Homeland Security Puts Its 'Disinformation Governance Board' on Ice (axios.com) 141
Department of Homeland Security said it will pause on the agency's weeks-old Disinformation Governance Board. From a report: The board -- which had stated it's intended goal was to "coordinate countering misinformation related to homeland security." -- was widely criticized by Republicans and right-wing media outlets. A DHS spokesperson said in a statement to Axios that the board was "grossly and intentionally mischaracterized: it was never about censorship or policing speech in any manner. It was designed to ensure we fulfill our mission to protect the homeland, while protecting core Constitutional rights. However, false attacks have become a significant distraction from the Department's vitally important work to combat disinformation that threatens the safety and security of the American people." DHS tasked the Homeland Security Advisory Council to conduct a "thorough review and assessment" of the board's ability to deal with disinformation "while protecting free speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy."
LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dividing these ministry-of-truth goons is a *good* thing you twat.
Re: (Score:3)
And here you are calling our soldiers the "ministry-of-truth," crippli
Re: (Score:1)
It triggered you, mission accomplished.
Well it stopped this idiocy (Score:2, Troll)
Shame we couldn't have been as effective when the election was stolen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Well it stopped this idiocy (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s not true at all. They found a tons of problems, but we got most of the cases thrown out due to âoelack of standingâ rather than on merit. Hahahah. We seized power from you people.
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of proof about election tampering being done by both sides. Dead people voting for the democrats, poll shenanigans by the republicans.
You people keep asking the wrong question. You ask, "was there any election tampering?" The answer is, "of course there was." You can't have an election this large and not expect there to be some fraud in it.
The question you need to be asking, "was the election tampering enough to change the outcome?" The correct answer to that is, "probably not."
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, nothing divisive about a ministry of truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you conservatives are so funny. Anything to divide. What does you BS accomplish?
Spotted the aspiring cultural "gatekeeper" who was hoping to work for Big Sister someday.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
The disinformation board is being held back because of misinformation and mis-characterization?!??
Or is it that the head of the board is guilty of spreading misinformation and they didn't quite think it through? [reason.com]
Or that this whole thing is a political shit-show?
Yes but not the way you think (Score:3, Insightful)
The disinformation board is being held back because of misinformation and mis-characterization?!??
Yes but it's not because of others disinformation, but the fact that the person put in charge of the disinformation board in fact had been spreading a lot of disinformation herself [reason.com].
Although I guess that makes her more qualified to head a board whose real purpose was to spread disinformation? Since she was an expert at crafting it.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe she'll just make up a show tune and sing it on tic tock?
"I'm broke, out of work, just a hack and a jerk..."
Re: (Score:3)
I never understood the scope of the board (domestic or foreign? Limited to issues regarding "national security"? Border policy? Health information? What?) and they purportedly had no ability to do anything except "request" social media outlets takedown the purported "misinformation".
The administration couldn't answer any of those basic questions as far as I know.
Or . . . (Score:3)
That's one way of looking at it.
Another is, "Ministry of Truth announces that it doesn't really exist"
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a particularly useful source to link to, a libertarian publication telling us that "it is not the U.S. government's responsibility to decide what is and is not misinformation" is pretty much a tautology.
Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that you'll need a slightly less agenda-driven news source to reference.
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
How about a US Congressman (D) from Connecticut then in the Daily Mail? [dailymail.co.uk]
It's a mute point now since Scary Poppins resigned. To be fair that tidbit didn't become apparent until this mornings news. I think after the beating that Mayorkas took in the hearings about the Disinfo Board and his lack of true understanding about who she was and previous statements and postings from her, she was asked to resign. That and the fact that he had to admit that they already screwed up. [reason.com]
Indeed, Mayorkas conceded that the announcement about the disinformation board was badly handled. "I think we probably could have done a better job in communicating what it does and does not do," he said.
