DHS is creating 'Disinformation Governance Board'

[Golden Duck]

11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I did.  There is nothing like that there.   Have you had your coffee yet this morning?

Yeah right it says they had resdesrchers visiting caves and colloborating with Wuhan.  They just delivered the samples to the door and got emaile the results?

You've given the link to Farrar's "shutting the door comment".  You didn’t question access previously. 

[+OverSword]

27 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Yeah right it says they had resdesrchers visiting caves and colloborating with Wuhan.  They just delivered the samples to the door and got emaile the results?

You've given the link to Farrar's "shutting the door comment".  You didn’t question access previously. 

You have me confused with someone else.  The fact that China will not give anyone access to the site or the data is well and long known.  

Edited May 9, 2022 by OverSword

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

You have me confused with someone else.  The fact that China will not give anyone access to the site or the data is well and long known.  

You've been given links re collaboration.

Regardless how do the example in the fact sheet lead to becoming China?

[+Paranoid Android]

19 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

It is the type of work they said they will do.

Sounds like you are trying to wrap a dog turd in tin foil and then trying to sell it to me like it's a silver ingot. It sounds like you are arguing that the "disinformation governance board" works just like the Australian government telling its people about the floods in northern NSW? Why would you even call something like that a "disinformation" board? 

 

19 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Even if the relevance is hard for you to grasp, did you, or did you not listen to the authorities for information during the recent catastrophe?

I listened for updates, yes. 

[Golden Duck]

16 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Sounds like you are trying to wrap a dog turd in tin foil and then trying to sell it to me like it's a silver ingot. It sounds like you are arguing that the "disinformation governance board" works just like the Australian government telling its people about the floods in northern NSW? Why would you even call something like that a "disinformation" board? 

 

I listened for updates, yes. 

Whatever it sounds like to you, it's distorted.  Turn down the "base"?

For someone who sows such distrust in the MSM why are only relying on the tenuous equivocation of nomenclature.  Isn't it better, after hearing a government section is being created, to go find out exactly what the government says they are doing?

Either play "Chinese whispers" with those you don't trust or get information it "straight from the horses mouth".

In this case we've got a fact sheet from Mayorkas.  That's a good thing because he is accountable.  Look a bit further and you find he has appointed 33 names to this Board.  There is nothing to support the above mentioned rationalisation based on the Board's name.  There is, however, reasonable apprehension that creation of this Board,  to centralise only part of a function, will deliver absolutely zero value to the taxpayer.

Senator Hegarty would've appeared wise and pragmatic without the dog-whistle. But hey, you gotta play for the crowd.

[+Paranoid Android]

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Whatever it sounds like to you, it's distorted.  Turn down the "base"?

For someone who sows such distrust in the MSM why are only relying on the tenuous equivocation of nomenclature.  Isn't it better, after hearing a government section is being created, to go find out exactly what the government says they are doing?

Either play "Chinese whispers" with those you don't trust or get information it "straight from the horses mouth".

In this case we've got a fact sheet from Mayorkas.  That's a good thing because he is accountable.  Look a bit further and you find he has appointed 33 names to this Board.  There is nothing to support the above mentioned rationalisation based on the Board's name.  There is, however, reasonable apprehension that creation of this Board,  to centralise only part of a function, will deliver absolutely zero value to the taxpayer.

Senator Hegarty would've appeared wise and pragmatic without the dog-whistle. But hey, you gotta play for the crowd.

Help me understand - is it your assertion that the "Disinformation Governance Board" will put out public service announcements about safe zones in floods (among other apparently useful information)....

* If so, what does the word "disinformation" have to do with the committee?
* If not, then your comparison to a government representative who went on telly to announce flood information is flawed!

It really is that simple! 

[Golden Duck]

33 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Help me understand - is it your assertion that the "Disinformation Governance Board" will put out public service announcements about safe zones in floods (among other apparently useful information)....

* If so, what does the word "disinformation" have to do with the committee?
* If not, then your comparison to a government representative who went on telly to announce flood information is flawed!

It really is that simple! 

I've only said as much in this very forum.   In fact, it was a reply to your first post.  (See #100)

Responding to misinformation to following a natural disaster is exactly the type of function they said they would do in their fact sheet.  It's almost as if you haven't read it!

As it appears so onerous for you, hear is the relevant dot point for you again.

