No, it's a classification of information. And you're deflecting away from the fact that no one can agree on basic definitions of terminology and everyone is just talking past each other.
That's the tolerance paradox. Things can be disinformation without playing games with equivocation.
If Phillip morris is running a bot farm or paying people to tell others that smoking is healthy and doesn't cause cancer, then we have a duty to call that disinformation and strive to correct it. And I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me about the growing lung cancer rates in nonsmokers or that lung cancer is more deadly in nonsmokers.
That's completely irrelevant to the original poster's point. The "Disinformation Governance Board" as referenced in the original post was not sponsored by phillip morris, and did not claim that smoking was healthy. Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation"
Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation"
Not a word of that is accurate.
1. The US government has never had the authority to remove content. They merely flag what they find of foreign and malign origin for platforms, which then take the decisions themselves.
2. The U.S. government worked to uncover foreign influence operations. If those influence operations, aside from promoting chaos, supported one candidate over another, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore them.
What it should be is a moment of introspection for conservatives as to why unambiguous enemies of America want the candidate that you want to run the country.
But that introspection has not and probably will never come.
> The US government has never had the authority to remove content.
this is technically true, but false in practice.
> The U.S. government worked to uncover foreign influence operations. If those influence operations, aside from promoting chaos, supported one candidate over another, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore them.
they worked to uncover some foreign influence operations (and broadly propagandized the connection to the political campaign); other foreign influence operations (such as a certain dossier compiled by a foreign intelligence agent, colluding with one of the political parties, and using many foreign intelligence sources), they used as the basis for propaganda in mainstream media, which was laundered back into "evidence" for an intelligence operation against a political candidate. Classic disinformation technique. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg
Do you see what I mean when I say "disinformation is a frame" ?
Check it for what? I can't know what narrative you have in your head which you are trying and failing to communicate to me.
> this is technically true, but false in practice.
lol "I'm wrong but if you think of it a different way, my way, then I'm right."
> such as a certain dossier compiled by a foreign intelligence agent, colluding with one of the political parties
The Steele dossier, which you're referring to, started off as opposition research funded by Republicans. I don't have the time nor the desire to debunk everything else you said point by point.
You see the world the way you want to, and you are shaping reality based on what you want to believe.
See what? A cringe TikTok video? What is this supposedly proof of? I know all these conspiracies make sense in your head, but I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.
I'm absolutely sure I'm wasting my time, but I'm having a lazy Sunday so I'll do it anyways.
I wrote:
> Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation"
You wrote:
> Not a word of that is accurate.
Let's break it down.
sponsored by taxpayers: true (funded by DHS)
clear political goals: my opinion, debatable, but I think supported by the facts
suppression of disinformation, misinformation, malinformation: also true
> The Steele dossier, which you're referring to, started off as opposition research funded by Republicans. I don't have the time nor the desire to debunk everything else you said point by point.
The Washington Free Beacon did engage Fusion GPS to perform research based on public information of several Republican candidates, including Trump, but at this phase, Fusion GPS had not yet engaged Steele (a former British MI6 agent) for the project. It was only after Perkins Coie began funding the investigation on behalf of their clients, the Clinton campaign and DNC, that Steele was involved. So it is not correct to claim that the "Steele Dossier" was funded as Republican opposition research, because Steele was not involved, and no foreign intelligence sources were used, until the DNC/Clinton campaign were the paying clients. The FEC found that the DNC/Clinton campaign misrepresented their payments for this opposition research and fined them in 2019.
However, the funding is not the point. The point is what the FBI did with it afterwards. Steele shared the dossier with journalist Michael Isikoff, who wrote an article for Yahoo News in September 2016 titled “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.” The FBI used both the Steele dossier and this article as evidence for the FISA warrant for surveilling Trump campaign employee Carter Page, without disclosing that the source for this article was the same unverified Steele dossier. This is what I meant when I said that the Steele dossier was washed through the media and then used by the FBI to corroborate the same, even though it added no new information. This was exposed in the 2019 IG report by Michael Horowitz.
The specific allegations against Carter Page, that he had met with some Kremlin officials, and that he had been offered or had been brokering a bribe in the form of shares of the Russian energy company Rosneft, were investigated and never substantiated.
Every word of this is the objective truth, and calling me a liar or an idiot won't help your case.
> See what? A cringe TikTok video? What is this supposedly proof of? I know all these conspiracies make sense in your head, but I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.
The person in this cringe video is none other than Nina Jankowicz, the head of the Disinformation Governance Board, describing the exact disinformation campaign enacted above. You would know this if you had read the wikipedia page.
Please note that I haven't claimed that Republicans don't engage in similar dirty tricks. I am just saying "disinformation is a frame"