Ministry of Truth?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-29-2022, 07:16 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Believe it or not, I believe in America and have faith that we have LEOs capable of discerning fact from fiction. Especially when there are settled court cases and official results for topics involved. And I believe they are capable of recognizing when fiction creates a danger to the public.

I have no doubt that LEO's, in general, possess this ability.  My concern is that the people in charge of them either do not, or don't care to. 

Quote:From your link
"DHS began its work on disinformation several years ago. The Department has created the Disinformation Governance Board to ensure this work does not infringe on the fundamental right of free speech and to further protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties," the statement read. "To provide this protection, the Board will coordinate the Department's internal activities related to disinformation that poses a threat to homeland security."

DHS, and every single law enforcement agency, already has legal counsel that perform this exact job, i.e. ensuring that the agency's actions are consistent with the law.  A new board is not required to fulfill this role.

Quote:And no. A pathological lying, serial sexual assaulter, traitor, conman setting up a ministry of truth (cough truth social cough) is the type of red flag to watch out for.

And you're finally starting to get it.  Remember, what is useable now is useable by the next administration and the one after that, and the one after that, and so on.  If you can think of a single administration that would cause you to be concerned about such a "board" then you've already acknowledged how bad an idea it was to form them in the first place.  Unless you don't mind the idea of Trump being able to determine what is true and false as an official government position.  Or maybe Nixon declaring the Woodward and Bernstein story to be "officially false."  Yup, no potential for severe abuse here at all.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-29-2022, 07:25 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: The first bit of my post was simple teasing. I never meant to imply you said any of that in any serious way.

Sorry, I know we're cool, but the wording left me wondering.  Sarcsam is hard to convey via text and all.

Quote:The whole thing is sketchy.

While I believe we should have something to combat the massive amount of misinformation out there, using any enforcement agency reeks of political prisoners incoming.

Absolutely.  That and the timing of this give off really bad vibes.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-29-2022, 07:51 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Well their factory setting would have them label it racist to start. Who knows what kind of tailspin the screeching would go into from there.

Very likely.  I'm hoping we see some real bipartisan action on this, and fast.  A nice firm rebuke of this obvious, and unconstitutional, overreach would be very welcome.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-29-2022, 08:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have no doubt that LEO's, in general, possess this ability.  My concern is that the people in charge of them either do not, or don't care to. 



DHS, and every single law enforcement agency, already has legal counsel that perform this exact job, i.e. ensuring that the agency's actions are consistent with the law.  A new board is not required to fulfill this role.


And you're finally starting to get it.  Remember, what is useable now is useable by the next administration and the one after that, and the one after that, and so on.  If you can think of a single administration that would cause you to be concerned about such a "board" then you've already acknowledged how bad an idea it was to form them in the first place.  Unless you don't mind the idea of Trump being able to determine what is true and false as an official government position.  Or maybe Nixon declaring the Woodward and Bernstein story to be "officially false."  Yup, no potential for severe abuse here at all.

And we are right back to my belief that America has more good people than bad and our government should be a trustworthy source.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-29-2022, 08:13 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: And we are right back to my belief that America has more good people than bad and our government should be a trustworthy source.

Except when a Republican is in the White House, right?  I agree with your underlined assertion, but completely disagree with your conclusion.

[treee]

Also: Disinformation is a national security issue to any one who has even payed a little bit of attention. We know for a fact that countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and probably China all participate in signal boosting extremists in western nations by means of things like troll farms. Information warfare is a very real and practiced thing by modern governments against each other. It's likely western nations also practice this in some form against any nation they deem adversaries and threats.

[BigPapaKain]

(04-29-2022, 07:51 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: That's a pretty big escalation there. From monitoring misinformation to political prisoners.

I imagined it as more of a readiness thing. Being aware of misinformation movements and acting to protect the public from health, safety, or security risks.

