Yes, I have had GOES for years (TSA Pre comes with GOES). Need to check if I can get CLEAR while on a non-immigrant visa. I might have to get a green card first.
The name is itself amusing, governance board if in the UK would be referred to as a ministry, and disinformation being a synonym of lies, so its as though they used a thesaurus after reading 1984 and flipped truth for lies, governor of disinformation might be the most honest title in government though..... But what is disinformation to the government? Recent events would indicate "whatever we need to not be believed, at any given time, for any given purpose", there's no real correlation between the truth, objective reality and what has been labelled disinformation in the short era it's become part of common parlance. Of course, it's for a targeted audience, that audience will believe everything they are told, just like they do right now (the educated, but not quite enough class come to mind here), one would expect the majority of people to find a sort of humor in quoting the disinformation governance board, the correct way to address it really will be mocking. I can't imagine any good coming from this either, and the ones supporting them will always be the minority, because the independently minded people will be reflexively distrustful of either side doing this.
What was Obama talking about when he said content moderation “doesn’t go far enough”? I didn’t listen to his speech, but I thought he was saying that the solution isn’t more content moderation, but rather reforming how social media works. See, for example, the Social Dilemma documentary. Rogan had a great podcast on this subject a year or two ago as well.
Why don’t we just wait and see what this actually is? Biden has a history of trying way too hard to be truly bipartisan and that often slows things to a halt (see judiciary review panel). If Biden creates a state tv news station or something that only supports liberals than even that move which I would disapprove of would still be dealing with Fox News, Newsmax, Facebook, and soon to be Twitter. In the end I think you guys on the right are so desperate to say “see you guys… Dems are autocrats too” that you fail to see the obvious fact that Dems like Biden are so far away from where you already are it’s laughable. Like it’s truly hilarious. Your cleric and leading presidential literally just staged a coup to stay in power trying to undo an election he lost. So sorry guys like @Commodore … sit this one out. I don’t give a sh$t what Tulsi Gabbard has to say about it. The lady with undying support for Assad and Putin really has no legs to stand on when it comes to autocratic overreach.
this is a decent piece DHS Disinformation Board: An Unserious Solution to a Serious Problem However well-intentioned the idea, the botched rollout does not instill confidence or suggest credibility. https://www.thebulwark.com/biden-dh...d-an-unserious-solution-to-a-serious-problem/
The title of this piece made me think I was going to get some insight, and instead its basically a stream of MAGA tweets for some reason. If I wanted to get a stream of Don Jr., Candace Owen, and Tulsi tweets I'd just look through Commodore's post history. But the title says the most insightful piece.... which is that misinformation or disinformation is a serious problem and there's no clue right now what the fix is for that problem. There's such a deep resentment from the right with years of tearing down credibility of the government (especially when they get power to show us firsthand) that "the government" fact checking is just going to trigger the right. Even though everything is going to trigger the right anyways, this especially will be something that creates enough fog that the right will be successful at using it as a tool to further spread hatred for democratic governance, & push their brand of autocracy. So here we are. Are we really at the point where the only people who we have to hope and pray have good enough intentions for Democracy are Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos?????.... I think it's safe to say that we are likely F-ed.
If you read the article, you'll see that the tweets cited are what she (for the most part) characterizes as "over the top" reactions. She actually is mocking the Candace Owens tweet, for instance, for conflating 1984 and Harry Potter.
I know but as someone that comes from the sales/marketing space professionally the presentation of the article alone is just like... ugh... You are just sort of asking for people to skim the tweets and barely read what you say in between. Like don't we see these tweets enough as it is even if it's left wing commentators on twitter who make fun of it, or the purveyors of MAGA tweets themselves. That's more of what I was referencing rather than the substance of the arguments in between dumb MAGA tweets. I think people from the Bulwark are mostly older political types who aren't media/PR people first but trying to use their knowledge of the right wing to help save Democracy so I don't have much criticism for the Bulwark folks in their intention, but it just goes to show you how challenging it is to be really good at media in the 2020's. So many people are really bad at this stuff.
Is Biden’s Disinfo Czar Qualified? Nina Jankowicz unknowingly advanced Russian propaganda about the Czech Republic. Why has she been picked to lead DHS’s new anti-disinformation board? https://www.thebulwark.com/is-bidens-disinfo-czar-qualified/ excerpt: There is a good reason why the U.S. government has historically stayed away from the minefield that is domestic disinformation. As any expert in this field will tell you, one of the core aims of contemporary authoritarian disinformation is the erosion of trust in democratic government. What does it say of the Biden administration’s readiness to take on this problem that the launch of its anti-disinformation initiative does just what it’s meant to oppose by arousing skepticism—even among digital media and rights experts—and undermining public trust? Compounding these issues is the matter of the individual selected to lead this new initiative. Nina Jankowicz, the Wilson Center fellow tapped for the job by DHS, launched her career as an expert on Russian disinformation with a one-year Fulbright Fellowship to Ukraine from 2016-17, during which she says that she served as a communications adviser to the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is reason to be skeptical that an American-educated twentysomething with a year and a half of postgraduate work experience in Washington (per Jankowicz’s own account) would serve as much of an “adviser” on counter-disinformation strategy for the government of a country that has been on the front lines of Russian information warfare for decades. During her Fulbright, Jankowicz traveled around Europe compiling research for her first book, How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News, and the Future of Conflict, published in 2020. It looks at five Eastern European countries—Estonia, Georgia, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Ukraine, with additional material on the United States and the Netherlands—to see how Russia targeted each with bespoke disinformation campaigns. Jankowicz approaches each as a case study: She examines the various tactics used to erode trust and sow discord, each government’s response, and the immediate results, and she tries to derive lessons from these episodes that can be extrapolated to an American or a global context. Among the countries Jankowicz profiles is one I know well: the Czech Republic. Over the last six years, I have worked at the intersection of disinformation and authoritarian influence, both within the Czech Republic and at the level of the European Union. My experience includes serving on behalf of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the East StratCom Task Force, a specialized unit of the EU’s diplomatic service devoted to exposing and countering Russian disinformation operations in Europe and the EU’s Eastern Partnership region. (Full disclosure: From 2017-18, I also worked at the European Values Center for Security Policy, formerly the European Values Think Tank, whose work Jankowicz discusses in the book. We never met and I was unaware of her research or interviews at the time.) Jankowicz’s chapter about the Czech Republic aims to evaluate the early policy response to “hybrid threats,” the term chosen by the Czech government and stakeholders to encompass a variety of security challenges stemming from anti-democratic state and non-state actors. She focuses on the establishment of a unit within the Czech Ministry of the Interior, the Center Against Terrorism and Hybrid Threats, which was founded at the beginning of 2017 on the recommendation of a National Security Audit. This audit had been prompted by changes in the security environment following Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine. The center’s founding goal was to monitor hybrid or “asymmetric” threats—not disinformation specifically—to increase understanding within state institutions and the government, and to propose policy solutions. Jankowicz’s analysis of this initiative and its origins raises serious doubts about her qualifications for a government leadership role on disinformation policy. Her research is awash in errors, built on flawed assumptions, and—worst of all—it fails to identify and pursue real sources of pro-Kremlin influence in the country. In fact, she repeatedly indulges them. more at the link
