T O P
GuitRWailinNinja

I wonder - if such a department existed in the pat tillman days, would they have decided to tell the truth? A ministry of truth will without a doubt be turned into a propaganda machine (or at least, selectively tell only the truths the active administration wants to be heard).


MikeHunt69420a

All I remember is NFL player goes to fight and is killed by friendly fire. Something else?


Owensboro22

Government covered it up for years. Even gave him a public full military honors burial even tho he explicitly opted out of that in his military documentation and was adamant that if he died he did not want the military to parade him around to drum up support.


MikeHunt69420a

There was parading by the media. The pic of him on the football field then in military uniform all over the media. Thanks for the reminder. I was unaware of the public burial. It's even more fucked up there were no weapons of mass Destruction and so many were compelled by falsehood. It is more than deceptive bush sent them to die. George Bush will burn eternally in hell and how can we have a misinformation board the USA govnt is a bunch of liars themselves.


GuitRWailinNinja

It was just shameless propaganda showing a total disrespect for a soldier who died for his country (from friendly fire). Not only did the gov actively cover it up, they used his death in a way that benefited the administration by using it as propaganda. It’s really no surprise to see the gov using citizens for personal gain like that, but this is one simple example of how the US can spin facts. There are many others. This happened under Obama btw, and obviously the same type of misinformation was spread by trump, and now biden….and the cycle will repeat itself for the foreseeable future :/


jschubart

Tillman died in 2004 under GWB. Testimony questioning the official story happened in 2007.


MikeHunt69420a

Really? It wasn't under Bush? Bush wmd lies played a role even if he died under Obama.


ChallyPrime

We crossed that bridge with "alternative" facts


TrulyStupidNewb

Alternative facts are only alternative as long as the person spreading these alternative facts are not in power. Once they are in power, these "alternative" facts will become "mandatory" facts.


The_Poster_Nutbag

They were in power and still had to stumble their way through that debacle.


YesterShill

We literally had the President of the United States actively pushing the idea that an election certified by every state of the union was invalid. We still have politicians campaigning on that lie. So the propaganda machine already exists.


GuitRWailinNinja

It has for decades, I think it’s just got way more brazen and partisan.


drkgodess

Not everything is a slippery slope. By your logic, nothing can ever be known about anything with any certainty because any "authority" who decides whether something is credible will be considered suspect by a certain subset of the population. It is possible for experts to identify blatant disinformation and lies, such as whether eating horse paste cures covid, without those experts having nefarious intent. No one's speech would be banned, but actual lies, especially those pushed by paid trolls, could be identified.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PartTimeBarbarian

This DHS "disinformation board" is staffed entirely by former and current spooks who do nothing but lie all day professionally. This comment makes me really angry. but I understand that you are probably a good person simply has faith in US institutions. This is the same community of freaks that brought every rightwing terror plot from the murder of MLK to 9/11 to fruition. They are the unelected people who shove America into foreign interventions as a money-making scheme and dress it up "bringing democracy" to Iraq or the need to "defend the women and children" of Afghanistan. These people are freaks and this Disinformation Board is a disgusting project


HighLows4life

But why? What business is it of the feds to be involved in our conversations? People say untrue stuff all the time. We get bad advice from friends and even professionals. Unless someone lies to you to defraud you it's free speech. The feds involved would be a nightmare. Let sub forums or the platforms decide what they allow. Who believes what they read on Twitter or reddit?


TROPtastic

>Who believes what they read on Twitter or reddit? Hundreds of millions of people. There have been ethnic cleansings and killings of minority group members based on lies people spread on Facebook. Free speech absolutism is a nice idea in a vacuum, but when lies are weaponized by hostile actors to destroy societies or kill minorities (see: the "Great Replacement" narrative), it shows the limits of this ideal.


Flavaflavius

Name *one* ethnic cleansing you can blame Facebook for.