Quote

• In 2012, during Hurricane Sandy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) corrected false information about the safety of drinking water and the location of shelters, to protect and serve the hurricane’s victims. FEMA has since built capacity to identify and respond to false information during major disaster responses, including Hurricanes Maria and Ida, during which FEMA provided critical information to protect disaster survivors from targeted scams. FEMA also ensures that disinformation campaigns do not prevent Americans from accessing federal aid during and after disasters.

Link already provided but pasted again to mitigate unnecessary wear and tear on your mouse device. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/05/02/fact-sheet-dhs-internal-working-group-protects-free-speech-other-fundamental-rights

Are Hurricane Sandy and the 2022 Lismore floods similar enough examples of a government response to misinformation?

Why, does the scenario have to be so specific?  The top three examples returned from googling the term 'misinformation governance', for me, are from ACMA, AEC, and the Department of Infrastructure.  Developing a response to misinformation that may be in the public domain is a normal function across government. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Golden Duck

[+Paranoid Android]

14 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I've only said as much in this very forum.   In fact, it was a reply to your first post.  (See #100)

Responding to misinformation to following a natural disaster is exactly the type of function they said they would do in their fact sheet.  It's almost as if you haven't read it!

As it appears so onerous for you, hear is the relevant dot point for you again.

Link already provided but pasted again to mitigate unnecessary wear and tear on your mouse device. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/05/02/fact-sheet-dhs-internal-working-group-protects-free-speech-other-fundamental-rights

Are Hurricane Sandy and the 2022 Lismore floods similar enough examples of a government response to misinformation?

Why, does the scenario have to be so specific?  The top three examples returned from googling the term 'misinformation governance', for me, are from ACMA, AEC, and the Department of Infrastructure.  Developing a response to misinformation that may be in the public domain is a normal function across government. 

So this is, in fact, nothing like getting information about the Lismore Floods from the NSW government. This makes much more sense now. I'm seeing more where you are coming from. I get why you tried to compare the two, but I don't think there is much comparable here, to be honest. 

Do you mind my asking - you said that the example given by the government was about natural disasters and fresh water availability. Could you tell me what steps this group took to deal with Hunter Biden's laptop? Or when people suggested the coronavirus may have come from a lab in Wuhan? I'd be curious to see how the disinformation board was so helpful for Hurricane Sandy, but was completely useless for those two events....

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

So this is, in fact, nothing like getting information about the Lismore Floods from the NSW government. This makes much more sense now. I'm seeing more where you are coming from. I get why you tried to compare the two, but I don't think there is much comparable here, to be honest. 

Do you mind my asking - you said that the example given by the government was about natural disasters and fresh water availability. Could you tell me what steps this group took to deal with Hunter Biden's laptop? Or when people suggested the coronavirus may have come from a lab in Wuhan? I'd be curious to see how the disinformation board was so helpful for Hurricane Sandy, but was completely useless for those two events....

Please explain the what the difference is between the two natural disasters.  There isn't any significant or meaningful difference.

Which DHS sub-ordinate agency would be responsible for either of the two issues you mentioned?  How would they fall within the mission stated in the fact sheet?

[+Paranoid Android]

3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Please explain the what the difference is between the two natural disasters.  There isn't any significant or meaningful difference.

Not in the disasters themselves. But this group only put out information in the wake of misinformation. Apparently during Hurricane Katrina people were putting out false information about fresh water availability. Thus it is an irrational comparison to ask me "Did you go to the government for any information on the Lismore floods". They are not comparable, they are totally different. 

 

3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Which DHS sub-ordinate agency would be responsible for either of the two issues you mentioned?  How would they fall within the mission stated in the fact sheet?

 I chose these two examples because these were both once "disinformation" but have now been proven true. I don't know what you are trying to say - are you trying to argue that these issues would not fall into the purview of the disinformation governance board? 

[Golden Duck]

19 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Not in the disasters themselves. But this group only put out information in the wake of misinformation. Apparently during Hurricane Katrina people were putting out false information about fresh water availability. Thus it is an irrational comparison to ask me "Did you go to the government for any information on the Lismore floods". They are not comparable, they are totally different. 

 

 I chose these two examples because these were both once "disinformation" but have now been proven true. I don't know what you are trying to say - are you trying to argue that these issues would not fall into the purview of the disinformation governance board? 

I'm certain a reasonable person will see there is a justifible comparison. To deny it is to engage in an obtuse discourse of rhetoric.  If wind the clock back a few years to antecedent disasters.  We can quote from a submission to Submission to the Royal Commission Into National Natural Disaster Arrangements by the Lismore Citizens Flood Review Group.

