Senile Biden's Assault on Free Speech

Breaking - Big new report on Senile Biden Admin’s efforts to suppress online speech. Their Disinformation Board was just the beginning. DHS plans to monitor speech on origins of COVID, COVID vaccines, “racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan,” and Ukraine and have Big Tech suppress speech they don't like

Long read - a few excerpts

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.

The work, much of which remains unknown to the American public, came into clearer view earlier this year when DHS announced a new “Disinformation Governance Board”: a panel designed to police misinformation (false information spread unintentionally), disinformation (false information spread intentionally), and malinformation (factual information shared, typically out of context, with harmful intent) that allegedly threatens U.S. interests. While the board was widely ridiculed, immediately scaled back, and then shut down within a few months, other initiatives are underway as DHS pivots to monitoring social media now that its original mandate — the war on terror — has been wound down.

Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the U.S. government has used its power to try to shape online discourse. According to meeting minutes and other records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican who is also running for Senate, discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information.
.
.
.
There is also a formalized process for government officials to directly flag content on Facebook or Instagram and request that it be throttled or suppressed through a special Facebook portal that requires a government or law enforcement email to use. At the time of writing, the “content request system” at facebook.com/xtakedowns/login is still live. DHS and Meta, the parent company of Facebook, did not respond to a request for comment. The FBI declined to comment.
.
.
.
Prior to the 2020 election, tech companies including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Verizon Media met on a monthly basis with the FBI, CISA, and other government representatives. According to NBC News, the meetings were part of an initiative, still ongoing, between the private sector and government to discuss how firms would handle misinformation during the election.

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

The emails and documents show close collaboration b/w DHS & private sector. Twitter's Vijaya Gadde (fired by @elonmusk last week) met monthly with DHS to discuss censorship plans. Microsoft exec texted DHS: "Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov't"

Orwellian as fuck.

Twist the story around. It's Republicans that want to band books. They want uninformed, stupid people to follow along with their conspiracy theories because they have nothing else to offer. Keep the people uneducated and misinformed. I see a lot of that on here, quoted faux news and other radical right-wing conspiracy theory websites to keep the mindless and gullible under their bullshit.

Twist the story around. It's Republicans that want to band books. They want uninformed, stupid people to follow along with their conspiracy theories because they have nothing else to offer. Keep the people uneducated and misinformed. I see a lot of that on here, quoted faux news and other radical right-wing conspiracy theory websites to keep the mindless and gullible under their bullshit. Originally Posted by rmg_35

Ummm the subject of this thread is about Senile Biden Admin’s efforts to suppress online speech and influence big tech platforms and censorship.

Just one of the biggest stories of the year. But of course you try to change the subject posting whatever garbage you dreamed up. Try answering these relevant questions

Do you believe the US Gov't should be restricting free speech?
Do you believe the US Gov't should influence / control Big tech censorship programs?
Do you believe in the US Constitution?

Orwellian as fuck. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

It is indeed. One of the biggest stories of the year but watch the libtard media bury it (because they are in on the scam against the American people)

The Intercept is not a biased new source, in either direction. Take your head out of the sand for a minute, this is ridiculous.

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

Do you believe the US Gov't should be restricting free speech?
Do you believe the US Gov't should influence / control Big tech censorship programs?
Do you believe in the US Constitution? Originally Posted by berryberry

I believe in the constitution and I believe in truth. I don't believe that there should be any GENERAL censorship unless the information being shared, is false, harmful or would insight harm to others. So while yes, that is a nuance of censoring- it's so that false information isn't taken to action or cause of harm. In the case of conspiracies and COVID and the stolen election, more than one of those does create harm. And if you don't care about anything other than harming democracy, I'd say you would also support protecting it.

Those who continue to tout that this was a stolen election, are sowing the seeds of distrust in democracy. There has not been a shread of evidence produced in court to allow that to continue, and yet it's been allowed to not only flourish, but it's been a MAGA talking point, until the economy became a bigger & better one.

Should those discussions be allowed to continue on large forums aka big tech without a disclaimer? I don't think so, and the reason is that anyone who acts out and either causes harm or distrust/ or affects voters is illegal. People standing next to a ballot box openly armed is a good example. They have to stay far enough away so as to not be influential vs. observing?

I mean really why do you need to have a gun either open or concealed while monitoring a ballot box? What in the exact fuck would you do with that gun, and what would be a good reason for having it in that circumstance?

I believe in the constitution and I believe in truth. I don't believe that there should be any GENERAL censorship unless the information being shared, is false, harmful or would insight harm to others. So while yes, that is a nuance of censoring- it's so that false information isn't taken to action or cause of harm. In the case of conspiracies and COVID and the stolen election, more than one of those does create harm. And if you don't care about anything other than harming democracy, I'd say you would also support protecting it.

Those who continue to tout that this was a stolen election, are sowing the seeds of distrust in democracy. There has not been a shread of evidence produced in court to allow that to continue, and yet it's been allowed to not only flourish, but it's been a MAGA talking point, until the economy became a bigger & better one.

Should those discussions be allowed to continue on large forums aka big tech without a disclaimer? I don't think so, and the reason is that anyone who acts out and either causes harm or distrust/ or affects voters is illegal. People standing next to a ballot box openly armed is a good example. They have to stay far enough away so as to not be influential vs. observing?