Covering all the way from stuff like a tiktok challenge https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/department-of-homeland-security-on-tiktok-challenge-remain-alert

to maybe stopping someone brainwashed form a bunch of lies going batshit crazy https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-houston-police-captain-mark-aguirre-assault-bogus-election-fraud-scheme/

I'm not saying that it'll immediately lead to political prisoners. Let's say they actual just go after people who knowingly spread misinformation (i.e: people who know better for any number of reasons), all they have to do is cry political prisoner and it immediately casts a dark light on the whole thing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-29-2022, 08:38 PM)treee Wrote: Also: Disinformation is a national security issue to any one who has even payed a little bit of attention. We know for a fact that countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and probably China all participate in signal boosting extremists in western nations by means of things like troll farms. Information warfare is a very real and practiced thing by modern governments against each other. It's likely western nations also practice this in some form against any nation they deem adversaries and threats.

You just described action from foreign actors.  Does that fall within the DoHS remit/jurisdiction?  Or is there another agency that deals with threats from foreign elements?

[BigPapaKain]

(04-29-2022, 08:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except when a Republican is in the White House, right?  I agree with your underlined assertion, but completely disagree with your conclusion.

Please remember the short memories of the common man. Not to take a cheap shot at Republicans, but look at the shit the last two Republican presidents have pulled (WMDs in Iraq, the Big Lie).

I'm not saying that the Democrats haven't had their bullshit (collusion, Bengazi, Iraq withdrawal). Maybe we just need to elect better people in general.

[treee]

(04-29-2022, 08:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You just described action from foreign actors.  Does that fall within the DoHS remit/jurisdiction?  Or is there another agency that deals with threats from foreign elements?

It's a good question. Looking at how many subsections there are of DoHS it appears their jurisdiction is very broad. The certainly do have some number of uniformed officers but I think the purpose from the get-go has been to serve as a nexus of mainly counter terrorism intelligence. Since the current nature of information warfare is about provoking/instigating unstable individuals who are sympathetic to extremist ideology, I don't think it is necessarily outside the scope of the agency. Of course it's fair to have reservations until we see how it's actually going to be implemented.

[CJD]

This country seriously needs a new left of center party. I hate that it's a choice between these dimwits and the ***** Republicans.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-29-2022, 09:14 PM)treee Wrote: It's a good question. Looking at how many subsections there are of DoHS it appears their jurisdiction is very broad. The certainly do have some number of uniformed officers but I think the purpose from the get-go has been to serve as a nexus of mainly counter terrorism intelligence. Since the current nature of information warfare is about provoking/instigating unstable individuals who are sympathetic to extremist ideology, I don't think it is necessarily outside the scope of the agency. Of course it's fair to have reservations until we see how it's actually going to be implemented.

You actually mentioned a key point of concern for me, that of labeling this a nexus of "counter terrorism".  I don't disagree with your assessment, but labeling dis, mis, or mal information as terrorism, which could easily happen, gives the government broad discretion to "deal with" said terrorism.  So now you've got a double whammy, the government can not only label you a spreader of dangerous untruths but they can treat you as a terrorist while they do it.  If you want a real life example of the possible consequences then look no further than Guantanamo Bay.  The implications are honestly terrifying and definitely a greater "threat to our democracy" (seeing as that's the current talking point) than any spreader of disinformation.

As you say, we'll have to wait and see, but as I said earlier, the optics of this are just horrible.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-29-2022, 08:52 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Please remember the short memories of the common man. Not to take a cheap shot at Republicans, but look at the shit the last two Republican presidents have pulled (WMDs in Iraq, the Big Lie).

I'm not saying that the Democrats haven't had their bullshit (collusion, Bengazi, Iraq withdrawal). Maybe we just need to elect better people in general.

You'll get no argument from me.  I'm on record here, multiple times, stating that Bush's presidency was far worse than Trumps, even if you just take his first term.  At the end of the day, I don't want any party creating such an organization, but for those of us who are more partisan, and I'm not speaking about you, it's often necessary to point out how the other party would use something to get them to understand the actual implications.

[treee]

(04-30-2022, 11:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You actually mentioned a key point of concern for me, that of labeling this a nexus of "counter terrorism".  I don't disagree with your assessment, but labeling dis, mis, or mal information as terrorism, which could easily happen, gives the government broad discretion to "deal with" said terrorism.  So now you've got a double whammy, the government can not only label you a spreader of dangerous untruths but they can treat you as a terrorist while they do it.  If you want a real life example of the possible consequences then look no further than Guantanamo Bay.  The implications are honestly terrifying and definitely a greater "threat to our democracy" (seeing as that's the current talking point) than any spreader of disinformation.

