Minstry of Truth

[ClearedHot]

In what is perhaps the most dystopian thing Biden and his extremists have ever proposed it appears we will now have a Disinformation Czar that falls under the Department of Homeland Security.  Department of Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas announced that his agency is creating a “Disinformation Governance Board.”

Is anyone paying attention?  Does anyone care?  If you swore an oath to the Constitution you should be appalled and shocked.  The proposal gives this board the ability to regulate free speech, to take down websites, to control what the press reports.  For the record, previous organizations like this only existed in Russia, Nazi Germany, Iran and North Korea.  

The board will be led by Nina Jankowicz – a disinformation expert who has been criticized for repeatedly casting doubt on The Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden’s laptop.In October 2020, after The New York Post exposed damning emails and other information in Hunter Biden's laptop, Jankowicz scoffed and said “We should view it as a Trump campaign product.”  If she held this position two years ago not only would the laptop story have been crushed on Twitter and Facebook, she would have shut down the NY Post and Foxnews.

If this succeeds the Constitution is dead.

Please enjoy the Tik Tok this lunatic made!

[bfargin]

com'on CH man, you know dems can't be totalitarian.... relax it's no big deal.

[BashiChuni]

this administration is a total disaster and i think (come november) the american electorate is going to severely punish the democrats for going far left.

 

[Demonrat]

Something has to be done to combat disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive information made by unreliable sources like Russian and Chinese troll farms. There are too many dumb people in this world who live in their disinformation echo chamber. There are limited exceptions to the First Amendment, and fraud is one of them. While all disinformation couldn't fall under the fraud exception to the First Amendment, there is a subset of disinformation that could. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3860211 for a better argument than I can give since I am not a lawyer.

Your response is extremely emotional, especially with saying something like "the Constitution is Dead." Take a step back and put on an analytical lens. Not everything Biden does is an extremist "end of the Constitution action," and the same held true for Trump during his Presidency.

[arg]

Just in time for an election.

 

[Guardian]

this administration is a total disaster and i think (come november) the american electorate is going to severely punish the democrats for going far left.
 

That ain’t no lie. A little over one year and it far exceeds any possible damage a dem can claim trump (one of the most successful presidents in history by accomplishment metrics) caused.

[brickhistory]

27 minutes ago, Guardian said:

That ain’t no lie. A little over one year and it far exceeds any possible damage a dem can claim trump (one of the most successful presidents in history by accomplishment metrics) caused.

"We find this belief to be disinformation.  We shall be monitoring your communications, both incoming and outgoing, to ensure that you do not attempt to spread such disinformation."

a note from your friendly Ministry of Truth...

 

And given the support for such, even on this thread, it's likely to happen.

And I can assure you, it's a GREAT gig to get if you can be the one that decides what is and isn't disinformation.  Just ask any of the 50 former IC officials who signed the letter assuring us that the Hunter laptop was classic Russian disinformation.

 

What could possibly go wrong?

[Stoker]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

this administration is a total disaster and i think (come november) the american electorate is going to severely punish the democrats for going far left.

 

Democrats learned the wrong lesson from 2020; they think their agenda won, when really Trump lost. Rather than assessing their weaknesses, they've been emphasizing them. Not that Republicans have done a ton to present a more coherent and logical message, but at least they have a couple potential candidates on the right side of 70.

[Royal]

4 hours ago, Demonrat said:

Something has to be done to combat disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive information made by unreliable sources like Russian and Chinese troll farms. There are too many dumb people in this world who live in their disinformation echo chamber. There are limited exceptions to the First Amendment, and fraud is one of them. While all disinformation couldn't fall under the fraud exception to the First Amendment, there is a subset of disinformation that could. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3860211 for a better argument than I can give since I am not a lawyer.

Your response is extremely emotional, especially with saying something like "the Constitution is Dead." Take a step back and put on an analytical lens. Not everything Biden does is an extremist "end of the Constitution action," and the same held true for Trump during his Presidency.

That sounds like a LOT of disinformation.

[Smokin]

5 hours ago, Demonrat said:

Something has to be done to combat disinformation...

The solution to bad speech is good speech.  It always has been and always will be.  Not regulation, but more and better speech.

5 hours ago, Demonrat said:

There are limited exceptions to the First Amendment, and fraud is one of them. ....See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3860211 for a better argument than I can give since I am not a lawyer.

A paper from an obscure associate law professor is hardly a convincing proof.  There are exceptions to the First Amendment (for example, can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater (Justice Holmes - far more authoritative than one of 10,000+ associate professors)), but the Supreme Court has consistently held that any restrictions to the First Amendment is reviewed under Strict Scrutiny.  Justice Souter said, Strict Scrutiny "leaves few survivors", as in it is exceptionally difficult to pass a law restricting content of speech. 