Re: (Score:2)
"Scary Poppins" was told to not defend her prior mis-deeds, and also told to resign as I understand.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the complaining political party (which shall remain nameless to protect the dignity of their elephants) can't put out disinformation without having it tracked and flagged, then what the h*ll else do they have? This agency was an existential threat, a clear and present danger, to a certain party's whole shtick!
Misinformation like
* The Steele Dossier
* Russia Collusion
* Hunter Biden's laptop being fake/a party plant
* Covington kid's white supremacy
* Mostly peaceful protests/summer of love
You're absolutely right that it's their shtick and it'd be a huge blow to lose it...
Re:Pretty sure the problem is (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: what if they come for YOU (Score:1)
9/11 was years in the making, both in terms of three letter agencies withholding information from one another, and a bunch of muslims fucking their goats.
Re: (Score:2)
Our own right leaning party try to portray themselves as a steady hand and "the natural party of government" but if you take a good hard look at their track record they're a total shitshow.
I think it is fairly common with conservative movements generally. Look a the United Kingdom right now. They elected Boris Johnston.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Formed", then handed off to Obama admin, then Trump admin, and now Biden admin... I suspect the department has been influenced by each administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Somehow you figured out all those things were misinformation WITHOUT a government "Disinformation Bureau" - others have done the same, this Bureau was never needed.
Re: (Score:2)
The wheel keeps turning and I don't want to see this continue... for ANYONE. I don't care if it's Reason / OANN / RT / Q today or some libby l
Re: So... (Score:2)
The reason you figured it out is because (I assume) you were raised by parents who valued your education, and you learned to think for yourself.
Nowadays education is "something left to the professionals", mom & dad are too busy to get involved.
At the root of this and so many other problems in society today can be traced back to a poor education. (How many kids graduate from high school ignorant of the concept of "compound interest" then graduate college shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that their 4 year Piz
Re: (Score:2)
Communications Majors (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How do they find the time in between the partying?
Re: (Score:3)
How do they find the time in between the partying?
Based on how this is playing out, partying is still their primary focus.
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't, no one does this - communications majors work in govt, advertising, or non-profits... or do you mean they spread dis-information?
The idea is bad, not just politics (Score:2)
You're giving a small group of humans the complete control over all forms of speech in the country, which means their biases will infect everything, no matter how noble they try to be, or what political side or..
Get a sega fanboy there, and watch it unfairly censor nintendo fanboys to no tomorrow.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think constitutionally nor politically that was the intent. Makyorkas took a huge beating during recent hearings and the optics of this just stank.
All of the various executive branch departments have social media accounts, press secretaries and people who day in and day out deal with the press and questions they get. What exactly was the role of this Disinformation Board and why did the administration think it was necessary? I don't see them answering questions from the public (press) nor being budg
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think
Well yes, that's fairly clear. The head of the DGB had been working under Mayorkas at DHS for two months before the board's official announcement, which means their statements of being unaware of her social media past are almost certainly bullshit. Which means they knew exactly the sort of person they were putting in charge of the board, and how she would run it. Either that, or they didn't even bother to run the most cursory check of someone who was heading up an entire department in which case they are a
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, the Daily Mail. Surely no disinformation there!
Re: (Score:2)
All forms of speech?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, i probably meant all forms of online speech, but mind hiccups happen
Re: (Score:2)
You're giving a small group of humans the complete control over all forms of speech in the country, which means their biases will infect everything, no matter how noble they try to be, or what political side or.. Get a sega fanboy there, and watch it unfairly censor nintendo fanboys to no tomorrow.
And you're being awfully generous assuming the type of people who'd want to work for that type of organization have any amount of noble purpose at all.
Uh huh (Score:2)
Department of Homeland Security said it will pause on the agency's weeks-old Disinformation Governance Board ...
Kinda what you'd expect them to say -- right?
