The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

[One Brow]

What the government tells the companies is disinformation? Or actual disinformation? Very subjective.

That's for the private companies to decide.

Why should the government read all the posts? Why is the government involved at all with a private business policies and procedures.

I'm not aware that the government is trying to read all the posts; it wasn't in the article you posted. I would prefer discussing what the CISA program is over some fictional process. I would agree that, given the scope of government, it's much more likely that a local Kansas politician would notice posts with errors in election locations than any remote person. Your solution leaves that politicians with no resources to have that false information removed. Your solution amounts to 'Saw the wrong info on Facebook? No votes for you!', AFAICT. Is that what Facebook users want from Facebook?

Exactly, its the business that needs to improve. Its should not be the Government helping shape messages.

You accept government help in shaping the mission as long as it is passive on the part of the government.

Okay, here's a scenario. Trump gets elected, he works with Musk, behind scenes, to limit negative information about him on twitter. So users can't read publications, retweet information, share videos unless they are in a positive form. You have no issues with that? Your fine with it because its "Government". Its Trumps "Government" truth.

Elon Musk (and his co-investors) own Twitter. They can do with it whatever they want. Further, ending the CISA program would not prevent this type of cooperation (see OANN, for example). If Twitter turns into this type of platform, the market will decide whether Twitter prospers from it (I'd guess this hypothetical Twitter's future would look a lot like Gab today). I read a few people already talking about other platforms, such as Mastodon. Twitter is not inevitable; it is constantly walking a tightrope.

In fact, if you want a service free from posts being restricted, misinformation labeled/removed, etc., go to Gab, or Gettr, or 4chan. See what the world looks like when all points of view are treated as being equally reliable. People who use Facebook and Twitter do so because they think, to some degree, what they read there is true.

Everything else is fake and conspiracy theories? Then everyone on the right can shout you down for being a conspiracist trying to bring up other information.

Gosh, what a change that would be. It would be so unusual for people on the right to say I'm a conspiracist, a pharmacy shill, a sheep, etc. I'm just not sure I could cope.[/sarcasm]

Playing a dangerous game here with Government and Private companies working together on information.

I agree completely. I applaud you, and even more so The Intercept, for bringing these matters to light. This program should be watched carefully. All the power needs to be in the hands of the private companies, with no coercion.

 

[LogGrad98]

Funny thing is that when i was a kid pretty much everyone got all their information from the same place and the information was pretty much all the same. (In my city everyone got their info from the sl tribune or D news or nbc, abc, or cbs.)
If there was a virus and everyone pretty much felt the same way about it. Almost no one was thinking it was a hoax. Pretty much everyone beleived vaccines were a good thing and they worked.
Information was severely limited and restricted back then in comparison to today. And we were much more united.

I wish we could go back to when information was much more limited.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

Yes, welcome to the Disinformation Age. We blasted right past the Information Age and firmly into the Disinformation Age. I think social media is one of the worst banes on modern society we have ever seen. It is insidious in its nature and in its hold on people's minds, worse than any cult ever devised by man, because the reach is so great, orders of magnitude greater than any single demagogue outside of the likes of Hitler could achieve. and really orders of magnitude greater than that. It has caused us to shut ourselves off from even our next-door neighbors, convinced us to spend countless hours hunting the net micro-dopamine hit to the tune of billions of lost dollars of productivity and causing even our most intimate relationships to suffer, and broken down our walls of skepticism, ironically enough in the guise of skepticism, to get us to believe any nonsense that we come across because it is essentially heroin for confirmation bias. And frankly it is every bit as addictive as heroin, in fact several studies have shown it to have a stronger impact on dopamine than many drugs, leading to addictive behaviors.

To me the negatives so far outweigh any positives as to make the positives nearly invisible. Other than maybe posts from our favorite sports writers, and helping weird randos make millions with their "followers", I bet anyone would be strained to name even 5 true positive aspects of places like twitter, instagram, and facebook.

Social media use linked to depression in adults

People over age 35 were mostly likely to be negatively affected by highly visual apps, such as TikTok and Snapchat.

www.nbcnews.com

My belief is it will contribute directly to our society's downfall if we cannot contain the long-term damaging effects. And right now it feels like that slippery slope is here as a raging mud slide. To me it is pretty ****ing scary the hold it has on people everywhere. And with its rise came a corresponding rise in cases of depression and loneliness and isolation, even while everyone thinks they are more connected than ever. A very very insidious evil indeed. We would all be better off to have it eradicated, imphfo.