We as country have moved far away from what made us a country to begin with and then made us great (not a reference to Trump.  Clearly we are/were an exceptional country and are rapidly moving away from our roots as a republic).  How many Americans today would agree with the sentiment that "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

As others have pointed out, how can a government agency be the arbitrators of truth?  500 years ago this agency would have worked to shut down talk that the earth was round.  200 years ago the abolitionist movement would have been shut down for claiming that people should not be slaves.  To claim that you have the corner on what is truth is the pinnacle of arrogance and the end of a republic.  I am not exaggerating and not giving an emotional argument.  If this board stands, our great experiment in a republic is done because you cannot have a republic where the government determines what can and cannot be said.

[08Dawg]

We have always been at war with Eastasia…

[busdriver]

The Pulitzer prize was established from an endowment set aside by Joseph Pulitzer, whose paper war with William Randolph Hearst established the concept of yellow journalism.  Those same yellow journalists bragged about their ability to start a war (Spanish-American War, "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war" - Hearst). 

Walter Duranty flat out lied about the Holodomor in Ukraine, and defended Stalin's show trials.

Disinformation isn't new.  Historically it comes from "authoritative sources."

The solution has never been to ignore the first amendment.

[HercDude]

10 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

The proposal gives this board the ability to regulate free speech, to take down websites, to control what the press reports. 

 

Source?

 

Quote

For the record, previous organizations like this only existed in Russia, Nazi Germany, Iran and North Korea.  

Patently and absurdly false.  Sounds like something Charlie Kirk would say.  Source?

 

Sounds like a dumb idea, but we should avoid getting emotional.

[TreeA10]

The further we get from 1984, the closer we get. 

With the recent history of government agencies involved in sketchy behavior with a noticable political bent, what could possibly go wrong?

[ClearedHot]

7 hours ago, HercDude said:

Source?

Watch the testimony and questions that follow.  Why put it under DHS except to harness broad legal powers?  Look at the lady they are installing as the director, look at her words about the Hunter Biden laptop and her book How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News, and the Future of Conflict

"What's changed about [fighting disinformation] today is the tools and tactics and speed at which the info spreads. Part of this is not only building resilience but we have to get the regulatory framework in place so that we can respond more effectively."

“...In the digital sphere, there’s artificial amplification of particular ideas, and so it’s cheating in the marketplace of ideas. If digital platforms can’t find an effective way to remove those fake voices, the trolls, the bots, then you’re not actually approximating the true public square.”

7 hours ago, HercDude said:

Patently and absurdly false.  Sounds like something Charlie Kirk would say.  Source?

Are you remotely serious? 

Russia - Pravda

Nazi's - Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment

Iran - The Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance - Additionally the "Supreme Leader has the power to appoint and dismiss the leaders of the judiciary, the state radio and television networks.

North Korea - Korean Central Television - It is so bad in North Korea that wrote a book called The Ministry of Truth !

The 1st amendment is crystal clear - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In a free country the government does not get to decide what is true and what isn't or what the press can report.  Based on how well our own government did with Vietnam, tests on American soldiers, Watergate...the list goes on.  The 4th estate is vital and although right now they are extremely dysfunctional, we NEED them.

[TreeA10]

ClearedHot, you are obviously ignorant!  You forgot Hunter Biden s business partners, the Chinese! Come on, man!  Nothing like trying to get through the Great Internet Firewall of China while visiting that country to drive that point home. 

[brabus]

17 hours ago, Demonrat said:

There are too many dumb people in this world who live in their disinformation echo chamber.

Then teach them critical thought, but do not for one second create a gov organization to arbitrate truth and therefore regulate free speech. Flat earthers are retarded, but they have every right to have websites, create documentaries, stand on a street corner with a sign, etc. Free speech is not perfect and fabricated bullshit will always exist, but that is substantially better than a restricted/controlled-speech society. 

[tac airlifter]

I can’t even believe we’re having a discussion to justify the first amendment.  If you favor censorship or think there’s anything reasonable about homeland security developing a misinformation department led by a woman deeply steeped in partisan misinformation—- GFY

[ClearedHot]

19 hours ago, Demonrat said:

Something has to be done to combat disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive information made by unreliable sources like Russian and Chinese troll farms. There are too many dumb people in this world who live in their disinformation echo chamber. There are limited exceptions to the First Amendment, and fraud is one of them.

Wouldn't than mean we should censor Jen Psaki who from the White House Podium has shared these truth bombs:

"Hunter Biden Story is Russian Disinfo"

"Putin Price Hike on gas"

"Inflation is transitory"

"It is irresponsible to say Americans are stranded in Afghanistan, they are not"

"Psaki denies transporting illegal immigrants at 0230 AM is the middle of the night, calls it early flight"

[HeloDude]

Unfortunately little of this is surprising.  When you can’t run on your accomplishments, then you vilify the other side as racists, anti-(whatever letters are now being used), extremists, spreaders of “disinformation”, on and on.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  Things need to still get much worse in this country for enough people (60-70%) to see that the trajectory we’re on is going to destroy the country financially.  But in the meantime, let’s discuss  “free” healthcare, “student loan forgiveness”, refusing to enforce immigration laws/border security, massive federal spending bills (yes, to include “defense” spending), reparations for slavery, banning fracking because we need “green energy”, on and on.