Doesn't mean the work stops (Score:3)
It just gets folded under the general DHS umbrella now. So while it was fun to make our 1984 jokes and watch this albeit poorly handled debacle around an actual real problem that will have to be addressed, fact is we are likely going to get less transparency now because instead of a very public group to keep attention focussed on from every angle now the same people will just do it internally and we get what get from FOIA requests instead of likely public reports. And this panel was pretty toothless, now maybe these people have a bit more enforcement levers to pull.
Whoever was in charge of PR for this effort should absolutely be fired though, what a terrible name and marketing effort. Something about first impressions...
Name does sound Orwellian (Score:2)
on the surface, it reads as if its mandate is to make sure that all issued disinformation is mutually consistent, which is no small feat when you are issuing a stream of lies.
It's much simpler (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Disinformation Governance Board. Brought to your by the Department of Heimat Sicherheit.
GOOD (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read, that's not what was happening but if the job was solely to better educate people on certain issues, then I'd be ok with it.
Of course 99.98% of those involved with politics are in it for themselves and not the greater good.. which probably makes the idea of the D
Re: (Score:3)
but if....I'd be ok with it
Of course 99.98% of those involved with politics are in it for themselves and not the greater good..
You stated the exact reasons you shouldn't be, and why other aren't, "ok with it".
Re: GOOD (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have literally legions of people HERE ON SLASHDOT who ardently insist that a certain level of censorship is not just acceptable, but /necessary./
Sticks and stones may break some bones but words ...hurt peoples feelings?
Everything would have been fine, If? (Score:2)
Protecting scoundrels (Score:1, Insightful)
Who was the board going to censor? That has not been explained, although I suspect the people with the most to lose complained the most.
Oh the irony.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Let me see if I have this straight. The Disinformation Governance Board is being put on hold because of disinformation about the disinformation board? How utterly appropriate that it is DHS with political egg on its collective face.
Once again, the Biden administration has managed to make the worst possible decision at every turn. This ill conceived Disinformation Board didn't fool anyone. It was perceived for exactly what it was - a desperate attempt to silence dissenting voices while staring down virtually
The Truth Doesn't Matter Any More (Score:2, Insightful)
Having spent last two weeks with a Q-Anon Believer (Score:1, Interesting)
I can assure everyone reading this that there is NOTHING the Biden Admin can say that will change any of the Q-Anon folks' minds.
As for everyone else, as much as I like most of you, can't stand the rest, I fully trust your ability to listen to all points presented, without the need for a government slant to the news, and to determine what the right answer really is.
Re: (Score:2)
No one even knows what QAnon is until the leftists mention it. It is some child sex ring conspiracy I guess. If that is what it is, Epstein came pretty damn close to it. You guys need to find another schtick other than screaming QAnon or insurrection. No one cares about either except for you guys
I agree, I have no idea what "q-anon" is about. It just sounds like some internet bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like we found two grand wizards in the Q-Anon hierarchy, rsliverguns and magzteel. Go ahead, deny away.
Let the Memes Begin (Score:2)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/... [disquscdn.com]
Have they really? (Score:2)
Homeland Security Puts Its 'Disinformation Governance Board' on Ice
Have they really, or is that disinformation?
Compiling reports (Score:3)
Function
Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security, stated that the board would have no operational authority or capability but would collect best practices for dissemination to DHS organizations already tasked with defending against disinformation threats,[12] and asserted the board would not monitor American citizens.[13] John Cohen, the former acting head of the intelligence branch of the DHS, said that the board would study policy questions, best practices, and academic research on disinformation, and then submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content.[2]
On May 2, 2022, the DHS released a statement which said that the board would monitor disinformation spread by "foreign states such as Russia, China, and Iran" and "transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling organizations", and disinformation spread during natural disasters (listing as an example misinformation spread about the safety of drinking water during Hurricane Sandy). The DHS added that "The Department is deeply committed to doing all of its work in a way that protects Americans' freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy."[2][14]
On May 9, the DGB announced that it would provide quarterly reports to the U.S. Congress.[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They're supposed to compile reports on trends in misinformation & disinformation campaigns by hostile actors. Why are the nationalists & Republicans getting upset about this?