 

[One Brow]

Exactly my point to One brow. You are having the government working with private companies to create messaging or limit messaging that they don't like.

In fishonjazz's example of the Pelosi misinformation, Musk put up information from a private source, and took down information based on finding out how unreliable the information was, without the government being involved at all. Kudos, I guess, on the second part? However, what happens when someone uses Musk's platform, and doesn't retract things that are wrong? Why are you denying Musk the resources to efficiently remove such information?

 

[Bucknutz]

Trumps lies were presented as truth literally all the time on social media silly. They still are today

The government has never spoken to me in my life. I have never listened to a government radio station. Never read a government newspaper. never watched a government television channel. Never went to a government website.

If im getting lies from somewhere its from a non government source. Literally everytime. If trump lies to me he isnt the government. He is a person. (Other people in the government are telling me the exact opposite from trump at the same time. Its not a singular entity hive mind. Its thousands of individual people) And the way im getting his lie is through a non governmental source. (Fox news, nbc, yahoo, ksl radio etc)

Here is 2 clips of the government (US Government) talking to you about the portal that was mentioned in the article. Which press secretary is telling the truth and which one is spreading misinformation?


View: https://twitter.com/therealrukshan/status/1587882991312773121?s=46&t=g34ZyDwelQgSPVVAWHBrgw


How can you believe what the government is telling you when they are telling you two things that are opposite?

 

[One Brow]

How can you believe what the government is telling you when they are telling you two things that are opposite?

Censorship is government action. Leaving the decisions to Facebook is not censorship.

If there is any hint of coercion, or even rewards, on the part of the government towards Facebook, et. al., I will gladly join you in the condemnation thereof. I get that your line is different, and I'm OK with that.

 

[fishonjazz]

Here is 2 clips of the government (US Government) talking to you about the portal that was mentioned in the article. Which press secretary is telling the truth and which one is spreading misinformation?


View: https://twitter.com/therealrukshan/status/1587882991312773121?s=46&t=g34ZyDwelQgSPVVAWHBrgw


How can you believe what the government is telling you when they are telling you two things that are opposite?

Exactly. both points are getting out there. Nothing is being silenced. And that isn't the government telling me those things. Its a couple of humans telling those things via twitter (i dont even have a twitter account)

If you want info, you can get it. The government is powerless to stop you from getting it.

 

[fishonjazz]

@Bucknutz tell me some information that you desire. I will fire up my google machine and see if i can locate the information that you desire. If I can then we can agree that the government isn't keeping that information from you.

 

[fishonjazz]

‘Tell me youre in maga country without telling me’: USPS worker refuses service to woman submitting absentee ballot

Voter suppression. stop the steal.

 

[fishonjazz]

To go along with the current discussion: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...newsntp&cvid=81e56ff4f5754145b39837d8a98692c2

Rarely has the Reddit-ification of today’s conservative movement been in such stark relief as after the attack on Paul Pelosi. Various conspiracy theories have been lodged by prominent conservatives based on, at best, sheer innuendo and, at worst, falsehoods — and then (mostly) discarded when they proved just as baseless as they initially seemed.

As The Washington Post’s Philip Bump notes, it’s a case in point when it comes to just how little compunction certain figures in the movement have about departing from facts and good taste, and how little the Republican Party as a whole cares to police its most extreme and conspiratorially minded voices.

There’s never been any real reason to doubt that someone broke into the Pelosis’ home, but certain people were very invested in casting it as some grand conspiracy that didn’t involve a man violently targeting a prominent Democrat.

Trump picked up the ball and ran with it during a radio interview Tuesday.

“It’s weird things going on in that household in the last couple of weeks,” Trump said, adding: “But the glass it seems was broken from the inside to the out. So it wasn’t a break-in; it was a breakout. I don’t know. You hear the same things I do.”

In fact, this had already been explained. And we have gotten straight answers — answers that are even clearer now.

Not only have the police been unequivocal that this was a break-in, but charging documents released Monday — before both Watters’s show and Trump’s comments — state that suspect David DePape himself confirmed as much.

“DEPAPE stated that he broke into the house through a glass door, which was a difficult task that required the use of a hammer,” the criminal complaint said.