[deleted]

[a whopping 10 seconds of work](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-sue-facebook-myanmar-genocide-us-uk-legal-action-social-media-violence)


HighLows4life

Right? Wtf


sandronestrepitoso

Remember Brexit? Remember January 6? Remember covid conspiracies? These people did not come out of nowhere. Everyone is vulnerable to malinformation


Elostirion7

Even…perhaps….government agencies? Since they consist of people? People act like government agencies are immune to negative influences….


[deleted]

[удалено]


lord_hufflepuff

Ah yes, more layers of bureaucracy, the famously effective efficient and correct way to go about doing things.


Flavaflavius

A Brexit equivalent event happens basically every century for the UK; know your history.


Cheers_u_bastards

I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court has established many times over that government impedance of free speech is a slippery slope. It’s why anyone outside of Illinois knows about Skokie.


KerPop42

It's not a ministry of truth board, it's an interdepartment group to standardize the already-existing responses to misinformation tracked by different groups within the DoHS


BubbaTee

Oh good, the group that told us "Iraq has WMDs, and Saddam is trying to nuke the US" is going to tell us what's officially true and what isn't. I mean, if you can't trust DHS, who can you trust, right? [Whistleblower says top DHS officials distorted intel to match Trump statements, lied to Congress](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/whistleblower-says-top-dhs-officials-distorted-intel-match-trump-statements-n1239685)


PartTimeBarbarian

All the people who think putting the intelligence community in charge of deciding what is and isn't the truth make me want to unalive myself. They are literally the movers and shakers of every rightwing terror plot across the planet.


GuitRWailinNinja

Don’t forget the WHO who refuses to acknowledge Taiwan publicly! One more example of an organization that is independent of any nation, acting “independent.”


KerPop42

You know, I looked at the Wikipedia article about it, and I couldn't find any mention of any intelligence agency saying that Iraq had WMDs; I'm pretty sure it was just politicians.


blankyblankblank1

Now imagine the program if Trump gets into office.


drkgodess

The program is about identifying false narratives. It would have no power beyond that.


PartTimeBarbarian

OK cool. Literally the same intelligence community that brought us the Iraq WMD narrative is going to decide what and what isn't false narrative. Do you know what a mark is?


blankyblankblank1

Once it identify as a false narrative, what does it do then?


drkgodess

Exactly. The study of information warfare is an area of where the U.S. is currently lacking. This board is about identifying lies, that is it.


aladeen222

The issue is that there are many things that would have been considered lies or misinformation at one point in time, but as more information becomes available publicly they turn out to actually be true. Not to mention, who will identify when it’s the government that is lying?


coyote500

People who supported the idea probably believed the government when they said we had to invade Iraq


ReNitty

This was obviously a terrible idea from the start


gn0xious

Don’t question the Ministry of Truth…errr Department of Disinformation.


Live-Ad6746

The 2 party system and unlimited dark money were worse


wasabiEatingMoonMan

They didn’t say it was the worst idea ever, did they?


Low-Director9969

Oh look, a pissing contest.


Earthpig_Johnson

I need to go!


ReNitty

Well yeah but I wasn’t saying this was the worst thing in history. You can make the case that stupid things like this are a result of the binary that a 2 party system creates


rogue-elephant

Anyone who has seen the spin and lies from the DoD knew this would be a clusterfuck. Only a fool thought this would work.


[deleted]

[удалено]


kazgur

So, what do you think will happen when “the party that lives off of it” gets in charge of the entire system 🤔


Sir_thinksalot

Nothing that can't happen without it. You're acting like Republicans need this department to already exist to create a more malicious version of it. They don't.


[deleted]

[удалено]


brobiwankinobiwan

I applaud you for thinking this would be used for good and not for greed


StaticMaine

Here’s the problem. What is misinformation when the other party is in power? There lies the problem with this proposed board.


OkEye3130

You remember how the whole gay cakes think has backfired hard as hell for that “party”? Now those people are denied service because companies are legally allowed to tell them to fuck off? Ok, apply this logic to the “disinformation” board.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


SuperSacredWarsRoach

The US government is probably the largest purveyor of disinformation in history. That's who you want in charge of deciding what is disinformation and what isn't?


