documents show DHS is influencing Tech Platforms

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/

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.

Key Takeaways

• Though DHS shuttered its controversial Disinformation Governance Board, a strategic document reveals the underlying work is ongoing.
• DHS plans to target inaccurate information on “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine.”
• Facebook created a special portal for DHS and government partners to report disinformation directly.

Guys. The government is directly involved in what is allowed to be talked about on tech platforms.

You know the argument "Twitter/Facebook is a private business and can ban/censor however they want because they are a private business".

How does that argument hold water if the government is directly involved on what can be talked about? If its a private business how can the government have any influence? If they are working directly with the federal government on what can be spoken about on such tech platforms... that's not a private company making the decision. That's the government making decisions for them.

How do you guys feel about the federal government telling Tech platforms "" private business's "" what is allowed to be shared/talked about on their platform.

The DHS has its own special portal to to report "disinformation" directly?

How? they are the government.. But this is a ""private business""??

DHS doesn't want anyone questioning how the withdrawal from Afghanistan went down??

DHS doesn't want anyone asking questions about the origins of covid 19???

DHS doesn't want anyone questioning US support in Ukraine??

Should the federal government be able to control what can be talked about on these platforms ""private buisness's""??

Its very CCP like imo.

Federal government is not the private business, they should not be allowed to moderate

And the problem is?

Given "tech platforms" ability to be manipulated by both domestic and foreign forces for malevolent purposes, I don't really see a problem with monitoring them and in some situations curbing what they are allowed to say.

Facebook played a major role in genocide in Myanmar, for example. Twitter allowed many to spread dangerous false information. Instagram has led to an increase in teenage depression, anxiety, and suicide.

And before you cry "muh freedom!", things like this have been going on for decades, if not well over a century. The Espionage Act and the Sedition Act, for example, curb the liberties of the press and others temporarily so they cannot hurt the war effort. More recently the Patriot Act as well.

The problem isn't that we want to do things like this--there's nothing wrong with stopping liars from influencing people to violent action, or preventing soulless, powerful corporations from running roughshod over us--but it does need to be regulated and overseen by responsible folks.

This is why we have a government; to protect us from things like this, so we can all come together, agree on things, and then put into motion a plan. If your words harm people, compromise the security of the country or its people, or other things like this...I don't think it is unreasonable to at the minimum regulate it to the point where we review what is being said and consider censoring people.

I guess someone came across some click-bait and got very emotional about it.

@mrbojangles25: Patriot Act was horrible and this is horrible. Id argue this is ever worse because its a way to skirt the system without even having to write any legislation. Patriot Act was trash, but at least it was actually legislated even if it is horrible.

This is the government influencing private business under the radar.

At least with the Patriot Act they had to actually write legislation explaining why we don't deserve our 4th amendment rights.

The excuse to curtail people freedoms is always "safety".

its for your "safety".

yeah intercept is leftist, your probably right. Probably all lies.

@sargentd: Still emotional I see.

still saying nothing of substance I see

Nothing wrong with safety.

I don't see it so much as curtailing freedoms, it's just a trade. Pros and cons. Gains and sacrifices. If we gain more than we lose in these exchanges, then I think it should be considered.

We've seen abuse after abuse of our "freedoms" by many people, so I think we need to ask ourselves if these "freedoms" are really worth having (or, more specifically, worth having to the extent we have them to) if all they do is hurt us. If they exist just to be abused so people can say terrible things, why should we allow that? For some emotional, intangible reward of "Freedom"? Because 'merica?

If assholes, liars, and traitors have their words censored and are removed from social media, and we gain freedom from their influence, I'd argue that is a good trade. I don't think "freedom at any cost" is a good way to operate if it costs this country it's soul and unity.

are they moderating though? it sounds like it is still up to the platform to take action or not. i can flag a post here but if GS takes no action, so what?

When government agencies are influencing or coercing social media to censor people, it throws all of those "but they're private companies, they can do what they want" arguments out the window. The close relationship between government agencies and the influence they have over big tech, plus the market share of the flow and access of online information held by them is well into the China levels of authoritarian.

Safety? The feds LIED about the origin of the Hunter Biden story in order to coerce big tech into censoring it, despite that story actually being true. That isn't safety, that's government overreaching their authority in order to protect political figures they prefer. That's a complete affront to democracy. And to defend them, you question whether or not people should have the freedom to say what they want and believe what they choose? The more leftwing extremists speak, the more it becomes crystal clear to the rest of the world who the fascists actually are.

@sargentd: Did you complained about it when this (above linked) news came out?

"The Department of Homeland Security is calling on tech companies to take “appropriate action” on posts that encourage others to break mandated curfews, loot stores or coordinate violence amid nationwide protests demanding police reform."

Feel free to link me to a thread of you outraged about Trump doing it.

I personally don't care. I expect governments to have proper channels of communication with social media giants.

@mrbojangles25: "weapons of mass destruction"

Iraq War

"It's for your safety"

Not a fan.

You were against private businesses moderating in other threads.

All you need to know to understand that the people defending the FBI are full of shit in doing so is how they would apply their comments if it was the FBI under Trump working with big tech to suppress information damaging to his own family in order to improve his chances for an election. These same people scream about how great democracy is, but defend a federal agency suppressing information that would result in the outcome of an election not to their liking. If it wasn't for double standards, they'd have none at all.

And as much as they piss and moan about other countries influencing elections (which has never been proven that they have influenced ours) they defend it, even cheer it when federal agencies influence ours. They're statists, nothing more.

What?

Why lie?

He's just farming.

@eoten: agreed

Modern day McCarthyism with vague policies to censor people they don't like.

Yep. That about sums it up.

The funny part is once you dissect their ideology you realize every time they say they're for the working class, for democracy, for human rights, you realize it's all bullshit because after all is said and done, they march to the orders of the rich and powerful without question or a second thought. They try to tell themselves government agencies are benevolent and working to protect the "little guy" but that's comical at best. What the FBI did was a clear example of protecting the special interests of the rich and powerful, and they cheered for it.