But in case statements by law enforcement and the complaint weren’t enough, The Post is now reporting that no less than video footage from the Capitol Police confirms that a man broke into the house:


The officer in D.C. quickly pulled up additional camera angles from around Pelosi’s home and began to backtrack, watching recordings from the minutes before San Francisco police arrived. There, on camera, was a man with a hammer, breaking a glass panel and entering the speaker’s home, according to three people familiar with how Capitol Police learned of the break-in and who have been briefed on or viewed the video themselves.

 

[Bucknutz]

@Bucknutz tell me some information that you desire. I will fire up my google machine and see if i can locate the information that you desire. If I can then we can agree that the government isn't keeping that information from you.

I just did. Is the government using the portal to stop misinformation or are they not? Because just 2 hours ago they said they are not. Please show me the original source of information that shows they are definitely not using the portal to help stop misinformation. I don't want left wing or right wing news sources. I want government documents showing they are not using it. Because if they were not using it, this issue would be moot.

 

[LogGrad98]

To go along with the current discussion: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...newsntp&cvid=81e56ff4f5754145b39837d8a98692c2

Rarely has the Reddit-ification of today’s conservative movement been in such stark relief as after the attack on Paul Pelosi. Various conspiracy theories have been lodged by prominent conservatives based on, at best, sheer innuendo and, at worst, falsehoods — and then (mostly) discarded when they proved just as baseless as they initially seemed.

As The Washington Post’s Philip Bump notes, it’s a case in point when it comes to just how little compunction certain figures in the movement have about departing from facts and good taste, and how little the Republican Party as a whole cares to police its most extreme and conspiratorially minded voices.

There’s never been any real reason to doubt that someone broke into the Pelosis’ home, but certain people were very invested in casting it as some grand conspiracy that didn’t involve a man violently targeting a prominent Democrat.

Trump picked up the ball and ran with it during a radio interview Tuesday.

“It’s weird things going on in that household in the last couple of weeks,” Trump said, adding: “But the glass it seems was broken from the inside to the out. So it wasn’t a break-in; it was a breakout. I don’t know. You hear the same things I do.”

In fact, this had already been explained. And we have gotten straight answers — answers that are even clearer now.

Not only have the police been unequivocal that this was a break-in, but charging documents released Monday — before both Watters’s show and Trump’s comments — state that suspect David DePape himself confirmed as much.

“DEPAPE stated that he broke into the house through a glass door, which was a difficult task that required the use of a hammer,” the criminal complaint said.

But in case statements by law enforcement and the complaint weren’t enough, The Post is now reporting that no less than video footage from the Capitol Police confirms that a man broke into the house:


The officer in D.C. quickly pulled up additional camera angles from around Pelosi’s home and began to backtrack, watching recordings from the minutes before San Francisco police arrived. There, on camera, was a man with a hammer, breaking a glass panel and entering the speaker’s home, according to three people familiar with how Capitol Police learned of the break-in and who have been briefed on or viewed the video themselves.

But all it takes it Trump saying what he did to get a decently large portion of the population to completely disregard any video evidence, hell any evidence of any kind, and it remains a gay lover spat or whatever other conspiracy they latch onto. We are so far down the rabbit hole that nothing will suffice for evidence. I believe some of them could have seen it with their own eyes, but when Trump tells them it was a break-out they will disregard what they saw and follow the shepherd over the cliff.

 

[fishonjazz]

I just did. Is the government using the portal to stop misinformation or are they not? Because just 2 hours ago they said they are not. Please show me the original source of information that shows they are definitely not using the portal to help stop misinformation. I don't want left wing or right wing news sources. I want government documents showing they are not using it. Because if they were not using it, this issue would be moot.

Well see you cant pick and choose news sources. I can use left wing or right wing news sources to find info. You are saying the government is stopping you from getting information. Well if its found on left wing or right wing sources then that would mean its able to be found right?

 

[fishonjazz]

But all it takes it Trump saying what he did to get a decently large portion of the population to completely disregard any video evidence, hell any evidence of any kind, and it remains a gay lover spat or whatever other conspiracy they latch onto. We are so far down the rabbit hole that nothing will suffice for evidence. I believe some of them could have seen it with their own eyes, but when Trump tells them it was a break-out they will disregard what they saw and follow the shepherd over the cliff.

Yep. I wish the government were able to stop anyone from accessing any disinformation about the gay lover crap. Unfortunately the government doesn't have the ability to prevent information from being veiwed no matter how incorrect the information is.

 

[Bucknutz]

Well see you cant pick and choose news sources. I can use left wing or right wing news sources to find info. You are saying the government is stopping you from getting information. Well if its found on left wing or right wing sources then that would mean its able to be found right?