RawrCola

The solution isn't to silence people, it's to make compelling arguments for the truth. If you can't do that without insulting and yelling then you're helping the problem.


_awacz_

I know right. An attempt at mitigating right wing disinformation so we don't end up like Nazi Germany or Russia is a terrible idea. What could go wrong?


thedaynos

> An attempt at mitigating right wing disinformation so we don't end up like Nazi Germany or Russia is a terrible idea. What could go wrong? and do you think when there's a right wing president that this office will be used for mitigating right wing "disinformation"? or the information that they deem as "disinformation" from their political opponents?


fatcIemenza

The most likely outcome here would've been this administration accomplishing zero with this department, then Trump appointing the worst person you can think of when he wins again


BubbaTee

> What could go wrong? DHS lied to Congress when Trump was President. - [Whistleblower says top DHS officials distorted intel to match Trump statements, lied to Congress](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/whistleblower-says-top-dhs-officials-distorted-intel-match-trump-statements-n1239685) The Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress when Obama was President. - [National Intelligence Director Apologizes for Lying to Congress: Dir. Clapper says a response to the Intelligence Committee in March was 'clearly erroneous.'](https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/02/national-intelligence-director-apologizes-for-lying-to-congress) The CIA, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Advisor all lied about Iraqi WMDs when Bush was President. - [Iraq: How the CIA Says It Blew It on Saddam’s WMD](https://nation.time.com/2012/09/06/iraq-how-the-cia-says-it-blew-it-on-saddams-wmd/) And these are the folks you trust to "mitigate disinformation"?


New_Cantaloupe_8568

That we end up ironically creating the apparatus that are ultimately used to create a fascist state in an effort to avoid it?


KerPop42

That's not what this board was; multiple departments in the DoHS track misinformation campaigns from abroad, and this board was going to standardize the process across them.


BubbaTee

Multiple departments in DHS are full of liars too. Who do you think told you Iraq had WMDs? Who told you the CIA wasn't spying on American citizens?


KerPop42

I mean, I can't actually find the any evidence of intelligence agencies saying Iraq still had wmds; I'm pretty sure politicians wanted a war and they were the ones making up the justification


RikenVorkovin

According to this link it was the CIA reporting it. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-DUELFERREPORT


New_Cantaloupe_8568

Sure, but I’m responding to the above.


KerPop42

And you're incorrect, because this board isn't that apparatus.


New_Cantaloupe_8568

Again, I’m responding to the commentator above. I understand this board was not an attempt to mitigate right wing disinformation.


OG_Antifa

Suppose the GOP sweeps the next election. What do you think would happen if they controlled a "disinformation" agency?


CleverNameTheSecond

Everything that contradicts what we say is "disinformation" and its illegal to say it, probably .


MrClavet

Twitter deal's on hold and now the board is paused as well, what a week.


[deleted]

[удалено]


32-20

Even if you accept the premise that the goals were noble, you're then in a position where you must be at least a bit appalled at their competence, no? They completely collapsed on encountering their very first "disinformation" campaign! Like, whichever angle you view this from, it's a bit of a farce.


Fuzzy_Variation1830

Yes, probably because the government shouldn't be deciding what's true.


aristidedn

One of the foremost responsibilities of a government is to develop and share accurate information, particularly in times of national crisis or when the security of the country is at stake. It's fucking *insane* to me that people are insisting that the government shouldn't be in the business of evaluating the truth of anything. The government provides factual information to us *constantly.* Economic metrics. Government spending. Military action. Contracts. Legislation. Regulation. Trade. How in the world is the country supposed to operate if the government can't publish factual information? The disinformation board's purpose is to identify attempts to mislead the public and counter those attempts by publishing factual information. This is a power the government has *always* had - we just haven't had such a dire need for information that specifically addresses concerted disinformation campaigns before.


