4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

They are going to make determination on whether something is true or disinformation. It is a terrible concept to put a govt agency in a position of power based on determining truth.

Instead put an agency in play to combat outside interference in US elections. Or one to combat domestic terrorism. Don’t start trying to be the arbiter of truth. That begins bad and ends very very badly. 

So if one agency finds out there is Russian disinformation being spread (Say it's an election... Or it's a natural disaster. Whatever.), you want them to keep it to themselves and not share it amongst any other government agencies?

On 4/30/2022 at 6:53 PM, Dave Moss said:

Just google "school board online threats” my guy

There’s tons of information out there if you know how to look for it

Yeah!   Do your research, losers!

3 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

 

so, basically nothing "the right" is saying it's going to do. 

Problem is, most of the news consumed by the right originates from foreign disinformation campaigns.  So there's no way to "combat" it without hampering free speech.

Playing defense is a waste of time (and constitutionally problematic).  Play offense instead.

37 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

q loving nutbag trumpbots love russian propaganda and being fed lies. no governance board is going to change that. this is a waste of resources and just a bad idea. 

dems need to be better at messaging. 

Information is a legit battleground that can turn the tides of wars.  Always has been but now it's maybe more important than tanks and planes.  Strangling Russia with sanctions over Ukraine is only possible if you win the information war.  I'd say this is actually a good idea if you are revamping your national defense for 21st century warfare, heck go all the way and make a cyberwarfare military branch.  Trump's Space Force was a good idea.  A biowarfare military branch is also a good idea.  These are the battlegrounds of the 21st century as important if not more than land, sea and air.

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Problem is, most of the news consumed by the right originates from foreign disinformation campaigns.  So there's no way to "combat" it without hampering free speech.

Playing defense is a waste of time (and constitutionally problematic).  Play offense instead.

Again I think this is a battlefront where you have to play both just like any other.

2 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Again I think this is a battlefront where you have to play both just like any other.

It's a waste of time.  Say there's a Russian disinformation campaign targeting the right (surprise, surprise).  It catches hold on Fox and is repeated ad nauseam on right wing opinion shows, talk radio, FB, etc.  The DHS puts out a press release that says "this is disinformation".  People on the left, who aren't being fed the disinformation on a daily basis and already assumed everything coming out of right wing media is a lie, pay attention.  The people on the right, who are on a steady diet of lies in service of the Kremlin and don't believe anything that comes out of the mouth of DHS, don't believe it and are fed wild conspiracies that reinforce what they already believe.  All you've done is maintained the status quo.

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

It's a waste of time.  Say there's a Russian disinformation campaign targeting the right (surprise, surprise).  It catches hold on Fox and is repeated ad nauseam on right wing opinion shows, talk radio, FB, etc.  The DHS puts out a press release that says "this is disinformation".  People on the left, who aren't being fed the disinformation on a daily basis and already assumed everything coming out of right wing media is a lie, pay attention.  The people on the right, who are on a steady diet of lies in service of the Kremlin and don't believe anything that comes out of the mouth of DHS, don't believe it and are fed wild conspiracies that reinforce what they already believe.  All you've done is maintained the status quo.

I don't even think this is going to be the activity of the Disinformation Governance Board. Where do they even get the power to determine what is truth and what is not? And once the rubes are fed a piece of disinformation from their favorite conservative talking head, then somebody challenges it, they're just going to dig in their heels and resist any attempt to deprogram...

What is happening is there is a crazy amount of information being spread around the world - truth, untruth, and in between. What DHS needs to do is put on the brakes and say "Hey! Russia is sending lots of messaging about the upcoming election. Let's look into this." So they can coordinate between different agencies and figure out what is going on. What have they learned? What can they share? Otherwise it's just the Wild West, and disinformation can spread like wildfire.

1 minute ago, toolg said:

I don't even think this is going to be the activity of the Disinformation Governance Board. Where do they even get the power to determine what is truth and what is not? And once the rubes are fed a piece of disinformation from their favorite conservative talking head, then somebody challenges it, they're just going to dig in their heels and resist any attempt to deprogram...

What is happening is there is a crazy amount of information being spread around the world - truth, untruth, and in between. What DHS needs to do is put on the brakes and say "Hey! Russia is sending lots of messaging about the upcoming election. Let's look into this." So they can coordinate between different agencies and figure out what is going on. What have they learned? What can they share? Otherwise it's just the Wild West, and disinformation can spread like wildfire.