I mean really why do you need to have a gun either open or concealed while monitoring a ballot box? What in the exact fuck would you do with that gun, and what would be a good reason for having it in that circumstance? Originally Posted by eyecu2

So to recap what you wrote

You DO believe the US Gov't should be restricting free speech

You DO believe the US Gov't should influence / control Big tech censorship programs

You DO NOT believe in the US Constitution because there is this pesky clause about free speech in there

Alrighty then

Twist the story around. It's Republicans that want to band books. They want uninformed, stupid people to follow along with their conspiracy theories because they have nothing else to offer. Keep the people uneducated and misinformed. I see a lot of that on here, quoted faux news and other radical right-wing conspiracy theory websites to keep the mindless and gullible under their bullshit. Originally Posted by rmg_35

Republicans (people with a sliver of morality) want to keep porn from schools. Parents who tried to read from the texts, that democrats think is appropriate, at school board meetings, get their mic cut because it’s subject matter that’s unfit for a room full of adults. If you think putting that shit in schools is a good thing, it’s you who have a problem and should seek counseling.

Plenty of links to post but would likely be a violation of site rules.

So to recap what you wrote

You DO believe the US Gov't should be restricting free speech

You DO believe the US Gov't should influence / control Big tech censorship programs

You DO NOT believe in the US Constitution because there is this pesky clause about free speech in there

Alrighty then Originally Posted by berryberry

Not what I said at all.

I think that large forums need governance to be honest & not promote falsities.

It's the same reason newspapers print retractions - governance.

In the changing world of how information is transmitted that might include low tech, and big tech. But I think simple sharing of ideas is always good, and a hypothesis is fine, but when things are proven to be wrong, then they need to have either a statement or caveat to that effect.

Relative to free speech - hell yeah I believe in it, and would prefer that we not have to worry about people who knowingly spread bad information, would self correct, but we're living in a wild west of propaganda and public forums that have no truth doctrine or any reason to curtail known bullshit.

Tell me what part of that you are not in alignment with?


You guys often talk about AKA fake news or mainstream media - don't you want those entities to be reporting everything to be accurate? I would think so

Not what I said at all.

I think that large forums need governance to be honest & not promote falsities.

It's the same reason newspapers print retractions - governance.

In the changing world of how information is transmitted that might include low tech, and big tech. But I think simple sharing of ideas is always good, and a hypothesis is fine, but when things are proven to be wrong, then they need to have either a statement or caveat to that effect.

Relative to free speech - hell yeah I believe in it, and would prefer that we not have to worry about people who knowingly spread bad information, would self correct, but we're living in a wild west of propaganda and public forums that have no truth doctrine or any reason to curtail known bullshit.

Tell me what part of that you are not in alignment with?


You guys often talk about AKA fake news or mainstream media - don't you want those entities to be reporting everything to be accurate? I would think so Originally Posted by eyecu2

So do u want the government to decide what is truth and what is not?
Noone lies more than the government,when Trump gets banned but isis and the Iran's and hamas were still there, that should make u realize it's fucked up sir

So do u want the government to decide what is truth and what is not?
Noone lies more than the government,when Trump gets banned but isis and the Iran's and hamas were still there, that should make u realize it's fucked up sir Originally Posted by chizzy

Well ultimately somebody has to be the referee, since it doesn't seem that these entities are controlling themselves or false information, but rather leverage it as clickbait often, and other times outright just baloney.

I believe in freedom of speech, but I just think that if you are purporting yourself to being a factual news organization you should be held to the standard that your not just an opinion site vs. a news site.

The Fairness doctrine was a oversight mechanism and required some level of accountability. Once that was abandoned, the News should have been called, the Opinion. No different than the Onion- but the heretics and zeolites have certainly found their ShangriLa.


Do I think they should be allowed to continue to chant false info??

Nope.

I could find just as good a news listening to my mom's knitting circle and all the things that are supposedly happening in the world of the uneducated.

Not what I said at all.
Originally Posted by eyecu2

Ummm You said this:

I don't believe that there should be any GENERAL censorship unless the information being shared, is false, harmful or would insight harm to others. So while yes, that is a nuance of censoring- it's so that false information isn't taken to action or cause of harm. In the case of conspiracies and COVID and the stolen election, more than one of those does create harm. Originally Posted by eyecu2

So:

You DO believe the US Gov't should be restricting free speech,

You DO believe the US Gov't should influence / control Big tech censorship programs, and

You DO NOT believe in the US Constitution because there is this pesky clause about free speech in there

You either have free speech or you don't. You can't have censorship of opinions you don't like. You mention COVID and the stolen election. Turns out much of what many knowledgeable people posted about Covid, and were censored / banned for on Twitter, Facebook, etc. turned out to be true. And there have been numerous instances of election fraud discovered. You just don't want to believe them because it goes against your politics and the libtard media covers it up.

By the way, the libtards have complained about stolen elections for ages. When Bush beat Gore. When Trump beat Clinton. When fat ass Stacy Adams lost in Georgia. Were their opinions censored? NO !!! You just want the government to censor conservative opinions and statements