America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[AProudLefty]

Your flaw is in your second sentence here- it brooks no possibility that others would disagree with your assessment on the questionability of a given source.

There is nothing wrong with asking for a better source. That is how a discussion can continue and flourish.

I strongly suspect that you have sources that I wouldn't trust as well. If we all insulted each other's sources, instead of why we disagree with them, I doubt much productive discussion would happen.

I always fact check every article. If a source is known to be questionable and has a high chance of falsehoods and misinformation, I will not use it and seek a better source that is factual and accurate.

The BBC in the UK, NPR in the U.S. and the CBC in Canada are all "state controlled" as well. I certainly believe this gives them certain biases, but that doesn't mean they don't have good information as well. You just have to be wary of their potential bias.

False.

None of this gets into any specific allegations, making it impossible to determine whether these claims have any validity.

You can read a list of the RT articles that are misleading or full of disinformation.. You can confirm it yourself.

 

[Scott]

Believe it or not, articles are still written by people even if I didn't write the article myself. And no, I didn't write any of the articles I linked to.

So there was no insult. That is settled.

That made me chuckle. You seem to be implying that if an insult wasn't directed at me personally, it's not an insult. Secondly, while not a direct insult, insulting a person's sources is still indirectly insulting them, by insulting their ability to discern the quality of a source.

I definitely did want you to address it, but it took quite some time to get you to do that. At least you did it though. Many people never do.

It did not take some time. I addressed it after 14 posts after discussions with various posters and with each other. It was two hours between your initial post and my post addressing it after being busy responding to others and being busy in chores and such.

I would have preferred it if you'd adressed it without having to go through all those posts, but it's water under the bridge now.

As to your aspersions concerning my sources, I've yet to see any evidence for them, but if we can focus on the content of my sources rather than your views of them, perhaps we can continue to make progress.

You have already provided evidence yourself. I've copied and pasted relevant texts from your very own sources.

Feel free to link to any evidence you believe you have that you believe severely deprecates any of the sources I've used.

Most of posters here agree that AHZ is not of sound of mind.

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. Did you take a poll on what people thought of his soundness of mind here?

It is an observation. He may be a troll, so that would explain his bizarre posts because, seriously, no sane person would believe the irrational statements they are saying.

In general, I think his statements are rational, although I think that he has been too harsh in his criticisms of various posters here, which I've pointed out to him.

Anyway, what made you think "I've come to the conclusion"? An information is either censored or not censored. There is no between. If it is censored, we wouldn't have known the information.

You're conflating censorship in a given place to absolute censorship everywhere. They're not the same thing.

Please clarify.

A story that is censored on Facebook may not be censored on Twitter, and vice versa.

You misunderstood why I linked to that article. I was pointing out that the mainstream media fully acknowledges that Twitter engaged in censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story.

No I did not misunderstand. You claimed (as far as I understood) that Yoel and others resigned because, according to your source, they were active in censoring information they deemed disinformation and they were called on it.

I'm glad you put in that "as far as I understood" bit. You misunderstood me. I linked to the story on Yoel only to point out that Twitter was engaged in censorship. I never claimed to be sure as to why they resigned.

The author of that article appears to be suggesting that Roth didn't like being leaned on by Musk and this caused him to quit. He doesn't offer any supporting evidence, though.

People resign all the time, especially after they get a new boss. That isn't new. No clue how you came to the conclusion they quit because, to rephrase, "they were called on for their censorship of tweets".

If you're rephrasing something, you're not quoting them, so putting quotes on it is misleading. As mentioned above, I have laid no claim to knowing why Roth resigned. I simply pointed out what appeared to be the author's suggestion as to why he might have done so.

You've changed your stance from the scandal not having any impact to it "may have had a minimal effect". But far more notable to the discerning eye is that you have yet to provide any evidence that the censorship and malignment of the Hunter Biden laptop story didn't actually change the election results.

No I didn't change my stance. You made the claim that it did have an impact so it's a small possibility that it might have had a minor impact if you are correct. It still doesn't make any difference in the end.

No, I never made that claim, though I strongly suspect that it did have an impact. What I -did- point out is that you hadn't offered any evidence that the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story did -not- have an impact on the election results.

 

[AProudLefty]

That made me chuckle. You seem to be implying that if an insult wasn't directed at me personally, it's not an insult.

That isn't what I have suggested at all. It was YOU who claimed it was an insult. An insult is suppose to affect a person's feelings.

Secondly, while not a direct insult, insulting a person's sources is still indirectly insulting them, by insulting their ability to discern the quality of a source.