Yes.  It's this.  And it won't change.  Play the game, instead of holding onto outdated notions.

9 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

It's a waste of time.  Say there's a Russian disinformation campaign targeting the right (surprise, surprise).  It catches hold on Fox and is repeated ad nauseam on right wing opinion shows, talk radio, FB, etc.  The DHS puts out a press release that says "this is disinformation".  People on the left, who aren't being fed the disinformation on a daily basis and already assumed everything coming out of right wing media is a lie, pay attention.  The people on the right, who are on a steady diet of lies in service of the Kremlin and don't believe anything that comes out of the mouth of DHS, don't believe it and are fed wild conspiracies that reinforce what they already believe.  All you've done is maintained the status quo.

I don't think that's what they're trying to do here, I think they mean to attack the disinfo before it gets to Fox News.  Flag it as early as possible, let you see it but with a warning attached.  In some cases, yes , straight up censor.

Just now, dawkins4prez said:

I don't think that's what they're trying to do here, I think they mean to attack the disinfo before it gets to Fox News.  Flag it as early as possible, let you see it but with a warning attached.  In some cases, yes , straight up censor.

That's 100% impossible.

31 minutes ago, toolg said:

So if one agency finds out there is Russian disinformation being spread (Say it's an election... Or it's a natural disaster. Whatever.), you want them to keep it to themselves and not share it amongst any other government agencies?

Did I say that? Agencies share all sorts of data. 
 

Put the focus on protecting things like elections. Otherwise, go on offense as Van suggests. 

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

Did I say that? Agencies share all sorts of data. 

Yes, you actually did say that.  You said:

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

It isn’t good. Just abandon the concept and move on. 

The reason this group was born is because another board found there was lack of guidance how DHS is communicating disinformation threats. DHS investigating all kinds of things. If a group goes undercover and finds a server in Eastern Europe is fueling a propaganda campaign, can they share that? Who can they tell? What are the legal ramifications? What are the correct channels to inform the proper agencies? Somebody needs to figure this out. Otherwise they're all going to be stuck sitting on their hands.

48 minutes ago, paco said:

Yeah!   Do your research, losers!

is dave an eaglesva clone, or is eaglesva a dave clone? 

41 minutes ago, toolg said:

Yes, you actually did say that.  You said:

That not true at all. No where did I say agencies shouldn’t share data.

What I said was "create one or more agencies to tackle specific issues like foreign interference in US elections and domestic terrorism and did the concept of a Truth Ministry”. Info gathered can be shared with other agencies which is often done today though could stand further improvement for sure. 

8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

That not true at all. No where did I say agencies shouldn’t share data.

Then I am confused. You want them to share data, but you don't want them to have any ability to share? Is that what you mean?

Or you want them to tackle each issue individually as they crop up?

If this DHS board doesn't get to decide what is the proper way to share intel, then who decides how much they can share?

1 minute ago, toolg said:

Then I am confused. You want them to share data, but you don't want them to have any ability to share? Is that what you mean?

Or you want them to tackle each issue individually as they crop up?

See post above. I don’t want an agency focused on being an arbiter of truth.

What I think is the right-wing consortium has conspired together to bury this board within DHS before they even get off the ground. Why? What are they so afraid of? That somebody will find out there is an international effort to bury the United States in disinformation, and somebody is finally putting a stand against it?

1 hour ago, paco said:

Yeah!   Do your research, losers!

I should’ve just posted a bunch of links after I googled it.

Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, toolg said:

What I think is the right-wing consortium has conspired together to bury this board within DHS before they even get off the ground. Why? What are they so afraid of? That somebody will find out there is an international effort to bury the United States in disinformation, and somebody is finally putting a stand against it?

Its that we cant have morons spouting left wing disinformation, obviously

The purpose of newspeak is to narrow thought by narrowing language.

5 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

The purpose of newspeak is to narrow thought by narrowing language.

1984 wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual. 

8 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Its that we cant have morons spouting left wing disinformation, obviously

I did not say there is no left-wing disinformation. There is. 

But in this case, yes, it’s the right-wing machine who found out about this board and want to bury it out of existence. 

1 hour ago, toolg said:

I did not say there is no left-wing disinformation. There is. 

But in this case, yes, it’s the right-wing machine who found out about this board and want to bury it out of existence. 

Your posting on this topic seems to be an example of when someone decides something is bad/good solely based on what side is pushing what and not by looking at the actual topic at hand.