Sure, find documents from the government that states they don’t use portal that news sources can provide. I don’t want opinion. I want official documents. The article I provided had leaked documents and links.

 

[fishonjazz]

Sure, find documents from the government that states they don’t use portal that news sources can provide. I don’t want opinion. I want official documents. The article I provided had leaked documents and links.

What if those leaked documents and links were fake!?

 

[One Brow]

I just did. Is the government using the portal to stop misinformation or are they not?

Yes, they are using the portal. The answer was "No" because the questioner used "censorship" and "censor".

 

[Bucknutz]

What if those leaked documents and links were fake!?

Link is still active and documents show how to use it and actually gave the link. I also provided a clip of press secretary explaining the process.

Please stop stalling and show me documents leaked or provided that show that the government didn’t use the portal and support the other press secretary.

This is the point I’m making, why should the government be the source of truth when they can’t provide the truth. If they didn’t use it, the prove it.

Did you just accept that Trump was telling the truth about the call with the Ukraine? Or did you question it when the call was leaked?

 

[One Brow]

Please stop stalling and show me documents leaked or provided that show that the government didn’t use the portal and support the other press secretary.

First, you'll have to show how use of the portal is "censorship". If you can not, than Jean-Pierre is correct regardless of current portal usage.

 

[fishonjazz]

Link is still active and documents show how to use it and actually gave the link. I also provided a clip of press secretary explaining the process.

Please stop stalling and show me documents leaked or provided that show that the government didn’t use the portal and support the other press secretary.

This is the point I’m making, why should the government be the source of truth when they can’t provide the truth. If they didn’t use it, the prove it.

Did you just accept that Trump was telling the truth about the call with the Ukraine? Or did you question it when the call was leaked?

Im just not seeing disinformation being hard to find. In this day and age the government is completely unable to censor info even if they want to. The government isn't the source of truth as far as I can tell (I see lots of **** they would rather me not see im sure). Why would I accept trump was telling me the truth about anything?
The internet is simply too big and too free and easy for them to be able to police it.
I wish they could though. Would be nice if people couldn't put out fake info about the pelosi attack for instance. Unfortunately there is nothing the government can do about it.

 

[Gameface]

This is going to be kind of random but a couple weeks ago I listened to the audiobook (I listen to audiobooks over reading them almost all the time now and I listen to at least a few audiobooks a month) of Chelsea Manning's "Redme.txt" and it was really interesting. I posted something about it here after I had listened to about 10% of it. It was good. Not like epically good or anything but it was very interesting all the same. Chelsea Manning (deadname is Bradley Edward Manning) was an intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They leaked classified information to WikiLeaks after having attempted to leak to major U.S. news outlets and being turned away. I don't want to run on, but they NEVER leaked information that revealed the identity of covert agents or national security information and in their prosecution, despite being charged with doing so, it was absolutely not shown that the information Chelsea leaked led to any harm to the U.S. or any U.S. personnel. She was acquitted of charges related to that claim.

Anyway, in the book Chelsea came to a realization that things being classified or not classified did not always have anything to do with national security, unless you consider inconvenient facts about mistakes made in combat zones resulting in civilian and even journalists' deaths matters of national security. What Chelsea did, in her own opinion, was to release information that was primarily historical in nature but also that demonstrated the messiness, the brutality, the blurry line between who the good guys are and who the bad guys are and the one step forward two steps back reality of what war really was.

Does the U.S. Government lie? Yes 100%. Do they often do so when they have no legitimate reason to, national security or otherwise? Yes 100%. Do they engage in activities that aren't beneficial to the people of the U.S. and even to the overall interests of the U.S. Government and then attempt to hide these activities? Yes,100%.

Does that mean that the U.S. government is actively engaged in malicious and nefarious activities aimed at the general U.S. public? I don't really think so. I think they save their malicious and nefarious activities for specific segments of the U.S. population, the biggest and most harmed target having been the African American community (because so much of the harm that was caused to indigenous people happened when they were not considered to be part of the U.S., so...), then to other minorities, the LGBTQ+ community, women when they didn't stay in their designated lane, etc..

Not really sure where I'm going here other than to say that I think it is wise to take official statements from the U.S. government with a large grain of salt. But if to you that means that they are trying to inject microchips into your body and give you a fake vaccine that is ultimately going to sterilize you or kill you, you might want to take a step back... so that you have more momentum when you take a flying leap off the ledge because I don't think there is any actual hope for most of you who think that way.