Fuzzy_Variation1830

Key points: "in times of national crisis or when the security of the country is at stake". It isn't, and antivaxers being allowed on Twitter doesn't change that either. If the government already has that power, and has "always" had it, why is the board necessary? :) You have the director of this "agency" actively suggesting that people should be able to edit your tweets. Do you know how insane that is? What's *INSANE* to me, is that people genuinely believe the government should have the power to arbitrarily declare things true or untrue, and have the media cooperate. Like, if you wanna live in a surveillance state, just say so.


Sawaian

The US should be producing highly educated people.


pegothejerk

How about we just go back to a fairness doctrine, that way we can use courts and appealable legal venues to assess the validity of harmful speech claims, and not use homeland security style LEOs and McCarthy style panels that will change their targets based on who's currently in charge of the executive branch


IExcelAtWork91

I’m not sure that’s what the fairness doctrine says


RoundSimbacca

Because it wasn't.


pegothejerk

Right, because back then we didn't have blatant traitors in office and owning media platforms spouting foreign adversary talking points and presenting only those points as truth, and everything else as conspiracy. A modern fairness doctrine would have to be codified and would have to address people working as foreign agents, on top of forcing outlets that use the word "News" in their programming to actually address real world problems, fairly, and not to make up their own or avoid the ones that make their agenda transparent or appear unappealing.


pegothejerk

What a new one does would be different than what the FCC policy did back then, because times have changed, and now we have people not reporting actual coups on Washington Hill, but instead using the guise of entertainment to pretend to deliver news about their political enemies that claim theyre drinking the blood of babies and stuff. We'd have to codify a new version with teeth that holds outlets and people responsible for lies.


EdinMiami

A ticker tape at the bottom of the screen scrolling non stop: "THIS IS NOT NEWS AND IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT ONLY"


notagoodboye

The biggest problem with the fairness doctrine was that you had to invent an opposing side if there wasn't one. This gave a lot of credibility to low quality views. Like, climate deniers, for example. If you do a story about climate change, and then have to turn around and give equal time to the opposing view. That gives the impression that both views are equally valid, which isn't the case.


pyrrhios

That seems to be a lack of creativity. There's plenty to debate on policies for countering global warming without having to indulge astroturf conspiracy whackos.


cantthinkofaname1029

That's the cost you have to make at the end of the day; it's either that you're free to ignore viewpoints or you have to represent them all, from a legal standpoint, because the state can't make the distinction itself.


notagoodboye

Equal time for the flat earthers? Equal time for any conspiracy theory whacko? That’s why this died. Equal time is crap.


thedaynos

That's not what the fairness doctrine was. It was an unrealistic dream. Glad it's no longer a thing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RaHarmakis

We tried that up in Alberta, Canada with our "War Room" to combat disinformation against our Industries. The result was ALOT of money spent and a campaign waged against a Cartoon BigFoot. https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/ucps-war-room-takes-on-netflix-claims-anti-oil-bigfoot-is-brainwashing-kids


alare

I mean that's fair though. The real victims are the oil companies profits and not the environment they're destroying right?


pegothejerk

Yes, that's the point. Tweet warning labels have no teeth. Legal consequences do.


alephgalactus

How about nobody is allowed to profit from reporting news ever again?


SolaVitae

So we just don't have news anymore because it's not like it's free to broadcast and we've decided to forsake the 1st amendment?


Kahzgul

Having a new fairness doctrine would require passing legislation that expressly curtails the GOP's ability to lie on TV. Unless the dems get 10 more seats in the senate, that's not happening.


tewnewt

Yes lets do that after the 44 billion clears the bank...


Papaofmonsters

Still gotta wait for Twitter to prove only 5% of users are bots.


PhilDesenex

Bad idea to begin with.


gerbil_111

Is disinformation a crime? Is there any repercussion for spreading false information- especially if it can hurt someone? Eg. Fox news discussing pizzagate, Nazi Soros, or antivaxx. People are going out and committing murder because they believe these lies that are being discussed as alternate viewpoints that are just as legitimate as reality. The country cannot survive if you have some 50% of the people living in an alternate reality and willing to exterminate the other half based on fairy tales.


Lancashire_Toreador

Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?


Starbuckz8

Joe Biden and Nina Jankowicz and Alejandro Mayorkas.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


OriginalPaperSock

When it's self serving, they can be massive hypocrites.


Kahzgul

Hey, look! Some of the disinformation the board was tasked with identifying.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thzmand

Completely agree


Live-Ad6746

Yes because republicans wouldn’t be allowed to talk because they only lie


[deleted]

[удалено]


Graskn

And I'm a Republican and I believe u/Live-Ad6746 is wise.


--Clintoris--

Democrats should just host a fake news awards show like Trump tried to. Since when trump did it was funny


nashbellow

Username checks out


Excellent_Survey_336

Why do you call it that?? Is that because Tucker told you to say that? Or are you a huge Harry Potter fan? I think we can at least all agree that it was a terrible idea


YourDamnRightItIs

> Ministry of Truth I think people were reading 1984 before tucker.


Papaofmonsters

For 20 years in fact. The book was published in 1949 and Carlson was born in 1969.


[deleted]

why didn't they call it 1949 then instead? smh my head


Aviate27

Lol I'm hoping this is sarcasm but it was "futuristic" at the time.


corgr

Some people are capable of remembering the warnings we read in school :)


Graskn

It's called reading books besides young adult fiction. Even Tucker does it. RemindMe! 1 day - bet it's deleted.


captainvontage801

Thank god! How could any right-minded liberal or conservative support trash like this? I could see the right coming out with boards like this one. But the democratic party?1? We're now turning into the same shit we use to find so hard against. Sad.


ChallyPrime

Saying something is false? Is that not allowed?


captainvontage801

US law permits very few circumstances where the government is permitted to be the arbiter of what is true and what is false. Most falsehoods are actually protected under Us law. But both sides have basically weaponized the truth now. Both sides want to tell you what you can and cannot believe. It's not like we are adults and can make up your own minds and make decisions. They need to babysit us the whole way through now. How wonderful right?!


KerPop42

What trash? It was a board to standardize already-existing processes between different groups in the dohs


captainvontage801

What existing processes? Even the head of the DOH after multiple interviews couldn't give a clear definition as to what this is supposed to be. You think he's just not being clear and concise for no reason? This thing didn't even have a clear mission statement. The name itself suggests illegal government activity that the American people would never tolerate, regardless of their partisan affiliation. And when did the government ever become the arbiter of truth? If anything, the government is probably the biggest arbiter of disinformation. These programs never lead to anything good and just cause more chaos.


BubbaTee

> different groups in the dohs As if DHS is at all trustworthy. They have constantly lied to the American people, and even Congress, over multiple administrations. They even lie under oath. [DHS Admits Lying to Court, Lifts Ban Blocking New Yorkers Access To Federal Travel Programs](https://www.ibtimes.com/dhs-admits-lying-court-lifts-ban-blocking-new-yorkers-access-federal-travel-programs-3016824)


captainvontage801

That's the one thing that doesn't change. Regardless of party affiliation, they all seem to lie.


pyrrhios

Disinformation is an existential threat to the country. Having tools in place to curtail that weapon is necessary.


captainvontage801

A government agency to be the arbiter of truth is not going to be the solution. We also thought the Patriot act was gonna help fight terrorism. Turned out real well for us right?


pyrrhios

I get the concern, but combating disinformation and being an "arbiter of truth" are nowhere near the same thing.


captainvontage801

But that depends on what your definition of disinformation is though. It's not something that is black and white. There are way too many gray areas. And both sides are going to exploit that when they're in charge. But yes, disinformation is definitely a serious issue. Combatting disinformation is necessary. But doing so while also restricting our ability to speak does nothing but give more power to the enemy.


WTF_goes_here

Cool so how do you “combat disinformation” without deciding what is true?


TrulyStupidNewb

Countries like China have disinformation boards that will sift through information and remove anything they believe is misinformation. They they will go to the person spreading the "misinformation" and "persuade" them to see the light. After a few days of persuasion, the person either ends up missing, or coming out to make a public apology for spreading disinformation.


Al_Bundy_14

Waste of time and money.


Rawkapotamus

I think everybody can admit disinformation is an issue in America. The right blames the left for it all, and the left blames the right for it. Something needs to be done. But having the government be the official source for fact checking and determining what’s real or not is ABSOLUTELY a slippery slope.


[deleted]

[удалено]


aristidedn

What is it that you think the disinformation board would have been doing, exactly? What actions are you imagining they would have taken? Be specific, please.


[deleted]

[удалено]


probeheat

Oh now free-speech becomes an issue? Should’ve been the focus point from the very beginning. A government of idiots, for idiots, run by idiots.


Injest_alkahest

We should instead create an updated form of the fairness doctrine. Best way to battle the proliferation of misinformation on a mass scale would be to curtail speculative and otherwise false reporting by news stations and to hold them to a high level of accountability. Policing the internet misinformation is difficult and could be done through incentive programs for big tech to support their efforts to battle disinformation.


waxonwaxoff87

Because the government getting in bed with large corporations offering funding and legal protections in order to go along with the group in power has never backfired.


Malforus

You say that like that isn't already happening and the government has been convinced to give them legal protection...


waxonwaxoff87

Oh it is. This just makes it an official branch of the government.


[deleted]

It’s sad that most people can’t discern fact from fiction.


Injest_alkahest

Very sad but nothing new unfortunately. Awareness of reality is a new phase, people have been obsessed with fantasy and opinion and believing over knowing for centuries and it’s really catching up to us rapidly in the modern world.


[deleted]

Thanks internet! Humans weren’t ready for tech of this magnitude.


tr3v1n

I get the intent, but dipshits and assholes will continue to be dipshits and assholes. Labeling things was never going to do any good and it will only make the board itself look bad.


whereisyourwaifunow

imagine if Trump returns in 2024 and this thing exists, and the mypillow guy is chair of this board


pickledchance

For the administrative to even entertain this idea is telling


hucklemento

Was a bad idea from the start, but I can see why they want to be able to counter Covid misinformation. The problem always comes down to the judgment calls and whose decision it is whether to call something wrong, and no one will ever be good enough for everyone.


SolaVitae

>but I can see why they want to be able to counter Covid misinformation. Yeah just like the patriot act was too combat terrorism


Distinct-Ad468

This was a dark stain on the Biden presidency. I even agreed with conservatives on the 1984 level of dystopia this was bringing. I get it, conservatives are brain dead and lazy so they never fact check, but we can’t just create some sort of ministry of truth to combat their laziness. Just live with the fact that most Americans are more concerned over a celebrity defamation trial than they are with the politics that control them and the ones who do care about the politics are going to have half of them stuck in a misinformation labyrinth. It’s just a fact of life we all have to live with. Sort of like living with a new pain in my shoulder because we have such a crappy healthcare system. It hurts like hell, but it’s a new normal.


ominous_squirrel

You clearly didn’t fact check anything about the proposed working group before forming an opinion on it. There’s nothing exciting about it at all. It was an interdepartmental working group to add consistency and efficiency to existing disinformation prevention efforts. Yawn


Flavaflavius

I don't *want* these different groups working together. It's basically just a way to use shit like Five Eyes intel on a wider domestic scale.


ominous_squirrel

What does public relations have to do with “Five Eyes” intelligence cooperation between allied countries? Again, you’re writing an X-Files script in your head based on the name alone


simmons777

Except the board never had any authority to infringe on anyone's speech. The director resigned out of concerns for her safety because this board that was meant to identify and provide guidance on the growing issue of misinformation was itself attacked with misinformation, putting peoples lives at risk from the crazies.


BubbaTee

> the growing issue of misinformation was itself attacked with misinformation, putting peoples lives at risk from the crazies. You mean like when the DHS told us Iraq had WMDs and was planning to nuke America, which led to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians? And guess who was in charge of this disinformation governance board? Yeah, those are definitely the folks I'd trust to safeguard people's lives by providing guidance on disinformation.


Pechumes

Or maybe the fact that the director herself pushed debunked misinformation previously…..


Bentstrings84

It's just a straight up terrible idea. Who decides what is and isn't misinformation? The US government is the source of massive amounts of misinformation and can't be trusted to be objective. People need to be left to their own devices to figure out what is true. Also, it is very possible that Donald Trump could be president again and would you like it to be him who decides what is or isn't misinformation?


simmons777

I'm not making an argument for or against this board's existence, I actually think there is a legitimate slippery slope argument to be made against its formation. But let's at least be honest about what this board is or was.


ominous_squirrel

We’re not probing the mysteries of the universe here or solving a murder trial. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing disinformation about elections, immigration and disasters, which was the scope of the proposed board. The government is *already* addressing all of these things and wanted the board to create interdepartmental cooperation. You know, for efficiency’s sake. In fact, it would be easier to get away with corruption and misdirection when tasks like this are spread across many agencies Y’all drinking the Republican sound bite Kool-Aid. The actual structure of the board and its tasks was mundane and non-controversial af


Bentstrings84

Not everyone who disapproves of government bureaucrats determining what is or isn't misinformation is a Republican. Most Democrats think this is bullshit too.


drkgodess

Experts who study disinformation. People spend their lives and careers studying how narratives form, how credible they are, which state actors are most prevalent in sowing lies, and how those lies are disseminated and amplified.


BubbaTee

Plenty of people study disinformation in order to be more effective at spreading it. You have to know a lot about lying to be a good liar.


dbhathcock

Free Speech is OK. Just preface what is said with “This is my opinion, and I do not have any proof that what I am saying is, in fact, truth.” Or “Here is the verification that what I am saying is indeed the truth.” Or “I’m making this crap up.” It is not OK to state lies as facts.


zerosupervision

Christ what the actual fuck is happening here in America? This is scary shit that this was even considered here. Things are going sideways fast.


pizza99pizza99

Everybody who says “1984” to this, please read the fucking book. The idea of the ministry of truth was not to identify what’s wrong or right, but to destroy what is “wrong”, which this is not. Yes there is the argument of where is the line drawn but that’s a question we ask everyday, for every department


LordFluffy

I love that no one had any idea what this board was going to actually do in practice, no idea what their authority would be, but because they had a dystopian sounding name the people lost it. EDIT: If you're going to downvote me, prove me wrong.


ominous_squirrel

This is exactly the case. Interdepartmental working groups like this are boring af and not a conspiracy of the Cigarette Smoking Man that people are picturing based on the name alone. Everybody on reddit thinks they’re Fox Mulder discovering awful truths based on zero actual evidence or understanding


Live-Ad6746

As all the Republicans scream that if they can’t use dissinformation they won’t have anything to say ever


OpaqueAntique

Who do you trust to determine what does, and does not constitute "disinformation"? Give me a specific name. Personally, I don't trust anyone to make that decision on my behalf. I'd rather just be given all the information, and then make my own decisions.


waxonwaxoff87

People complaining about the religious and conservatives, but are willing to establish a “wise council of elders” to determine what is acceptable conversation.


engin__r

See also: the Supreme Court


waxonwaxoff87

Supreme Court can only interpret law and is unable to enforce any ruling. Hamilton called it the least powerful branch of government. And was intentional.


engin__r

I'm not sure it's worked out that way in practice. Yes, Andrew Jackson famously defied the Supreme Court, but for the most part, it's functioned as an unelected council of elders that decides what is and is not against the law.


waxonwaxoff87

The idea of lifetime appointment was to prevent big swings in law. If it’s replaced every 4 years then there is constant upheaval and reversal of case law. It’s meant to be the least political branch. Its really to keep politicians in line.


AwesomeBrainPowers

> Who do you trust to determine what does, and does not constitute "disinformation"? Give me a specific name. I have no idea how the DHS Disinformation Board was going to be structured, but the larger answer to your question is: A consensus of peer-reviewed experts communicating analyses of empirical data. I haven't heard of anyone ever advocating for it to be *one* person.


BubbaTee

> I have no idea how the DHS Disinformation Board was going to be structured, but the larger answer to your question is: A consensus of peer-reviewed experts communicating analyses of empirical data. Experts from the DHS? These folks? - [Homeland Security Dept. Admits Making False Statements in Fight With N.Y.](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/nyregion/trusted-traveler-homeland-security.html) - [DHS watchdog says Trump's agency appears to have altered report on Russian interference in 2020 election in part because of politics](https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics/donald-trump-russian-interference-election-politics/index.html) - ["No major incidents of illegal activity": DHS told Pentagon as pro-Trump mob breached Capitol](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/no-major-incidents-of-illegal-activity-dhs-told-pentagon-as-pro-trump-mob-breached-capitol/ar-AAOVpM1) - [IG REPORT: DHS IGNORED THE LAW & LIED TO CONGRESS ON FAMILY SEPARATION POLICY](https://homeland.house.gov/news/press-releases/ig-report-dhs-ignored-law-lied-congress-family-separation-policy) Trusting DHS is like trusting R Kelly when he tells you those are drops of rain landing on your head.


Pechumes

What about the White House tweeting blatantly incorrect information regarding vaccines not being available prior to Biden being in the office? Regardless of if you love/hate Biden/Trump, that’s just a bold faced lie put out by the Office of the President


AwesomeBrainPowers

Yeah: It was incorrect, called out as such, and corrected.


Pechumes

It was only corrected more than a day later and after significant backlash


engin__r

Even with a number of people working together, I don’t see what would stop it from being a propaganda board.


AwesomeBrainPowers

1. Making the supporting empirical data publicly viewable (within the confines of existing disclosure laws). 2. Keeping them an information-only group and not actually giving them any enforcement or operational capacity. [Which is exactly what it was, apparently](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/05/02/fact-sheet-dhs-internal-working-group-protects-free-speech-other-fundamental-rights).


engin__r

There's a lot more to deciding whether something is disinformation than just publishing data. You have to decide which data is important and what context matters. Say that a politician claims crime is going up or down. Well, which crimes should we look at? Whose definition of a crime should we use? Whose data is worth looking at? What kinds of time spans should we consider? There's no objective way to answer any of those questions, and the answers will depend heavily on which perspective the researcher wants to promote.


OpaqueAntique

Someone has to be able to cast the deciding vote in cases in which the experts disagree. Let's say half of the experts say Opinion A is correct, and half of the experts say Opinion B is correct. Who gets to adjudicate which opinion gets the badge of truth?


[deleted]

[удалено]


tacella

Yeah and the Steele Dossier totally wasn’t one of the biggest disinformation campaigns in history. 🙄


Hattix

AFAIK, this board was specifically established such that it had no authority to restrain anyone's speech.


FlakeyFlukes

What other countries have this?


SeanceGoneWrong

This was an awful idea to begin with and whoever proposed it should not have a job in federal government ever again. Do you really want partisan hacks like Nina Jankowicz being the government appointed arbiter of truth fof truth for issues like this? This was thoroughly embarrassing for Biden and the DHS, but I am glad they smarten up doubt shut this thing down in just a few weeks.


woolypully

Shite sounded very 1984 anyway.


ClassicResult

This isn't going away. They'll be even more persistent about this than the Net Neutrality stuff.


Kahzgul

A board designed to help identify disinformation is being shuttered due to a coordinated disinformation campaign. You'd think they should have expected and prepared for that before creating the board.


unpopularthrowaway22

So Biden's Ministry of Truth ain't happening after all? Surprised