Again, you cannot insult something that isn't a person. No clue where you got that definition from.

I would have preferred it if you'd adressed it without having to go through all those posts, but it's water under the bridge now.

I do not prefer to have to waste my time trying to dismantle an obvious questionable article. A better article would be appreciated.

If you want to have a discussion with someone, do not ask them to waste their time trying to debunk every single thing on the article.

I'll reply to the rest later. It's too taxing. All of this could have been avoided if you HAD respected my request for a better source.

 

[Scott]

I'm pretty sure you know that I strongly disagree with you here. For those in the audience who'd like to see my discussion with TiE on the subject, I recommend the following thread:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com

I'd say that every party involved in a war loses a lot, other than the ones supplying the weapons. What I'm hoping for is that the U.S. and NATO don't push Russia to what might be called a point of no return. I made a thread on all of this here if you're interested:
Will Our War-for-Profit System Lead to Nuclear Annihilation? | justplainpolitics.com

What do you believe Russia would be willing to give up in a negotiated peace?

I've answered in the thread I created for this type of discussion:
Will Our War-for-Profit System Lead to Nuclear Annihilation? | justplainpolitics.com

 

[Scott]

Well that goes without saying.
By any definition Russia is losing this war at the moment, there’s no denying that.
Initial objective of ridding Zelenskyy and installing a puppet government failed badly. They’ve lost control of large swathes of the Donbas. They’ve lost Kherson City.
The Russians have now instilled into the Ukrainians a deep hatred of them for generations to come, similar to how the Poles feel toward Russia , and I suspect Lithuanians, Latvia , Estonia, et al considering they gladly joined NATO to protect themselves from Russian imperialism.

This is going beyong the scope of this thread, so I've responded in one more suited for this type of discussion, here:

Will Our War-for-Profit System Lead to Nuclear Annihilation? | justplainpolitics.com

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I don't believe they're as bad as you think they are.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

There is nothing wrong with asking for a better source. That is how a discussion can continue and flourish.

you use source attacks to stop the discussion.

you don't even put forward a counter argument.

your 'better discussion' argument is yet another lie.

 

[AProudLefty]

you use source attacks to stop the argument.

No I have not.

you don't even put forward a counter argument.

I have provided a counter argument.

Go back and read.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

No I have not.



I have provided a counter argument.

Go back and read.

you have.

or what is your counterargument?

 

[AProudLefty]

you have.

or what is your counterargument?

No I have not or else you'd have evidence.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

No I have not or else you'd have evidence.

the evidence is no counterargument.

 

[AProudLefty]

the evidence is no counterargument.

See post #30. Enjoy.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

*Sighs* I will ignore the fact that those sources are shit and will address them. First one I have noticed in the first source.

“They now think that if only the ‘media’ had told us about the laptop at the time …Trump would have won. But for the censoring of the New York Post, Trump would have won,” said Jonah Goldberg, who went on to describe the notion that the lack of coverage of the Hunter Biden scandal had any impact on the 2020 election as a “preposterous counterfactual.”

Five things wrong with that statement.

1. The Hunter's laptop story has been blaring nonstop 24/7/365 since 2020 on the media and social media.
2. As seen in point #1 above, it was NEVER censored.
3. The "scandal" had no impact on the election either way, despite the right wing organizations and the Russia would have hoped.
4. The laptop, despite them (the GOP) allegedly having access to, was never revealed nor was the content.
5. Even if the content was even 0.5% true, it has no bearing on anything.

That's just the top of my head.

this says nothing about the existence of CISA as a repeckaged Disinformation Governance Board.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Read the Intercept article and then make a list of the differences between that and the RT article. You will find many omissions and exaggerations that show that the RT piece is propaganda.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The American Heritage Dictionary defines disinformation as "Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation."

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/disinformation

Take note of the fact that the AHD focuses on the fact that it is governments and their intelligence agencies who were first known for this type of thing. Now consider the fact that the U.S. government is gaining the power to throttle any ideas that run counter to the narratives that it spins.

Hmmm. The US government is trying to prevent Russian disinformation from being spread on US social media. That would sound like a good thing unless you are a Russian troll. Your attempt to make this only about US disinformation makes me wonder if you are a Russian troll.

True, but censoring the truth from aired is. And I'd argue that this is what's frequently being done by the government.

Please provide us one actual truth censored by the US government that was not done so for national security.