The problem isn't what they SAID they wanted to do (Score:2)
Lies (Score:2)
"it was never about censorship or policing speech in any manner. It was designed to ensure we fulfill our mission to protect the homeland, while protecting core Constitutional rights. However, false attacks have become a significant distraction from the Department's vitally important work to combat disinformation that threatens the safety and security of the American people."
Every single one of those statements is a lie, and the exact opposite is the truth.
Citizens United enshrined foreign influence (Score:2)
Citizens United enshrined foreign influence in politics. Want to keep foereign interests out of politics in America? Open the window blinds and let the sun shine in on where politicians are getting their money.
Have we learned nothing? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But, according to FOX and the GQP, it's all about believing w/o question and being enraged by whatever white-nationalist, fear-mongering horseshit Tucker Carlson tells you.
Thanks for making my earlier point for me, you drooling sack of liberal shit.
How will we ever notice the difference? (Score:1, Insightful)
the democrats. They will not be in power again for decades.
The democrats haven't been in power in any meaningful way for decades as it is. They've bent over all the time to try to compromise with the GOP, and gotten nothing back in return. Then the GOP shifts to the right, and the democrats follow. The democrats used to be a left-wing party, now they're just center-right while the GOP has told us that we all need to be far-far-far-far-far-uber-ultra-mega-far-far-far-right.
More importantly though the GOP has rewritten the rules to now effectively be that the
Re: How will we ever notice the difference? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The democrats hold the house, senate and presidency. You cannot play that card anymore
First of all, they do not hold the senate in any meaningful way. With 50 people caucusing with them in a 100 member chamber they can't get anything done on their own as they can't overcome a fillibuster.
Second, the fact here is that the democrats haven't been able to pass anything significant for legislation, and haven't done so in decades. The only function they serve in DC now is to tell us what we could see Washington do in a parallel universe. Then they let the GOP do whatever the hell they want
Re: (Score:1)
they can't overcome a fillibuster
Yes they can. The only people preventing them are democrats, not republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
they can't overcome a fillibuster
Yes they can. The only people preventing them are democrats, not republicans.
They could introduce a motion to permanently eradicate the fillibuster, which they could pass on their own. Except they would need all 50 of their votes to vote yes, which is unlikely. Obviously all 50 GOP senators would vote no; if even one independent or democrat voted no it would go nowhere.
Certainly one could argue that the fillibuster shouldn't be there in its current form, but that's a slightly different issue.
Re: (Score:2)
which is unlikely
Doesn't matter, the republicans are irrelevant while the dems have any majority,
The only place they have a majority is in the house. In the senate they split the votes when everyone in the democratic party and the two independents vote together. If they have one vote who abstains they are in the minority again.
Really, the senate is 46 democrats, 50 republicans, 2 liberal-leaning independents, and 2 conservative democrats. The GOP has the functional majority and can block any and everything they want. The democrats are vastly too cowardly to attempt to rewrite the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
The dems have a sufficient majority to kill the filibuster.
Only if they could get all of their members to vote as a single block, which they rarely can.
There's a big difference between the two parties that you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge. The difference here is the difference between evil and incompetent. The GOP does what it aims to do, without concern for how much pain it will inflict on the overwhelming majority of Americans. The DNC on the other hand lacks the competence to do much of anything. Even if they won every senate seat they are defe
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they could, if they would put forth legislation that BOTH parties could come on board for....much like in the old days (80's? 90's?) when the senate used to actually compromise and get bipartisan support when there was even MORE filibuster than today as far as rules go.
The Dems so far have only proposed extreme left progressive legislation that frankly the majority of the country just doe
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats control the bills that are discussed on the floor, so they control the House and Senate in a very meaningful way.