Quote

...

For Emergency agencies Websites, Facebook and Twitter etc are the communication methods of choice. No single site has all the required information, multi site agencies are giving different information and much of the information on all sites is out of date. Some sites are:

...

Then there is social media - a comprehensive source of misinformation

...

https://naturaldisaster.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/submission/NND.600.00019_2.pdf

Misinformation follows natural disaster.  You said the government shouldn't dictate the truth, yet that's were you sought reliable information.  I think you are just splitting hairs.

You've been given the fact-sheet about the Board.  I've answered all your questions. I think it might be time to repay the courtesy and answer what were some simple and straight forward questions. Perhaps I'm missing something stated by Mayorkas in the fact-sheet.

[simplybill]

The key word in the title of the new government speech monitoring office is “Governance”. New rules and regulations are bound to follow, because governments never remain static. And to complicate things, government officials are always influenced by lobbyists:

”In addition, a variety of external actors without decision-making power can influence the process of governing. These include lobbies, think tanks, political parties, non-government organizations, community and media.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance

[el midgetron]

President Biden’s DHS disinformation chief Nina Jankowicz defended Hunter Biden’s corrupt dealings with Burisma Holdings during a July 2020 book interview — calling the Biden scion, known for crack addiction and selling influence, a “foreign expert.”

Hunter sat on the board of the Ukrainian Burisma Holdings company from 2014 to 2019, while Joe Biden was vice president and campaigned for president during the 2020 election cycle. Hunter was compensated $83,000 per month as a board director, which raises questions if Hunter was selling influence to his father in the Obama administration. Joe Biden and his staff have denied at least seven times that Biden has been involved in his son’s dealings. But evidence shows Joe Biden was involved in Hunter’s business affairs at least eleven times.

Yet Jankowicz claimed Hunter’s business scheme was legitimate and no cause for alarm.

She spoke to BuzzFeed News reporter Jane Lytvynenk. Comments begin at the 42:23 mark in the video below:

“The accusation is that Hunter Biden, in serving on the board of a Ukrainian company, which you know he is allowed to do, he was not the only foreign expert serving on the board of a Ukrainian company, was involved in some corrupt behavior of that company. This company has been investigated for a long time. Burisma is the name of the company. There’s never been any indication that Hunter Biden was involved in anything untoward. There are questions about whether he should have taken that board appointment given his father’s role as, you know, the Obama administration’s main emissary to Ukraine, but that’s not necessarily something that Joe Biden has control over. It certainly has nothing to do with Joe Biden’s policies toward Ukraine.

And this has, you know, spun into a whole other host of nonsense basically that Joe Biden withheld aid to Ukraine in order to get a resolution to this investigation into Burisma and get his son out of the limelight. It’s just, it’s a load of nonsense. The investigation that is in question was closed at the time that Biden was kind of doing a carrot and stick routine which many diplomats do related to Ukraine in order to get some some financial reforms through and anti-corruption reforms. And there’s a whole host of other allegations that just don’t even bear repeating.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/11/disinformation-chief-jankowicz-defended-hunters-corrupt-burisma-deals/

So, the laptop was “Russian disinformation” but the laptop also shows nothing wrong? If the contents of the laptop are all on the up and up, why bother claiming it’s Russian disinformation?

[+Paranoid Android]

On 5/10/2022 at 3:49 PM, Golden Duck said:

I'm certain a reasonable person will see there is a justifible comparison. To deny it is to engage in an obtuse discourse of rhetoric.  If wind the clock back a few years to antecedent disasters.  We can quote from a submission to Submission to the Royal Commission Into National Natural Disaster Arrangements by the Lismore Citizens Flood Review Group.

https://naturaldisaster.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/submission/NND.600.00019_2.pdf

Misinformation follows natural disaster.  You said the government shouldn't dictate the truth, yet that's were you sought reliable information.  I think you are just splitting hairs.

I still don't see a reasonable comparison between me hearing an update about a flood and the government countering disinformation about a flood. One is simply "information", the other is actively countering "disinformation". I don't see how you can put the two in the same sentence and tell me that they are essentially the same  

 

On 5/10/2022 at 3:49 PM, Golden Duck said:

You've been given the fact-sheet about the Board.  I've answered all your questions. I think it might be time to repay the courtesy and answer what were some simple and straight forward questions. Perhaps I'm missing something stated by Mayorkas in the fact-sheet.