The DHS is a large organization, but some of its departments' actions have certainly been condemend, and rightly so I believe. Wikipedia gets into some that I think are certainly worthy of condemnation:

**
David Rittgers of the Cato Institute notes:

a long line of fusion center and DHS reports labeling broad swaths of the public as a threat to national security. The North Texas Fusion System labeled Muslim lobbyists as a potential threat; a DHS analyst in Wisconsin thought both pro- and anti-abortion activists were worrisome; a Pennsylvania homeland security contractor watched environmental activists, Tea Party groups, and a Second Amendment rally; the Maryland State Police put anti-death penalty and anti-war activists in a federal terrorism database; a fusion center in Missouri thought that all third-party voters and Ron Paul supporters were a threat ...[65]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security#Fusion_centers

Because some on the far right attack small parts of DHS does not make the DHS widely condemned.

Perhaps not, but they are certainly threatening it in the U.S.

By pointing out and trying to get social media to block foreign disinformation the US is stifling free speech? I don't think you know what free speech is if that is going to be your argument.

I'm sure we can agree that an AT article mispelling the word focused doesn't mean the end of the world is nigh.

Poor spelling is a rather large tell when it comes to recognizing foreign disinformation or online scams from Nigerian princes.

Agreed. I went back and looked at RT's article and yes, it appears they conflated the Disinformation Governance Board, which was -part- of the DHS, with the DHS itself.

Gosh.. Are you saying RT used disinformation? or misinformation? No matter how you slice it, the 'fact' was not true. Either RT has very poor editors or they are providing you with disinformation from the Russian government.

Even if what you say is true, it wouldn't change the fact that some of the documents were leaked.

But it still doesn't change the fact that RT is reporting as if all the documents were leaked. Classic disinformation put out by a foreign government. Include some truth but leave out other truth that would mitigate the impact. When reading the Intercept article it becomes clear that almost all the information comes from public documents.

Perhaps. I'll tell you what I personally believe was the most important thing the RT did for me- it made me aware of the information to begin with. Were you aware of the story before I brought it up in this thread?

LOL. If you followed US news you would have known about this months ago.

From what I've read, CISA is just taking over for where the Disinformation Governance Board left off. Some criticisms of the DGB:
**
The board faced immediate backlash across the political spectrum. “Who among us thinks the government should add to its work list the job of determining what is true and what is disinformation? And who thinks the government is capable of telling the truth?” wrote Politico media critic Jack Shafer. “Our government produces lies and disinformation at industrial scale and always has. It overclassifies vital information to block its own citizens from becoming any the wiser. It pays thousands of press aides to play hide the salami with facts.”
**

Source:
Truth Cops | The Intercept

If you had followed the news you would have been aware of this months ago and you would have fallen for that disinformation then just as you do now.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Read the Intercept article and then make a list of the differences between that and the RT article. You will find many omissions and exaggerations that show that the RT piece is propaganda.

so are you saying cisa does not exist?

are you saying the fbi did not pressure social media?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Hmmm. The US government is trying to prevent Russian disinformation from being spread on US social media. That would sound like a good thing unless you are a Russian troll. Your attempt to make this only about US disinformation makes me wonder if you are a Russian troll.

Please provide us one actual truth censored by the US government that was not done so for national security.


Because some on the far right attack small parts of DHS does not make the DHS widely condemned.
By pointing out and trying to get social media to block foreign disinformation the US is stifling free speech? I don't think you know what free speech is if that is going to be your argument.



Poor spelling is a rather large tell when it comes to recognizing foreign disinformation or online scams from Nigerian princes.

Gosh.. Are you saying RT used disinformation? or misinformation? No matter how you slice it, the 'fact' was not true. Either RT has very poor editors or they are providing you with disinformation from the Russian government.


But it still doesn't change the fact that RT is reporting as if all the documents were leaked. Classic disinformation put out by a foreign government. Include some truth but leave out other truth that would mitigate the impact. When reading the Intercept article it becomes clear that almost all the information comes from public documents.




LOL. If you followed US news you would have known about this months ago.


If you had followed the news you would have been aware of this months ago and you would have fallen for that disinformation then just as you do now.

it was not russian disinformation. that's the disinformation.

