She and her board needs a separate thread.
Just gonna be cannon fodder for both sides.
All dictatorships in history have set up a propaganda arm.
The USSR had Pravda, which means truth.
Nazi Germany had Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.
It’s a direct assault on the First Amendment, but hey Nina Goebbels thinks it’s the left who has been muzzled. Maybe she can provide like a dozen independent research studies confirming this, because stating so sounds like disinformation.
Whether either side is being muzzled to a certain degree, having this “Governance Board” shows the decline of the U.S. Sad.
Do people just like posts without reading the article? It’d be nice to read something that was not overtly biased on the subject. Any time an author relies too heavily on quotes to get his point across like “fact checking” and “disinformation”, I can’t help but eye-roll and dismiss the content.
I don’t expect the posters here to provide any content that isn’t jacked up on hyperbolic words like “brown shirt” and “Goebbels”. But in order to have an honest discussion which I already know is not possible here, just saying it’d be nice to see something a bit more neutral/fact-based on the subject.
Stop trolling, if you don’t want to have a discussion no one is making you. Why don’t you post something that reflects your point of view? That’s why I posted that one.
No one in their right mind would ever think a Disinformation Governance Board or anything similar has any official place in the government of a free society. It’s wrong and totalitarian at its core and must never be allowed to happen.
Do you know what this board actually does? Or are you just upset at the name? Kind of hard to tell through all the noise but thanks for the input.
If it were focused on the identifying AI, bots and troll farms that would be useful. Not unlike Elon Musk’s proposal to verify real people on Twitter. Of course the devil is in the details.
Just because you don’t like my opinion doesn’t make it trolling. There is a dearth of neutral content on the subject which makes it frustrating sifting through the noise for anyone that would like to learn more.
Those responsibilities belong to the citizens themselves IMO. And it doesn’t matter what the original intentions are because it will always be misused in the end. That’s why it must never be allowed to begin, and I hope every request and suggestion it makes is immediately rejected because it has no operational authority. No precedent must be given and no pathway to legitimacy should be opened.
You’ve got Goebbels in the title of the thread. Not really conducive to having an informative discussion now is it?
Now why are people not being honest? Because nobody, not you or I even knows what this board will do. So it’s basically just fill in the blank convenience for whatever fear mongering, hyperbolic comparisons one chooses.
I, for one, would like to learn a little more about it before coming to an opinion. But if you’re going to tell us what this board is without knowing what it actually does…well that’s dishonest.
Information on the board is currently sparse, but here’s what we know so far:
It will be directed by Nina Jankowicz, a fellow at The Wilson Center, a D.C.-based nongovernmental organization dedicated to independent research and global issues.
The board will collate and distribute “best practices” for countering disinformation purveyed by the United States’ enemies.
The board is currently a small working group in DHS, “with no operational authority or capability.”
No that’s ridiculous. Nowhere is it stated that it is known what the board will do. The writer made clear that the problem is larger than that. Try reading it maybe before you start accusing me of dishonesty. Or are you projecting? That makes a lot of sense.
I’m not accusing you of dishonesty. Go back and read what I actually wrote. I said the content is dishonest and it’s impossible to have an informative discussion with sources that are overtly biased. So simmer down.
You may very well believe what you’re posting, but you don’t know any better than I do.
The source you posted was a sorry excuse for journalism that read like a blog all based on speculation.
"That is an explicit call for the U.S. Government to take steps to require more censorship of the internet in the name of fighting “disinformation.”
Oh really? How does it he know that? Like I said, it’s a convenient vehicle to just fill in the blank. It’s the propaganda arm of the government, it’s a censorship arm, or it’s 1984…on and on.
Arguments based on slippery slope should be discredited since speculation is simply that, not fact based.
Yes you did. You said it’s not possible to have an honest conversation here in response to a post I made, and you even amplified on it further. If a conversation with me is not honest, then I must be dishonest, unless you meant you would be, which I doubt was your point. Don’t say things like that please and I’ll happily accept criticism of my viewpoints.
As for the rest of your post, there’s not much to it but naysaying. As I said, I agree with the concerns expressed in the article. Dismiss them if you like!
A conversation can be dishonest because you’ve based your opinions on dishonest information. Saying that you are dishonest implies I understand your intentions. That you are deliberately trying to deceive.
I do not. Just because I criticize your opinion, or the content does not mean I am making a judgement of your character. Absolutely not and I go out of my way to make sure I don’t do that. Look at what said:
I’m basing that opinion on the content that is posted in this thread to date,. comparing Pravda, Goebbels etc
If you believe what you are reading then it is impossible to have an honest discussion because the information you are basing your opinion on is not honest.
I would like to know more about what this board could do that may or may not be useful. It is impossible do that if Goebbels and brown shirts is the starting point.
I’m not interested in this bizarre logic. Don’t call me dishonest on such absurdly convoluted reasoning and we won’t have a problem. Otherwise, all I have to say to you is, stop trolling. It’s against the rules of this site.
I’ve explained my position. The content is dishonest. I do not think you are deliberately trying to deceive anyone and have not said anything to that effect. I can’t control how you perceive that.
The point still stands that it difficult to have a conversation about what this board could actually do because of so much hyperbolic content based on speculation and slippery slope.
Well, that wasn’t what you said, was it? If you had said this, I wouldn’t have made the comments I did. I think you need to rethink what “it’s impossible to have an honest conversation” means. It’s not the same as “the article you posted is not honest”.
I’ll tell you this: Greenwald 100% believes what he’s saying. I think he makes a lot of great points. I don’t know what to tell you. Your main point seems to be that we don’t know the complete intent of the board’s functions (if they even know themselves, why didn’t they clarify it? The timing is very odd with the talk by Dem figures and around Twitter) but I’ve responded that the article makes larger criticisms.