That Democrats refuse to bring bills to the floors of either the House or Senate with even the slightest attempt to encourage a Republican to support it is a choice that democrats make because they control both chambers.
As a simple example, the public (70% plus) supports abortion in the first trimester, about 20% support 2nd trimester abortions, and less than 10% support elective ab
Re: (Score:2)
put forth a bill that authorized elective abortions up until the day of delivery
I'm curious to how you came to that conclusion. The Women's Health Protection Act of 2022 is rather dense for sure, so I had to look around to find a non-partisan summary of it. The most succinct I found was at congress.gov [congress.gov], where it mentions a few things the bill would prohibit states from doing:
Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to
Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to
In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health.
Being as it refers specifically to "services before fetal viability" it certainly seems that this bill would allow states to restrict or ban abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy if they wish.
I als
Re: (Score:2)
Executive orders
Bureaucratic rulings
Off-the-wall rulings in lower and appellate courts. (Both from-the-bench legislation and blocking of Republican executive orders.)
Refusal to enforce laws and state/local resistance to federal enforcement of laws.
Also, during the previous administration: Massive roadblocking and interference with anything the administration attempt
Re: (Score:3)
It is really entertaining watching a democrat try to make excuses for the mess the democrats have created.
The reason you haven't passed any legislation is because you are trying to pass crappy legislation that nobody wants.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The tides have changed (Score:2)
I started out as a Democrat, went out in the real world and became a Republican. Now, I see both political parties as failures and I am not sure where to turn next.
We have to fix them. They ought to be able to pull more people back and forth, otherwise they really aren't competing, which is what we need.
Re: (Score:2)
They will not be in power again for decades.
This statement is made over and over by both political tribes whenever the 51%/49% electorate tilts their direction.
And it's absurd every time, because:
1) It is factually contradicted by the past 60 years of history. Neither party has ever gone "decades" without holding the Presidency or the Congress. In fact, literally the only time in American history that one party has controlled national political power for a long period of time.... was because they won a civil war over it.
2) It is self-defeating. The b
Re: (Score:2)
Trump threw so much gasoline on the economy it would have crashed even if he hadn't bungled the Covid response. It's his dumpster fire. But yours is a classic conservative ploy. When things are going well, praise the invisible hand of the free market. When scarcity leads to the inevitable raising of prices by the free market, blame it on a Democrat.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump threw so much gasoline on the economy it would have crashed even if he hadn't bungled the Covid response.
Still trying to shift the blame back to Trump. You know I have a feeling that a hundred years from now the democrats will be trying to blame their failures on Trump.
Lets review some facts. Trump was a good president. I know you don't want to admit it but he was. If it wasn't for the ground work laid under his administration the covid response would have been worse. If that was possible. The covid response under Biden was pretty much a disaster.
At least Trump knew what day it was. Grandpaw Biden,
Re:The tides have changed (Score:5, Insightful)
[Democrats] will not be in power again for decades.
This is entirely possible, but not because their ideas are unpopular or their leadership is lacking. The Electoral College heavily favors rural Red states (to the extent that two of the three Republican terms in the 21st century were popular vote losers), the Senate is skewed even more heavily toward Red states (Wyoming's 500k citizens have the same power as California's 39 million), and partisan Gerrymanders which already give outsized district wins versus popular votes [washingtonpost.com] and are ramping up to also include Trumpian local officials willing and able to throw away election results that they don't agree with.
Our democracy is broken, and 39% of Americans celebrate this as a win for the grand strategy of "owning the Libs".
Re: (Score:2)
[Democrats] will not be in power again for decades.
This is entirely possible, but not because their ideas are unpopular or their leadership is lacking. The Electoral College heavily favors rural Red states (to the extent that two of the three Republican terms in the 21st century were popular vote losers), the Senate is skewed even more heavily toward Red states (Wyoming's 500k citizens have the same power as California's 39 million), and partisan Gerrymanders which already give outsized district wins versus popular votes [washingtonpost.com] and are ramping up to also include Trumpian local officials willing and able to throw away election results that they don't agree with.