Sorry for the late reply. Half Yearly reports are due tomorrow (for half of my classes) and next Friday (the other half), and that's literally hours of extra work every day at the moment (eg, every day this week I've been arriving at the office at 7:30am and leaving at 6pm, and the only reason I left at 6 yesterday is the carpark gate is locked after that time). I don't know if I'll have time to reply again anytime soon. Nevertheless, you have been very accommodating in answering my questions, so thank you.  

Nevertheless, I have gone over the fact sheet thoroughly. I think the fact sheet does a great job at obfuscating details. Obviously the "Disinformation Governance Board" has been rebranded in the fact sheet as an "internal working group" - this is a minor amendment, but I find it interesting how politicians are trying to spin language (CNN already addressed this during their interviews) The broader issue I have is that despite the fact sheet providing several concrete examples, there are no "guiding principles" or any such listed as to how the board is going to evaluate what "disinformation" actually is. To use an obviously extreme example, I could cherry-pick three or four things that the Nazi party did for the good of all humanity in 1943, and then list only those 3-4 items and sing the praises of the Nazi party, but it wouldn't change the fact that I'm misrepresenting who the Nazi's were and hiding the many terrible things that they did. Without any guiding principles within the fact sheet, listing a couple of examples that no one can really argue against does not really help. 

It does provide some checks and balances. However, I do wonder how the reporting system will operate for this "internal working group" - what form will these "comprehensive quarterly reports" take? Who in congress will read them? Who will challenge them? Does "comprehensive" mean to them what it means to me and you and regular Joe Voter?

In short, I am not impressed with the details of the fact sheet. We'll see how it turns out in practice. Maybe I am over-reacting. 

Thanks for the chat, I hope to respond if you reply, but it really depends on how busy life is  

~ Regards, PA

[+DieChecker]

There's a Wikipedia page now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board

If the governance of this board was foreign actors only, I'd have few issues with it. But initially it very much sounded like they wanted to police the entire internet. Thats what I was against. That and having the FedGov correcting all political campaigning. If its not to touch campaigning media, that might change things. But initially that is exactly what it sounded like they wanted to do. At least to me.

[Golden Duck]

Well I thought it must have been a campaign from the last 10 years.  It was a campaign of the future!

Quote

CBP Launches Digital Ad Campaign “Say No to the Coyote” to Warn Migrants About Smuggler Lies
Release Date: May 11, 2022

U.S. Immigration Laws Remain in Effect. Smugglers are lying to you.

...

For years, CBP has run ad campaigns to dissuade migrants from putting their lives in the hands of smugglers and to inform them of the U.S. immigration laws in place. ...

... These messages counter the lies propagated by human smugglers and warn migrants of the dangers of being exploited and facing death at the hands of unscrupulous criminal organizations. 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-launches-digital-ad-campaign-say-no-coyote-warn-migrants-about

There is nothing explicit about what the misinformation is.  But, misinformation doesn't have to explicit.  Misinformation can exist in the misinformed or those under a misapprehension.  In this case misinformation is no doubt inferred as the migrants keep trying to cross the barrier illegally.

The same thing has been happening here:

• The people smugglers’ business model - https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1213/13rp02
• The myth of the people smugglers’ ‘business model’ - https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of-the-people-smugglers-business-model-16426
• Smashing the people smugglers' business model - https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of-the-people-smugglers-business-model-16426

 

[Golden Duck]

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I still don't see a reasonable comparison between me hearing an update about a flood and the government countering disinformation about a flood. One is simply "information", the other is actively countering "disinformation". I don't see how you can put the two in the same sentence and tell me that they are essentially the same  

 

Sorry for the late reply. Half Yearly reports are due tomorrow (for half of my classes) and next Friday (the other half), and that's literally hours of extra work every day at the moment (eg, every day this week I've been arriving at the office at 7:30am and leaving at 6pm, and the only reason I left at 6 yesterday is the carpark gate is locked after that time). I don't know if I'll have time to reply again anytime soon. Nevertheless, you have been very accommodating in answering my questions, so thank you.  

