it was going to face extreme online harassment from trolls and other bad-faith actors. Having written a whole book about how to deal with such things, she was at least better prepared for it, psychologically and emotionally, than most people would have been.
Click to expand...
I only know who Jack Posobiec is very vaguely, but I don't think ideological activists who openly wage little campaigns on social media can fairly be called provocateurs.  They're just American citizens (I assume) expressing their opinions about an action taken by their government.  They're entitled to petition that government for the redress of their grievance of choice. Once upon a time, our legacy media institutions would have understood that.

And it's not like it was "disinformation" to point out that this Jankowicz person is a fruitcake.  First of all, she does in fact appear to be a fruitcake.  Secondly, government officials are going to field a little unfair criticism from time to time.  I'm sure people occasionally say unfriendly things about Biden or Mitch Connell every now and again.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I only know who Jack Posobiec is very vaguely, but I don't think ideological activists who openly wage little campaigns on social media can fairly be called provocateurs.  They're just American citizens (I assume) expressing their opinions about an action taken by their government. 
Click to expand...


"Jack Posobiec is an American alt-right and alt-lite political activist, television correspondent and presenter, conspiracy theorist, and provocateur."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Posobiec

 
Good, #### 'em!

Obscure MMA reference, aside, great great riddance. What the Left doesn't seem to understand (or maybe they do, I dunno anymore) about taking steps toward institutionalized mass censorship is that if ever actually in place, it quickly devolves into fertile ground for political abuse - it already has plenty over the last two years and we're not even in full-blown censorship mode. That may not sound so scary when your party is in charge, but you have to think in years, rather than months. You have to think in terms of precedent, slopes and ultimately handing such power to future regimes. If a truly evil person or persons come to power soon or later with censorship as an established tool, then what?

I know, I know. This Disinformation Governance Board didn't have any police power. I don't care. It's the optics around that name and the person (people?) set up to administer it that were completely asinine. We need to stand up to protect speech, dialogue, discourse in this nation from any parties that would rather stifle it, like Nina Jank. This body was either a preliminary salvo against free speech by the Biden admin or it was yet another exercise in bumbling leadership by them, given name and personnel choices. Perhaps it was both. Either way, #### 'em for conjuring it and hopefully its gone forever, though I highly doubt that with this crew.

 
This...is...next...level...  😭

Video link

DOOCY: "The disinformation board is being shutdown because of disinformation? Is that what's happening here?" JEAN-PIERRE: "There's been mischaracterizations by outside forces."

 
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
741
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