Disinformation Governance Board was too "on the nose". everyone saw that.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

79% say 'truthful' coverage of Hunter Biden's laptop would have changed ...
https://nypost.com › 2022 › 08 › 26 › 2020-election-outcome-would-differ-with-hunter-biden-laptop-coverage-poll
Aug 26, 2022On the subject of the 2020 election, 79% overall said it was "very" or "somewhat" likely that "a truthful interpretation of the laptop" would have resulted in the reelection of former...
Voters believe suppressed Hunter Biden laptop scandal could have ...
https://www.wndnewscenter.org › voters-believe-suppressed-hunter-biden-laptop-scandal-could-have-changed-election
Sep 7, 2022Many voters, Rasmussen's analysis found, "think it could have changed the 2020 election." The polling, done online and by telephone, found "63% of Likely U.S. voters believe the story about Hunter Biden's laptop containing emails about his business dealings is important, including 44% who think the story is Very Important.
Most Voters Say Hunter Biden's 'Laptop From Hell' Still an Important ...
https://www.rasmussenreports.com › public_content › politics › partner_surveys › most_voters_say_hunter_biden_s_laptop_from_hell_still_an_important_story
Sep 6, 2022Voters 65 and older are most likely to say the Hunter Biden laptop story is Very Important. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters with annual incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 think the...
FLASHBACK: 16% of Biden voters would have voted differently if Hunter ...
https://thepostmillennial.com › flashback-16-of-biden-voters
Mar 17, 2022A poll previously put out by the Media Research Center showed that fully 16 percent of voters who were unaware of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal would have switched their minds and not voted for Joe Biden for president, had they known about it at the time. ADVERTISEMENT The Post Millennial Mar 17, 2022 2 minute read ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT
Recent News

Biden suggests voting for Republicans is a threat to democracy
Fox News on MSN.com
12d

Biden implores voters to save democracy from lies, violence
The Roanoke Times
11d

Biden says GOP is 'going after your right to vote' as he makes a western swing ahead …
CNN
11d
Are these links helpful?YesNo
NEW POLL: 47% Of Voters Would Have Changed Their Voting Decision If ...
https://100percentfedup.com › new-poll-47-of-voters-would-have-changed-their-voting-decision-if-they-knew-contents-of-hunter-biden-laptop-were-real-and-not-disinformation-includes-more-than-71-of-democra
Aug 25, 2022NEW POLL: 47% Of Voters Would Have Changed Their Voting Decision If They Knew Contents Of Hunter Biden Laptop Were Real And Not "Disinformation"—Includes More Than 71% Of Democrats Aug 25, 2022 It's become more clear than ever that social media giants and the government put their thumb on the scale to prevent President Trump from being re-elected.
Majority Of Likely Voters Say Hunter Biden Laptop Story Is Still ...
https://waynedupree.com › 2022 › 09 › majority-of-likely-voters-say-hunter-story-still-relevant
Sep 7, 2022Share. Nearly two years after the New York Post's first revelation, 63 percent of likely voters believe the Hunter Biden laptop story is still significant, according to a Tuesday Rasmussen Reports poll. Forty-four percent of the 63 percent who think the news is still significant say it is "extremely significant.".
78%: Trump Would Have Won 2020 Election If Voters Were Told The Truth ...
https://americanlookout.com › 78-trump-would-have-won-2020-election-if-voters-were-told-the-truth-about-hunter-biden-laptop
Aug 27, 2022A new poll has revealed 78% of Americans say former President Donald Trump would have won the 2020 presidential election if voters had been given the truth about Hunter Biden's laptop, instead of being told it was merely "Russian disinformation.". …. "Terming the laptop 'disinformation' by the FBI, Intelligence Community, Congress ...
Poll: 17% of Biden Voters Would Have Abandoned Him if They Knew About ...
https://www.westernjournal.com › poll-17-biden-voters-abandoned-knew-stories-media-censored
Nov 24, 2020The poll found that 35.4 percent of Biden voters were unaware of credible sexual assault allegations against him. Had those voters known about the story, the survey concluded 8.9 percent of them would have voted differently. Even fewer Biden voters, 45.1 percent, knew about the Hunter Biden email scandal, which implicates Biden himself.
Here's How Many Biden Voters Who Would Have Bolted from Joe If the ...
https://townhall.com › tipsheet › mattvespa › 2020 › 11 › 28 › heres-how-may-biden-voters-who-would-have-bolted-from-joe-if-the-media-did-their-n2580624
Nov 28, 2020To measure the true effect of the media's censorship on the election, the Media Research Center asked The Polling Company to survey 1,750 Biden voters in seven swing states (Arizona, Georgia,...
Poll shows nearly 80% think Trump could have won in 2020 if voters knew ...
https://www.theblaze.com › shows › stu-does-america › poll-shows-nearly-80-think-trump-could-have-won-in-2020-if-voters-knew-the-truth-about-hunter-biden-laptop
Aug 26, 2022Nearly 80% of those surveyed said they believe President Donald Trump would likely have been re-elected in 2020 if voters had known the truth about Hunter Biden's now-infamous laptop, according to a recent national poll.As you may recall, the New York Post broke the story in October 2020 that a lapt...