Nevertheless, I have gone over the fact sheet thoroughly. I think the fact sheet does a great job at obfuscating details. Obviously the "Disinformation Governance Board" has been rebranded in the fact sheet as an "internal working group" - this is a minor amendment, but I find it interesting how politicians are trying to spin language (CNN already addressed this during their interviews) The broader issue I have is that despite the fact sheet providing several concrete examples, there are no "guiding principles" or any such listed as to how the board is going to evaluate what "disinformation" actually is. To use an obviously extreme example, I could cherry-pick three or four things that the Nazi party did for the good of all humanity in 1943, and then list only those 3-4 items and sing the praises of the Nazi party, but it wouldn't change the fact that I'm misrepresenting who the Nazi's were and hiding the many terrible things that they did. Without any guiding principles within the fact sheet, listing a couple of examples that no one can really argue against does not really help. 

It does provide some checks and balances. However, I do wonder how the reporting system will operate for this "internal working group" - what form will these "comprehensive quarterly reports" take? Who in congress will read them? Who will challenge them? Does "comprehensive" mean to them what it means to me and you and regular Joe Voter?

In short, I am not impressed with the details of the fact sheet. We'll see how it turns out in practice. Maybe I am over-reacting. 

Thanks for the chat, I hope to respond if you reply, but it really depends on how busy life is  

~ Regards, PA

The government publishing information in for clarification of explicit, or occult, misinformation in the public domain, or the government publishing information in for some other purpose, is still the government publishing information.

You will need to explain to me what the difference is between the government publishing information and the government publishing information.

The government response to the 2022 floods in NSW likely took into account the recommendations in the NSW Natural Disaster Royal Commission.  I showed that Lismore citizens said there was misinformation.  I think only considering an immediate response to explicit misinformation is too narrow a focus.

The Quarantine Matters campaign would I guess be intended to improve compliance.  It can be reasonably inferred that non-compliance can occur because of misinformation, misunderstanding misapprehension.  Revealing exactly why they would spend taxpayer's money to engage Steve Irwin could pose an operational risk.

The size of this board with 33 appointees is likely never going to be able to respond to an explicit and immediate issue.

Compared to trying to derive the mission statement and structure by equivocating over thr Board's nomenclature, the fact-sheet is good as any fact sheet you will see.

Your concerns about how Congress oversees the executive are true for all agencies.

[+DieChecker]

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The size of this board with 33 appointees is likely never going to be able to respond to an explicit and immediate issue.

Not to barge in too much, but we have a House of Representatives with 535 members and yet plenty gets done. Especially if the 33 people are all of a like (liberal?) mind, things would move quick.

[+OverSword]

Rebuttal anyone?

 

 

[itsnotoutthere]

[el midgetron]

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas picked former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to replace Jankowicz to lead a “thorough review” of its embattled disinformation board, which was put on “pause” Monday after intense backlash….

…..Like Jankowicz, Chertoff also peddled the blatant lie that the Hunter Biden laptop story first broken by the New York Post was the product of “Russian disinformation” just weeks before the 2020 election.

“But it looks like the evidence that’s emerging shows that these purported documents were circulating by the Russians in Ukraine for some period of time. This suggests that this information is not only online but it’s an old-fashioned spy story involving human intelligence sources,” Chertoff, who served in the George W. Bush administration, said in a virtual “Defend Democracy” discussion.

https://www.infowars.com/posts/dhs-pick-to-clean-up-disinformation-board-pushed-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo/

 

 

[Raptor Witness]

54 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas picked former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to replace Jankowicz to lead a “thorough review” of its embattled disinformation board, which was put on “pause” Monday after intense backlash….

Chertoff should be put out to pasture, and fed grass for seven years. Only then perhaps, might he see that it is he, who is misinformed about everything he thought he knew about freedom. People have been "misinformed" about almost every election in the history of the United States. This is nothing new. WE don't need The Freedom Police, what we need is a functioning government that hires people a lot smarter than him.

[+DieChecker]

I saw it was now "on pause". 

Perhaps not as bad a rollout as the Afghanistan pullout, but whomever thought this one up should be looking for a new job.

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I saw it was now "on pause". 

Perhaps not as bad a rollout as the Afghanistan pullout, but whomever thought this one up should be looking for a new job.

Funny about who here seem to think this would have been a good idea don't you think?  I have a hard time identifying with people that want the government to be their mommy and source of everything. 

[+DieChecker]

52 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Funny about who here seem to think this would have been a good idea don't you think?  I have a hard time identifying with people that want the government to be their mommy and source of everything. 

Some people would want the government to prechew their food.

As long as there's humans in charge of humans, there's going to be corruption and abuses. Some though are willing to be abused if it means an easy, cushy, life hanging out and playing games.

Those fine with mediocrity hate those who want to excel.