As you say, we'll have to wait and see, but as I said earlier, the optics of this are just horrible.

I get what you're saying man. Terrorism is certainly an emotionally loaded concept and a lot of authoritarian things have been done under the banner of fighting it. This might actually be useful for helping us defend against cyber warfare we'll just have to see.

[Dill]

(04-29-2022, 08:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have no doubt that LEO's, in general, possess this ability.  My concern is that the people in charge of them either do not, or don't care to. 

DHS, and every single law enforcement agency, already has legal counsel that perform this exact job, i.e. ensuring that the agency's actions are consistent with the law.  A new board is not required to fulfill this role.

And you're finally starting to get it.  Remember, what is useable now is useable by the next administration and the one after that, and the one after that, and so on.  If you can think of a single administration that would cause you to be concerned about such a "board" then you've already acknowledged how bad an idea it was to form them in the first place.  Unless you don't mind the idea of Trump being able to determine what is true and false as an official government position.  Or maybe Nixon declaring the Woodward and Bernstein story to be "officially false."  Yup, no potential for severe abuse here at all.

Actually,Trump control of the DOD, the DOJ and the FBI would concern me much more than this DHS "Ministry of Truth."  

Especially if Trump is re-elected and uses the state to punish his "enemies"--honest politicians who would not bend the rule of law when Trump demanded it.

A Department of disinformation management might prevent that re-election, so I'm in favor of the experiment.

However, as I have said in the past, probably not much can be done without addressing public education--more history (professional, not celebratory and nationalist), more civics, and critical media literacy. Students need to learn how to evaluate democracy, policy and leaders in a more systematic way, not just reacting to likes and dislikes.

Until that happens, public debate will remain a muddle of both sidesism and false equivalence. Disinformation will continue to circulate effectively alongside accurate reporting.

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-01-2022, 07:04 PM)Dill Wrote: A Department of disinformation management might prevent that re-election, so I'm in favor of the experiment.

There’s a mouthful. At least you’re forthright about it.

[Sled21]

So they will no longer to squash conservative voices on Twitter, so they come up with an Office of Disinformation, and who do they put over it? The woman who said there was Russian Collusion with Trump, and that Hunter's laptop was GOP disinformation. She wouldn't be able to discern the truth if it jumped up and bit her in the .....

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-01-2022, 08:39 PM)Sled21 Wrote: So they will no longer to squash conservative voices on Twitter, so they come up with an Office of Disinformation, and who do they put over it? The woman who said there was Russian Collusion with Trump, and that Hunter's laptop was GOP disinformation. She wouldn't be able to discern the truth if it jumped up and bit her in the .....

Other than that she seems cool.

https://twitter.com/bishnu_maharaj/status/1520161893834530817?s=21

The adults are back in charge, thank god.

[Dill]

(05-01-2022, 08:39 PM)Sled21 Wrote: So they will no longer to squash conservative voices on Twitter, so they come up with an Office of Disinformation, and who do they put over it? The woman who said there was Russian Collusion with Trump, and that Hunter's laptop was GOP disinformation. She wouldn't be able to discern the truth if it jumped up and bit her in the .....

Sounds like you are equating "conservative voices," many of whom are anti-Trump, with disinformation--

such as Obama was born in Kenya, Hillary turned down security requests for the mission in Benghazi and "got off," then ran a child trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor on Capitol Hill, and Biden is a practicing pedophile who stole the election from Trump after covering for his son's misdeeds in Ukraine. I.e., stories which may be debunked, but remain "true" for millions of voters. 

This is the sort of thing which makes it hard--or impossible--for democracies to work. 

The ship will not be righted until the mass of "conservatives" become as suspicious of Trump and Fox News as they currently are
of all things "government."

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

Republicans:
"This is bullshit! How can I get anyone to vote for me if I can't make up shit about my opponent?"

Or am I reading this wrong?