[FLEA]

This: https://time.com/6171183/elon-musk-free-speech-tech-bro/

 

That is why this is a bad idea.... Read these people and realize how fucking lunatic they sound.....

[HercDude]

12 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Watch the testimony and questions that follow.  Why put it under DHS except to harness broad legal powers?  Look at the lady they are installing as the director, look at her words about the Hunter Biden laptop and her book How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News, and the Future of Conflict

"What's changed about [fighting disinformation] today is the tools and tactics and speed at which the info spreads. Part of this is not only building resilience but we have to get the regulatory framework in place so that we can respond more effectively."

“...In the digital sphere, there’s artificial amplification of particular ideas, and so it’s cheating in the marketplace of ideas. If digital platforms can’t find an effective way to remove those fake voices, the trolls, the bots, then you’re not actually approximating the true public square.”

Yeah I don't really disagree with you, I'm just not seeing "control what the press reports" as a duty of this proposed board.  The first quote would be concerning, but it's delusive to take one quote from one woman and claim that to be the legal framework this board will operate under.  The second quote is a nothingburger.  She's talking about digital platforms (i.e. - social media) and their ability to monitor fake news, trolls, and bots.  I don't care what Twitter, Facebook, Truth Social, or Tinder does with their content or who they regulate, since they aren't the government.

 

Quote

Are you remotely serious? 

Russia - Pravda   ........................

You misunderstood me. I was saying it's absurd to claim the "only" places that limited free speech in the way you cited were Russia, Nazi Germany, Iran, and North Korea.  Again, that sounds like something you'd read on Breitbart.  Free speech is prohibited all over the world.  The government censors all kinds of speech today in the manner you mentioned in say, China or Pakistan.  Hell about 1/3 of the nations around the world significantly constrain free speech.  Close allies of the US and supposed modern countries like Jordan, Brazil, and Spain have severe limits on free speech and absolutely " regulate free speech...take down websites...control what the press reports."  

[ClearedHot]

8 hours ago, HercDude said:

The second quote is a nothingburger.  She's talking about digital platforms (i.e. - social media) and their ability to monitor fake news, trolls, and bots.  I don't care what Twitter, Facebook, Truth Social, or Tinder does with their content or who they regulate, since they aren't the government.

I don't read Breitbart, never have.  I think you have missed the main point, I DO care about the second quote.  Ever larger portions of the population (especially the younger crowd), get their news online and from social media (wasn't that the thing that started this fight), and I don't think the government should be empowered in ANY realm to decide what is news and what isn't.  Again look no further than the Hunter Laptop, I don't know if Joe Biden is dirty, I certainly hope he isn't, but the laptop is real and and raises some questions that need to be investigated and answered.  Twitter/Facebook purposely hid the story, shutdown the ability of news paper to publish on their platform and now the government wants to participate in that.  Her quote specifically says remove those fake voices, so she and her board could decide on stories they deem fake news and remove them.  Imagine if Nixon had that power.  If you read some of the editorials out there (likely fueled by "on background administration folks", they have even suggested a legal thread to take down websites or "organizations" they deem as fake news.  In other words they are trying to postulate derived powers in DHS that likely don't exist, but would be extremely dangerous.  If this happens it will of course go direct to SCOTUS and shockingly one or two liberal justices will be in favor, but it will be shot down.  The bigger point is the people in charge think this is ok...they are comfortable enough to say it out loud in front of Congress and a camera.

 

9 hours ago, HercDude said:

You misunderstood me. I was saying it's absurd to claim the "only" places that limited free speech in the way you cited were Russia, Nazi Germany, Iran, and North Korea.  Again, that sounds like something you'd read on Breitbart.  Free speech is prohibited all over the world.  The government censors all kinds of speech today in the manner you mentioned in say, China or Pakistan.  Hell about 1/3 of the nations around the world significantly constrain free speech.  Close allies of the US and supposed modern countries like Jordan, Brazil, and Spain have severe limits on free speech and absolutely " regulate free speech...take down websites...control what the press reports."  

Not to the same extent, we are comparing oranges and thermonuclear weapons, if you disagree on the point above then there is no sense debating this one.

[busdriver]

10 hours ago, HercDude said:

“...In the digital sphere, there’s artificial amplification of particular ideas, and so it’s cheating in the marketplace of ideas. If digital platforms can’t find an effective way to remove those fake voices, the trolls, the bots, then you’re not actually approximating the true public square.”

She's talking about digital platforms (i.e. - social media) and their ability to monitor fake news, trolls, and bots.  I don't care what Twitter, Facebook, Truth Social, or Tinder does with their content or who they regulate, since they aren't the government.

She is saying there is no gatekeeper.  This is expressly, and openly about controlling what is allowed.  The only other explanation is DHS is launching a government funded version of super snopes, which seems unlikely to me.

Congress has been tap dancing on the Harrison decision for awhile now. The disdain these people apparently hold for the common voter is disturbing.

 

[Clark Griswold]

First debrief of a website and content creator deemed to be disinformation: