The Biden Admin's on-going attack on free speech

[whell]

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/...formation-dhs/

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous, an investigation by The Intercept has found. Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms.

DHS’s mission to fight disinformation, stemming from concerns around Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, began taking shape during the 2020 election and over efforts to shape discussions around vaccine policy during the coronavirus pandemic. Documents collected by The Intercept from a variety of sources, including current officials and publicly available reports, reveal the evolution of more active measures by DHS.

How disinformation is defined by the government has not been clearly articulated, and the inherently subjective nature of what constitutes disinformation provides a broad opening for DHS officials to make politically motivated determinations about what constitutes dangerous speech.

In June, the same DHS advisory committee of CISA — which includes Twitter head of legal policy, trust, and safety Vijaya Gadde and University of Washington professor Kate Starbird — drafted a report to the CISA director calling for an expansive role for the agency in shaping the “information ecosystem.” The report called on the agency to closely monitor “social media platforms of all sizes, mainstream media, cable news, hyper partisan media, talk radio and other online resources.” They argued that the agency needed to take steps to halt the “spread of false and misleading information,” with a focus on information that undermines “key democratic institutions, such as the courts, or by other sectors such as the financial system, or public health measures.”

DHS eventually scrapped the Disinformation Governance Board in August. While free speech advocates cheered the dissolution of the board, other government efforts to root out disinformation have not only continued but expanded to encompass additional DHS sub-agencies like Customs and Border Protection, which “determines whether information about the component spread through social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter is accurate.”

Great. Big Brother is monitoring news and commentary from every source and replacing it with the DHS's hand-curated narratives. 1984 arrived a bit late, but its now in full bloom.

Its a long story, well worth the read, with examples about how the government leaned on social media to curb the spread of certain stories, one of which almost certainly played a role in shaping public opinion during the 2020 election.

I'll end with this quote:

The first FBI official, whom The Intercept interviewed in 2020 amid the George Floyd riots, lamented the drift toward warrantless monitoring of Americans saying, “Man, I don’t even know what’s legal anymore.”

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/...formation-dhs/

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous, an investigation by The Intercept has found. Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms.

DHS’s mission to fight disinformation, stemming from concerns around Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, began taking shape during the 2020 election and over efforts to shape discussions around vaccine policy during the coronavirus pandemic. Documents collected by The Intercept from a variety of sources, including current officials and publicly available reports, reveal the evolution of more active measures by DHS.

How disinformation is defined by the government has not been clearly articulated, and the inherently subjective nature of what constitutes disinformation provides a broad opening for DHS officials to make politically motivated determinations about what constitutes dangerous speech.

In June, the same DHS advisory committee of CISA — which includes Twitter head of legal policy, trust, and safety Vijaya Gadde and University of Washington professor Kate Starbird — drafted a report to the CISA director calling for an expansive role for the agency in shaping the “information ecosystem.” The report called on the agency to closely monitor “social media platforms of all sizes, mainstream media, cable news, hyper partisan media, talk radio and other online resources.” They argued that the agency needed to take steps to halt the “spread of false and misleading information,” with a focus on information that undermines “key democratic institutions, such as the courts, or by other sectors such as the financial system, or public health measures.”

DHS eventually scrapped the Disinformation Governance Board in August. While free speech advocates cheered the dissolution of the board, other government efforts to root out disinformation have not only continued but expanded to encompass additional DHS sub-agencies like Customs and Border Protection, which “determines whether information about the component spread through social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter is accurate.”

Great. Big Brother is monitoring news and commentary from every source and replacing it with the DHS's hand-curated narratives. 1984 arrived a bit late, but its now in full bloom.

Its a long story, well worth the read, with examples about how the government leaned on social media to curb the spread of certain stories, one of which almost certainly played a role in shaping public opinion during the 2020 election.

I'll end with this quote:

The first FBI official, whom The Intercept interviewed in 2020 amid the George Floyd riots, lamented the drift toward warrantless monitoring of Americans saying, “Man, I don’t even know what’s legal anymore.”

Glenn Greenwald is coocoo for cocopuffs.

[finnbow]

DHS eventually scrapped the Disinformation Governance Board in August. While free speech advocates cheered the dissolution of the board, other government efforts to root out disinformation have not only continued but expanded to encompass additional DHS sub-agencies like Customs and Border Protection, which “determines whether information about the component spread through social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter is accurate.”

Monitoring social media to see what kind of dangerous and deadly lies conservatives are telling the American public about government is completely kosher. How else do you set the record straight when conservatives are spewing lies and propaganda that ends up killing people (through COVID or white nationalist violence, for example) or planning an insurrection? You do realize that Congressional Republicans criticized the government for not adequately monitoring social media before Jan. 6 to better protect the Capitol, eh?

The only reason that conservatives constantly whine about Big Tech "censoring" them is because their political messaging relies so heavily on lies and misinformation and their infotainment complex cashes in on it big time. What would today's GOP and Fox News be like if they were actually truthful rather than an endless font of agitprop? One thing's for sure - we would have hundreds of thousands fewer COVID deaths, no insurrection on Jan. 6 and no election deniers running for office.

The government's primary job is to protect Americans. It's quite unfortunate that the biggest threat it faces is one of our two political parties. Monitoring their dangerous (and publicly available) social media is not remotely akin to censorship. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of their duty to do otherwise. The only thing interesting thing about this story is that conservatives feel so threatened when their life-blood, lies and misinformation, are subject to fact-checking or otherwise monitored to protect the American people from the (predictable) impact of those lies.

[RickeyM]

Without a steady stream of lies and misinformation the gullible among us (in the U.S.) might even start to think for themselves. The conservatives at the top don't want that.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

DHS eventually scrapped the Disinformation Governance Board in August. While free speech advocates cheered the dissolution of the board, other government efforts to root out disinformation have not only continued but expanded to encompass additional DHS sub-agencies like Customs and Border Protection, which “determines whether information about the component spread through social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter is accurate.”

Monitoring social media to see what kind of lies conservatives are telling the American public about government is completely kosher. How else do you set the record straight when conservatives are spewing lies and propaganda that ends up killing people (through COVID or white nationalist violence, for example) or planning an insurrection? You do realize that MAGAWorld is criticizing the government for not monitoring social media before Jan. 6 to better react to their storming of the Capitol, eh?

Your comments infer that:

- There's no "right to privacy" on public internet forums. On this, we agree.
- Its OK for law enforcement agencies to review public internet posts. We agree on this one, too.
- Absent any open investigation into a particular person or specific organization, it is OK for Federal Law enforcement agencies to monitor specific messages. On this, we do not agree. This is one step closer to 1984.
- The FBI and DHS are not just monitoring posts. They're obtaining software used to data-mine for certain types of posts. They're using the data that they obtain and, sometimes under false pretenses, using the imprimatur of their FBI or DHS credentials, getting to owners of these sites to do what they can't do: take down these messages. On this, we do not agree.

Originally Posted by finnbow

The only reason that conservatives constantly whine about Big Tech "censoring" them is because their political messaging relies heavily on lies and misinformation and their infotainment complex cashes in on it big time. What would today's GOP and Fox News be like if they were actually truthful rather than an endless font of agitprop? One thing's for sure - we would have hundreds of thousands fewer COVID deaths, no insurrection on Jan. 6 and no election deniers running for office. The government's job is to protect Americans. It's quite unfortunate that the biggest threat it faces is one of our two political parties and monitoring their dangerous (publicly available) social media is not remotely akin to censorship.

The only thing interesting thing about this story is that conservatives feel so threatened when their lies and misinformation are fact-checked.

To the extent that your point about "it depends whose ox is being gored" informs who complains and when, your point is well taken. These types of free speech-crushing actions should matter to anyone, regardless of politics.

However, it also shows me that you didn't read the article. Not surprising, as reading it does require an attention span.

The article does talk about the high-level FBI agents using their back-door communications with Facebook that lead to the removal of links to stories in the NY Post. The content of many aspects of these stories was later authenticated by the NY Times. The FBI used the "Russian disinformation" trope to get Facebook to do their dirty work for them. So, it's not just about social media posts. The FBI and DHS are actively involved in monitoring news organizations and countering their reporting with either outright removal or their own "disinformation".

Does that sound like a legitimate function of the Federal Gov't? Sure sounds like one or more Bill of Rights amendments are being thrown under the bus.

[whell]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Without a steady stream of lies and misinformation the gullible among us (in the U.S.) might even start to think for themselves. The conservatives at the top don't want that.