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

fuck you people

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Reminder: These 50 Intelligence Officers Claimed, Without Evidence ...
https://www.dailywire.com › news › reminder-these-50-intelligence-officers-claimed-without-evidence-that-new-york-posts-hunter-biden-story-was-russian-disinformation
Mar 19, 2022Reminder: These 50 Intelligence Officers Claimed, Without Evidence, That New York Post's Hunter Biden Story Was Russian Disinformation. The New York Times on Wednesday finally admitted that the 2020 New York Post story regarding information found on Hunter Biden's laptop was legitimate. The Times confirmed the existence of Biden's laptop in a story about a federal investigation into the son of President Joe Biden.
50 former intelligence officials warn NY Post story sounds like Russian ...
https://thehill.com › homenews › campaign › 521823-50-former-intelligence-officials-warn-ny-post-story-sounds-like-russian
More than 50 former intelligence officials said emails alleged to have been found on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden show signs of a Russian disinformation operation. Several of the...
FLASHBACK: Ex-intel officials claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story was ...
https://www.foxnews.com › politics › flashback-intel-officials-hunter-biden-laptop-story-russian-disinformation
Mar 18, 2022The Times confirmed the authenticity of President Biden's son's missing laptop that turned up in a Delaware repair shop and contained dozens of damning emails from his time at the Ukrainian energy ...
The 51 "Intelligence" Officials Who Lied About Hunter Biden's Laptop ...
https://thewashingtonstandard.com › the-51-intelligence-officials-who-lied-about-hunter-bidens-laptop-when-are-we-going-to-prosecute-them
Apr 2, 2022"To have 50 former Obama-Clinton-Biden national security officials come out after the director of national intelligence says this is not true, and protect a false narrative to protect Joe Biden and try and influence the outcome of the election, that is the definition of politicizing intelligence," he said.
Intel Agents Who Said Hunter's Laptop Was Fake Are Now Quiet - PJ Media
https://pjmedia.com › news-and-politics › robert-spencer › 2022 › 03 › 19 › hey-what-happened-to-the-51-intel-agents-who-assured-us-hunters-laptop-was-russian-disinformation-n1567864
Mar 19, 2022Old Joe Biden used the officials' lie in a debate against Trump, saying: "There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he's accusing me of is a Russian plant.… Five former...
Biden Laptop: Real or Fake or a Russian Intelligence Operation?
https://www.businessinsider.com › biden-laptop-real-fake-russian-intelligence-2020-10?op=1
The shop owner, who is legally blind but claims Hunter Biden personally gave him the laptop for repair, told the Washington Post that he had repeatedly tried to contact Biden to return the ...
The Times finally admits Hunter Biden's laptop is real - New York Post
https://nypost.com › 2022 › 03 › 17 › the-times-finally-admits-hunter-bidens-laptop-is-real
Mar 17, 2022AP Hunter Biden's laptop was full of images featuring the president's son. Yet in the latest report, published Wednesday night, the Times said the meeting likely did happen. Biden had attended ...
The Hunter Biden laptop could be fake. Or it could be real. We may ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com › outlook › 2020 › 10 › 24 › hunter-biden-laptop-disinformation
Oct 24, 2020MacIsaac, a self-described "military guy" and an ardent Trump supporter, had noticed a Beau Biden Foundation sticker covering the Apple logo on the laptop. He became suspicious. He became ...
Hunter Biden laptop controversy - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy
The FBI seized the laptop after being informed of its existence by a computer repair shop owner in Wilmington, Delaware, John Paul Mac Isaac, who said that it had been brought to his shop in April 2019 by a person who said that he was Hunter Biden. The person never came back to retrieve the computer. [1]
FBI: Biden laptop Fake, part of foreign intelligence operation to ...
https://www.veteranstoday.com › 2020 › 10 › 16 › fbi-biden-laptop-fake-part-of-foreign-intelligence-operation-to-interfere-with-election
17. 3851. VT: The FBI is investigating Steve Bannon and Rudi Giuliani for their involvement with Russian intelligence officers in an operation involving a laptop computer loaded with fake emails. FBI intelligence recently questioned one VT editor for hours on Russian intelligence operations in Ukraine, including on scenarios deeply similar to the one being played out through arch-zionist Rupert Murdoch's New York Post.