Our democracy is broken, and 39% of Americans celebrate this as a win for the grand strategy of "owning the Libs".
I disagree with the notion that democrats will not be in power again for decades. Political winds shift fast.
But their ideas are awful and their leadership is nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Senate is skewed even more heavily toward Red states
Everything you say is true and all of these problems are significant.
But I recall Obama having 60 Democrat Senators. Now it is 50-50. If we end up having ~60 Republican senators, that is the fault of Democrats -- can't blame that on electoral college.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Pal....
Leave your well reasoned bullshit at the door with your shoes. These political parties work hard at dividing the populace. Who are you to come in here and dismantle what they carefully constructed? What will happen to this country if they realize that the other citizens aren't their enemy? We can't have that... You are taking the food out of the hands of politicians everywhere. Think of their children
Re: (Score:2)
The Senate was not intended to be a direct representative body - the house represented the interests of the population and the senate represented the interests of the states.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's what I was trying to point out.
Hell, I wish we could go back to having the Senators be appointed BY the states rather than general elections and take all that money out of it.
The senators should be more answerable to the state, and the state's elected representatives should appoint the senators.
This way, outside money
Re: (Score:3)
Remember, this is not a democracy, it is a republic.
So many people for get this. They throw around the word "democracy" like they know what it means. There has never been a successful democracy in the history of the planet.
What they also tend to forget is the people don't elect the President, the States do.
Re: (Score:2)
The disproportionate representation of smaller states in the senate and the electoral college is the point of those systems! In a 'pure' democracy, the different needs and character of the smaller population states would be run over roughshod by a handful of cities. The republic & federal form of government ensure that states are largely governed according to the needs and desires of their residents, and that anything done on the national government level is the result of a broad consensus on those iss
Re: (Score:2)
They are still part of the union, it worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Recently Democrat redistricting maps have been in the news - for example, why is the NY primary being pushed back to August? The Democrat legislature put forward a map so egregious that the Democrat judges had to throw it out for being too partisan.
After the 2020 census, every state is going thru redistricting, and lots of Democrat legislatures are over-reaching, NY State is just the most dramatic example.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/29... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats now realize that they might have a "messaging" problem. Apparently, the lies they have chosen to tell were not the best lies, and they need to find better lies for their sales pitches.
Meantime, the main reason people vote against them is not the quality of their messaging, but their actual policies or failures thereof.
Re: (Score:3)
Now that you've named everything racist, can we all go home and call it day? Like that Ryan Long Comedy routine, "Blog Shuts Down After Calling Everything Racist [rumble.com]".
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah yeah yeah. You guys call everyone racist, including people of color. It is a meaningless word now. Congratulations I guess on eliminating racism. Go put your black clothes on and your armband and go hunting fascists. It will be the guy next to you.
The Confederacy was about slavery and white supremacy, anyone who claims otherwise is a fool or a liar.
So yes, the fact that Confederate Flags are not only accepted but celebrated by the GOP tells me that the American Conservative movement has a severe problem with white supremacy.
Not to mention The fact that Tucker Carlson is a leading Conservative voice in the US and has been peddling White Supremacist propaganda for years.
That's not to say that all US Conservatives are racist, nor that all US Progressive
Re: (Score:3)
The Confederacy was about slavery and white supremacy, anyone who claims otherwise is a fool or a liar.
The Confederacy has been dead and buried for a 150 years. Time to stop blaming modern failures on ancient history.
The American Conservative movement doesn't have any such problem. White Supremacist make up less than 0.1% of the American population. A 89 year old grandmother wishing cheaper medicines is not a white supremacist. A 35 year old black man wanting cheaper gas is not a white supremacist.
White supremacy is not a problem in America. Time to stop blaming your problems on some phantom boogy