Another forum member who failed to read the article.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Glenn Greenwald is coocoo for cocopuffs.

Glen Greenwald has nothing to do with this story. The Intercept is also funded by Pierre Omidyar, who is a big-time Dem donor.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Without a steady stream of lies and misinformation the gullible among us (in the U.S.) might even start to think for themselves. The conservatives at the top don't want that.

Originally Posted by whell

Another forum member who failed to read the article.

Sorry lad, not interested in reading things you post to justify your ramblings.
Just stating an opinion about Reich-wing propagandizing. They do seem to enjoy "shoveling the shit" and get upset when anybody wants to limit it.
Interesting that you went back and edited the thread title tho'.

[donquixote99]

In the OP as quoted, I see allegations from an article that agencies monitored social media and evaluated it for truth. I also see whell claiming that "Big Brother" is " ....replacing it [news and commentary] with the DHS's hand-curated narratives."

Now the first is called 'gathering intelligence from public sources' and is utterly legal. For the second, I don't see a scrap of evidence quoted. Someone may be mistaking fantasy for fact. That's if they aren't cynically going way beyond the evidence, for effect.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Your comments infer that:

- There's no "right to privacy" on public internet forums. On this, we agree.
- Its OK for law enforcement agencies to review public internet posts. We agree on this one, too.
- Absent any open investigation into a particular person or specific organization, it is OK for Federal Law enforcement agencies to monitor specific messages. On this, we do not agree. This is one step closer to 1984.
- The FBI and DHS are not just monitoring posts. They're obtaining software used to data-mine for certain types of posts. They're using the data that they obtain and, sometimes under false pretenses, using the imprimatur of their FBI or DHS credentials, getting to owners of these sites to do what they can't do: take down these messages. On this, we do not agree.



To the extent that your point about "it depends whose ox is being gored" informs who complains and when, your point is well taken. These types of free speech-crushing actions should matter to anyone, regardless of politics.

However, it also shows me that you didn't read the article. Not surprising, as reading it does require an attention span.

The article does talk about the high-level FBI agents using their back-door communications with Facebook that lead to the removal of links to stories in the NY Post. The content of many aspects of these stories was later authenticated by the NY Times. The FBI used the "Russian disinformation" trope to get Facebook to do their dirty work for them. So, it's not just about social media posts. The FBI and DHS are actively involved in monitoring news organizations and countering their reporting with either outright removal or their own "disinformation".

Does that sound like a legitimate function of the Federal Gov't? Sure sounds like one or more Bill of Rights amendments are being thrown under the bus.

First and foremost, the plan that has you freaked out was from a DHS Advisory Committee, an independent body whose advice DHS has absolutely zero obligation to implement (and they didn't). I've worked closely with several federal advisory committees during my career and never once saw any of their advice wholly adopted. It just doesn't (and can't) happen. It's intended for input that subsequent notice-and-comment rulemaking (in strict accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act) is needed to implement, should the agency intend to pursue it and the wording of resulting rulemaking is never what the advisory committee recommends (they have no knowledge of the rulemaking process).

In other words, all of this spooky stuff you attribute to the Biden administration was started by the Trump administration and was recommended by an outside advisory group and the Biden administration did not take their advice and implement it. This happens all the time in nearly every agency in DC. Indeed, taking and implementing the advice is the rare exception, not the rule. IOW, what you say is so frightening never actually happened and the board who recommended it was disbanded.

This line from the article "Meeting records of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee, the main subcommittee that handles disinformation policy at CISA, show a constant effort to expand the scope of the agency’s tools to foil disinformation" shows clearly that the authors of this piece have zero understanding of federal policy-making practices. Indeed, the enabling legislation for such advisory committees says that they provide for "a useful and beneficial means of furnishing expert advice, ideas, and diverse opinions to the Federal Government" and goes on to say "the function of advisory committees should be advisory only, and that all matters under their consideration should be determined, in accordance with law, by the official, agency, or officer involved." IOW, the group that The Intercept says "handles disinformation policy at CISA" does no such thing and indeed is legally precluded from doing so.

This is all a tempest in a teapot from those whose livelihood depends on their ability to propagate lies and misinformation, something near and dear to the hearts of conservatives, even if it is dangerous to the American people and their democratic form of government.