You said white washing neo nazis is problematic. A direct response to the article posted being critical of the agency ran the woman os is criticizing. You agreed and you're wrong because your post didn't include the Ukrainian part. Just admit you're wrong Again the new agency is and at foreign disinformation, you know like you whined about Tru QUOTE="FranchiseBlade, post: 14084633, member: 3415"]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.[/QUOTE] You said white washing neo nazis is problematic. A direct response to the article posted being critical of the agency ran the woman os is criticizing. You agreed and you're wrong because your post didn't include the Ukrainian part. Just admit you're wrong Again the new agency is and at foreign disinformation, you know like you whined about Trump not punishing Russian interference. It's the same **** mp not punishing Russian interference. It's the same **** Edit; you are totally confused. The article doesn't have a problem with the neo nazi treatment
Some more quick digging - seems that DHS has been making an effort to fight "disinformation campaigns" for a while - all the way back in 2019 (under Trump) there was this: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/f...batting-targeted-disinformation-campaigns.pdf Another document of interest from again, 2019: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/f...countering-foreign-influence-subcommittee.pdf Heres the Exec Sum: The threat of foreign influence (FI) is damaging to the national security of the United States and seeks to undermine our very democracy. Weaponization of information is used as a tool by state and non-state actors alike for different aims and objectives. While some federal agencies think they are leading the work on countering foreign influence, no single entity has officially been provided with a mandate to do so. To-date, the United States has no national strategy to counter foreign influence. The Department leadership can play a leading role in facilitating active coordination between executive and legislative branch activities in relation to countering foreign influence operations. In-addition, DHS should recommend and support the creation of an interagency organization similar to the NCTC co-lead by DHS and FBI. Inside DHS, almost all of the Department operating components have a role to play in countering foreign influence that entails the use of communication infrastructure, electronic networks, and malign cyber activities targeting U.S. persons, institutions, social media platforms, and other businesses. However, the Department still lacks a counter foreign interference strategy to guide all Departmental activities. The Department should establish a lead coordination mechanism with clearly defined roles and responsibilities supported by Departmental leadership. DHS should formally establish an inter-agency task force that would include all federal entities involved in countering the threat of FI, such as, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations, State Department, Department of Defense, Treasury, National Security Council, and the Federal Communications Commission. DHS should also ensure that all approved strategies and policies for countering foreign influence are appropriately resourced and funded. Finally, it is critical to develop a whole-of-society approach where government agencies have a meaningful liaison with the private sector, media, technology companies, academia, think tanks, and the general public. DHS can play a leading role in raising public awareness efforts, ensuring effective coordination, and providing information sharing mechanisms to identify and help counteract foreign influence operations.
It seems like you are talking about a lot of strange things unrelated to my post. The article posted by OS referenced to the Ukrainian Neo Nazis. They were the only neo-Nazis mentioned so I didn't need to include that part again. It was clear that the Neo-Nazi group this lady was associated with were Ukrainian. I'll let you go back and figure it out.
You are wrong about it being problematic that the government targeted them. It's exactly what you wanted Trump to do . Target foreign interference You are missing the point THEY ARE FOREIGN So why was it problematic? Either answer that are stfu. TIA I broke down what you wrote . I broke down what you responded to. Miss me with the strange ish
Whitewashing activities of Neo-Nazis abroad or at home is not good for one's resumè. That was the exact message I wrote. If you want to claim that it's okay for a resumè to whitewash non-American neo-nazi groups, that is strange. The problem is the whole ideology not the nation which is their base of operation. If a person in charge of correcting misinformation and propoganda has done that, it might be worth taking a deeper look.
They aren’t talking about neo nazis at home. Do you know if the government white washed American neo nazis?
It wasn't the government white-washing. It was an organization the woman that is to head the Disinformation agency was a part of. Did you actually even read the article? Did you read my post? I wasn't even talking about the U. S. Government at any point. It is very difficult to discuss anything with you when you aren't grasping what anyone is saying.
You're right, so why us hee doing it for Facebook problemiamatic? Facebook has limits. I stopped reading and assumed it gad something to do with the government or why else would it be relevant. She worked fora private entity which makes it less problematic. Edit Stopfake is a Ukrainian government funded organization. Who cares I
You must have missed my previous post on this. It doesn't even appear that this was created by Biden given that most of the work done to create the board was in 2019 before he was elected president.
I don't know, I was just curious if you had read what I had dug up - I thought it was fascinating that the disinformation board was in the works in DHS in 2019, but the way it's being presented is as Biden & Co trying to create a ministry of truth. I honestly just wanted to get your perspective on that.
honestly not sure I remember what post you're referring to . . . but it's no surprise that there have been earlier efforts and the new Board is an attempt to consolidate the various different efforts under one umbrella. Still doesn't mean it's a good idea or that Homeland Security is the right home for a consolidated bureaucracy. but if you have time to link to your earlier post that would be helpful
I have time for you https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/...-governance-board.315664/page-8#post-14085058 I don't disagree with anything you wrote here (nor am I saying I agree, only that I have not yet formed an opinion). My only point is that it does not appear this is a product of the Biden administration (nor Trump's) but rather of DHS.
So, it's "countering foreign influence". We also have "countering violent extremism" within DHS. These are things American wants. It would likely be much less controversial and probably much more boring to actually debate on the merit of these programs. Marketing this as a "disinformation governance board" almost automatically groups them under the speech suppression fear and thus plays right into human negative bias, a well-known bias that media uses to grab attention. But the real thing isn't that exciting, so negative and polarizing it is.
I did see that actually, just didn't think anything there remarkable enough to comment. The point of posting the Bezos tweet still stands: when you've lost the owner of the Democratic Party Home Town Paper™ you are in big trouble as a Democratic President
Perhaps. But I don't think a President should be micromanaging the minutia of every department. If DHS saw a need for this after much research and investigation to solve a problem - related to foreign threats, and the media is reacting as if is something else, then this here is a branding problem, not an operational one. It seems to me that there should be some mechanism by which different organizations and agencies are made of disinformation being used to threaten lives being conducted by enemy states. Why are we trying to protect foreign entities spreading misinformation that is meant to harm the US and US citizens? It makes more sense to have an advisory board sift through what gets uncovered as misinformation and deciding what gets passed on versus having intelligence agencies disseminate everything they find directly. What seems to be happening here with people like Bezos, is they are making snap judgements about something they know little about. That might be a PR problem, but we shouldn't expose ourselves to great risk from foreign actors because of a branding problem.
which speaks to the administration's overall competence or lack thereof I agree with this, but we already have the CIA. Not sure we need multiple CIA clones in the United States government misread that last line as a Brandon problem . . . double take.
The CIA is one of the sources for this. It's not a clone of the CIA but rather a clearing house for all intelligence sources. So instead of having the CIA decide where to pass what information, and what information to discard - have a board that has expertise in this and have it filter all the intelligence so only relevant info gets to the right people. It saves the CIA from having to build that infrastructure and lets it focus on intelligence gathering vs what to do with the intelligence it gather not directly related to its mission.
