What is an example of inconvenient but true facts Homeland Security is trying to censor? When people complain the media is not covering some story, I have always read that story in the mainstream media.
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
What is an example of inconvenient but true facts Homeland Security is trying to censor? When people complain the media is not covering some story, I have always read that story in the mainstream media.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
the bidens are massively and internationally corrupt and personally perverted and debased.
Are you upset because I pointed out how propaganda works? Or are you upset because you so easily deluded by propaganda?
BidenPresident
Verified User
another Russian troll
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
you still have not even offered a rebuttal of the main argument, of any kind.
you're a fucking little bitch with zero arguments who only makes an adhominem attack and then runs away.
and you suck at the law.
What RT is trying to say is that censoring disinformation is censoring facts.
Disinformation about Covid or the elections is not inconvenient, but true, facts. RT is providing disinformation to people like AssHatZombie so they can feel good about their delusions.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Social media should be uncensored to whatever degree is safe.
Obviously, calls to violence and obvious slander of non-public people needn't be tolerated.
Privately owned platforms and apps should grant or deny access to whomever they wish.
It's not a free speech issue. It has nothing to do with free speech. You can say what you want standing on your own soapbox.
All "information" garnered from social media should be taken with a grain of salt.
Nobody with a modicum intelligence considers these media venues to be anything approaching reliable.
Unfortunately, people lacking adequate functional intelligence are influenced by these sources.
Or perhaps not in all cases. Perhaps they just use them to reinforce what they already believe. I'm sure this is a big part of it too.
Obviously, calls to violence and obvious slander of non-public people needn't be tolerated.
Privately owned platforms and apps should grant or deny access to whomever they wish.
It's not a free speech issue. It has nothing to do with free speech. You can say what you want standing on your own soapbox.
All "information" garnered from social media should be taken with a grain of salt.
Nobody with a modicum intelligence considers these media venues to be anything approaching reliable.
Unfortunately, people lacking adequate functional intelligence are influenced by these sources.
Or perhaps not in all cases. Perhaps they just use them to reinforce what they already believe. I'm sure this is a big part of it too.
And where did you get that information---from the media? I have seen that view expressed on JPP, many right-wing sources and the mainstream media. The mainstream media does not claim they are corrupt but reports on the right-wing accusations.
Obviously, the information is not being "censored." A Google search of "Biden family corruption" gives us 10,200,000 results.
You have to actually read the media to know what it is covering.
I will be happy to rebut the OP.
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ hasn't gone away: Official Washington didn't abandon its plan to control social networks
Leaked documents reveal the ‘paused’ ‘Disinformation Governance Board’’ is back online
The US Department of Homeland Security is secretly ramping up its efforts to censor and suppress information it considers dangerous - in other words, it's focussed on inconvenient, but true, facts. A body originally created to defend Americans from terror is now threatening free speech everywhere online - and doing so with the active help of major tech firms.
This is all revealed in leaked documents obtained by journalists Ken Klippenstein and Lee Fang. Perhaps the most worrying papers are those that show that the highly controversial and widely condemned DHS (or “Disinformation Governance Board”) – and the serious threat it poses to free speech – hasn't gone anywhere.
So let's start to tear the bullshit apart.
1. Disinformation is not true facts. It is things that are NOT factual.
2. Preventing lies from being told that are dangerous to US security is not a serious threat to free speech.
3. DHS is not highly controversial
4. DHS is not highly condemned
5. They are not threatening free speech in Russia or China or North Korea since they have no control over social media in those places.
6 They can't spell "focussed"[sic]
7. DHS is not the acronym for the Disinformation Governance Board
8. The documents obtained by the journalists were not all leaked. They were obtained through public sources, an ongoing lawsuit, and some were leaked. Most of the information did not come from leaked documents.
The RT story takes bits and pieces from the story reported by the journalists, leaves out many parts and highlights minor parts as if they are the main thing being done. The primary purpose of FIIA and CISA is to monitor and prevent interference by foreign governments.
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ hasn't gone away: Official Washington didn't abandon its plan to control social networks
Leaked documents reveal the ‘paused’ ‘Disinformation Governance Board’’ is back online
The US Department of Homeland Security is secretly ramping up its efforts to censor and suppress information it considers dangerous - in other words, it's focussed on inconvenient, but true, facts. A body originally created to defend Americans from terror is now threatening free speech everywhere online - and doing so with the active help of major tech firms.
This is all revealed in leaked documents obtained by journalists Ken Klippenstein and Lee Fang. Perhaps the most worrying papers are those that show that the highly controversial and widely condemned DHS (or “Disinformation Governance Board”) – and the serious threat it poses to free speech – hasn't gone anywhere.
So let's start to tear the bullshit apart.
1. Disinformation is not true facts. It is things that are NOT factual.
2. Preventing lies from being told that are dangerous to US security is not a serious threat to free speech.
3. DHS is not highly controversial
4. DHS is not highly condemned
5. They are not threatening free speech in Russia or China or North Korea since they have no control over social media in those places.
6 They can't spell "focussed"[sic]
7. DHS is not the acronym for the Disinformation Governance Board
8. The documents obtained by the journalists were not all leaked. They were obtained through public sources, an ongoing lawsuit, and some were leaked. Most of the information did not come from leaked documents.
The RT story takes bits and pieces from the story reported by the journalists, leaves out many parts and highlights minor parts as if they are the main thing being done. The primary purpose of FIIA and CISA is to monitor and prevent interference by foreign governments.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
certain key platforms are censored. social media they call it.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
They are not censored. That platform is private and can choose to display or not display whatever they choose. Nobody is censoring them--they make their own choices. They certainly do not censor information about the Biden family. A search will confirm that including Fact Check sites that report on false statements made by Biden and others.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Please be specific- What truths do you think Homeland Security is throttling?
Let's itemize these and discuss them one at a time please!
Because I feel I can easily defend our Homeland Security department using nothing but common sense!
Last edited:
it's proven the fbi forced them to censor.
But yet, that information was easily found on all those platforms. It must have been censored only for right-wingers who never bothered to look because they believed the lies about censorship.
What platform censored information you were trying to locate?
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
Thank you for confirming that it was never censored.
Agreed, but I think your delivery would have been better without the ad hominem attack.
they gaslight themselves to avoid cognitive dissonance with their internalized authority figure abusers.
it's so sad.
I'm personally rather cautious when it comes to ascribing reasons for other people's statements, but I think we can agree that simply dismissing someone else's sources will tend to kill any productive discussion with that party.
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
That is not true. If you cite The National Enquirer, for example, as a source, would you expect us to take you seriously?
Assuming the article is also published in Russian, I wouldn't know, as I don't speak Russian. As to a better source, that'd be a judgement call, but RT's article links to an article in its very first sentence that seems to be RT's main source:
Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation | The Intercept. Perhaps if I'd included the link in said sentence, it could have avoided your query. I've now added the link in the opening post.
While I have only briefly glanced at this article, I can say right off the bat that I like the title of RT's article much better as it makes it clear that Biden's "Disinformation Governance Board" never really went away, it just changed its name.