I haven't had the chance to read through the thread but I'm not comfortable with the idea of creating a "disinformation board". The name alone does conjure up images of Soviet style bureaucrats deciding what is the official line. As I've said before I think private entities should have the right to decide what speech happens on their intellectual properties. That speech can and should be countered by other sources and have no problem with fact checkers working for groups like Snopes and Washington Post. A government Ministry of Truth though I think is problematic especially if it is given regulatory powers.
Correcting factual information is a necessary for any organization to maintain efficiency. The examples are about migration. That helps an already time consuming issue to say the least There are people who claim to have found legal loopholes to say things like you don't have to pay income taxes. Edit: the income tax scenario is an example of something the government needs to sqash
This sems to give someone responsibility for doing something already done. Think about signs in government buildings about not believing or attempting an incorrect procedure
The responses in this thread are ridiculous. It's Homeland Security. Nobody gives a damn what this woman thought about Huter Biden The article gives a clear example of its goal. These idiots worried about Ore people not giving a damn about Hunter
The desperation of Biden’s Disinformation Board There are dangers to using censorship as a political tool https://unherd.com/2022/05/the-desperation-of-bidens-disinformation-board/
I don't think she actually understand how it works. I mean I am trying to get how anyone sees this as censorship. It's a monitoring activity. Take an example. CDC recommends people get vaccinated. It has an interest in knowing the reasons people don't want to get vaccinated so it can help overcome fears. Instead of the CDC having to monitor the internet for that information, you create an entity that monitors for potential false information being spread across the internet, and then distribute the information you are seeing to the CDC. CDC gets a report of information against vaccines. Whether its true or not is immaterial in reality, it's just letting different departments and organizations see the information that is being spread on the internet to help them shape policy. Seems people are getting spooked out by the terrible name they gave it.
I don't agree with this statement. It's been clearly articulated that it's a non-operational board - only advisory to other agencies as a means to share what's going on in terms of disinformation campaigns being run by foreign groups and countries. It doesn't make public statements but is a strategic board meant to help different departments deal with misinformation as it affects their goals.
if you say so. If you've got a website or anything similar that lays out its charge and mission, I'd be interested to see that
that's not a terribly helpful or detailed document. Like I said, we really don't know ANYTHING about what Homeland Security plans to do to "protect the homeland." It's not particularly comforting to me, for example, to see the FEMA response to Hurricane Sandy as an example of the Worthy Work™ being done by our beloved dept of Homeland Security: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) corrected false information about the safety of drinking water and the location of shelters, to protect and serve the hurricane’s victims. I'd rather not have a Disinformation Governance Board to be honest with you
I too have not read a single thing here, but in the spirit of just offering takes without reading, screw the jackasses who invaded the capitol and QAnon and Alex Jones and ivermectin chuggers and Hunter Biden laptop sniffers and putinsts. IOW the entire GOP/MAGA lobby including @Os Trigonum , @tinman @basso etc. Neg rep to you all. I hope the office of disinformation forcibly transits you to Russia. I heard they were going to, btw. At least, that's the current information.
He's an idiot. But I actually find him mildly entertaining, so I haven't put him on ignore like some of the other morons.
It's poorly named for sure, and it's good to be skeptical, I just don't think the attacks being made are particularly honest. Given it is an advisory board with no operational aspect, I don't see the harm. So DHS has been finding this misinformation campaigns (campaigns, not just some random person posting something that isn't true) with intent to harm or exploit people. It makes sense to have a board review that and share that with an organization or agency that would be impacted by it. I don't see the harm in that, and that's my understanding of what it is. I understand if you aren't convinced, and I am not here to persuade you and again, I think it's healthy for people to be skeptical of these things. But so far I don't see why this is bad other than having a scary sounding name.
Meet the Head of Biden’s New “Disinformation Governing Board” Nina Jankowicz is a veteran information warrior. But her “experience” working with StopFake should have set off alarm bells. https://www.thenation.com/article/p...of-bidens-new-disinformation-governing-board/ excerpt: Late last month, the Joe Biden administration publicly confirmed that a “Disinformation Governing Board” working group had been created within the Department of Homeland Security. The news prompted a flood of concern about the impact of such an Orwellian organ on America. But there’s no need to engage in hypotheticals to understand the dangers. One has to only consider the past of Nina Jankowicz, the head of the new disinformation board. Jankowicz’s experience as a disinformation warrior includes her work with StopFake, a US government-funded “anti-disinformation” organization founded in March 2014 and lauded as a model of how to combat Kremlin lies. Four years later, StopFake began aggressively whitewashing two Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups with a long track record of violence, including war crimes. Today, StopFake is an official Facebook fact-checking partner, which gives it the power to censor news, while Jankowicz is America’s disinformation czar. If the Biden administration is serious about combating threats such as white supremacy, perhaps it should first reflect on the old Roman question: Who will guard the guardians? more at the link
Kind of a mixed bag there. If indeed, StopFake whitewashed Neo-Nazi groups that is problematic. The fact that they have experience battling Kremlin propaganda is a huge benefit and qualification bonus. Working as a Facebook fact-checker may also be a good thing, or it may be a bad thing depending on what their role was and the specific dishonest stuff they were able to have removed from Facebook. The algorithms used sometimes resulted in erroneous notifications. From what I've seen those were usually cleared up relatively quickly. Though not always. So that might be a slight knock against her. The article says that they can censor news. That isn't the role of Facebook or StopFake. The goal is to eliminate the lies and propaganda masquerading as news. So, it's kind of a mixed bag. Some very good qualifications and some possible red flag warnings as well.
Okay. That isn't really related to my point that white washing their activities is resumÉ bonus for someone who works for the Disinformation Governance Board.
