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

[Phoenyx]

Found an article I found quite interesting on RT that was published yesterday detailing the rebranding of the U.S.'s "Disinformation Governance Board" into the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA for short. An excerpt from RT's article is below...

**
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.
**

Full article:
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ hasn't gone away: Official Washington didn't abandon its plan to ​​control social networks | RT

[AProudLefty]

There is no such thing as 'Ministry of Truth' here in America.

[AProudLefty]

Let me correct my error. Yes there is such thing as 'Ministry of Truth' here in America. Fox News, OANN, Newsmax, Info Wars, Brietbart and others.

[Hawkeye10]

I am shocked, just shocked of course....

[Phoenyx]

There is no such thing as 'Ministry of Truth' here in America.

I can certainly agree that there has been no agency designated as the Ministry of Truth in America. The Disinformation Governance Board, whichi has been -labelled- as the Ministry of Truth, was a real thing. It's had threads on this board in the past. Here's one:

Ministry of Truth is dead- Jankowicz will resign | justplainpolitics.com

But while the Department of Homeland Security shut down the Disinformation Governance Board back in August, the board's functions were simply passed on to another DHS agency, in this case the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA for short. RT's article explains how the DHS has become more cautious this time around:

**
The reason the CISA would wish to “reach out” to people about its censorship work is clear from leaked minutes of its committee meetings throughout June. Again and again the need to “socialize the existence” of the DGB successor, and its “taskings,” among NGOs, rights groups, and journalists is discussed.

This is a euphemism for getting the very elements who undermined the DGB after its launch on board with the replacement, which has a new name “so as not to conflate” the two identical bodies.

Before “reaching out” to these people though, one committee member, their name redacted, “provided recommendations” on how CISA could best answer uncomfortable questions about “surveillance and monitoring” if they were asked by their targets, or the media. Twitter’s Vijaya Gadde “affirmed this course of action,” and at another meeting “recommended” the rebranded DGB have “broad scope” in terms of what media it polices, rather than “limiting” its activities to “just social media.”
**

[Phoenyx]

Let me correct my error. Yes there is such thing as 'Ministry of Truth' here in America. Fox News, OANN, Newsmax, Info Wars, Brietbart and others.

Those are news organizations, not government entities.

[AProudLefty]

I can certainly agree that there has been no agency designated as the Ministry of Truth in America. The Disinformation Governance Board, on the other hand, was a real thing. It's had threads on this board in the past. Here's one:

Ministry of Truth is dead- Jankowicz will resign | justplainpolitics.com

But while the Department of Homeland Security shut down the Disinformation Governance Board back in August, the board's functions were simply passed on to another DHS agency, in this case the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA for short. RT's article explains how the DHS has become more cautious this time around:

**
The reason the CISA would wish to “reach out” to people about its censorship work is clear from leaked minutes of its committee meetings throughout June. Again and again the need to “socialize the existence” of the DGB successor, and its “taskings,” among NGOs, rights groups, and journalists is discussed.

This is a euphemism for getting the very elements who undermined the DGB after its launch on board with the replacement, which has a new name “so as not to conflate” the two identical bodies.

Before “reaching out” to these people though, one committee member, their name redacted, “provided recommendations” on how CISA could best answer uncomfortable questions about “surveillance and monitoring” if they were asked by their targets, or the media. Twitter’s Vijaya Gadde “affirmed this course of action,” and at another meeting “recommended” the rebranded DGB have “broad scope” in terms of what media it polices, rather than “limiting” its activities to “just social media.”
**

It's function is to combat propaganda and lies, especially from Russia and China.

[AProudLefty]

Those are news organizations, not government entities.

They are arms of the GQP. They are paid to spread disinformation.

[Phoenyx]

I can certainly agree that there has been no agency designated as the Ministry of Truth in America. The Disinformation Governance Board, whichi has been -labelled- as the Ministry of Truth, was a real thing. It's had threads on this board in the past. Here's one:

Ministry of Truth is dead- Jankowicz will resign | justplainpolitics.com

But while the Department of Homeland Security shut down the Disinformation Governance Board back in August, the board's functions were simply passed on to another DHS agency, in this case the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA for short. RT's article explains how the DHS has become more cautious this time around:

**
The reason the CISA would wish to “reach out” to people about its censorship work is clear from leaked minutes of its committee meetings throughout June. Again and again the need to “socialize the existence” of the DGB successor, and its “taskings,” among NGOs, rights groups, and journalists is discussed.

This is a euphemism for getting the very elements who undermined the DGB after its launch on board with the replacement, which has a new name “so as not to conflate” the two identical bodies.

Before “reaching out” to these people though, one committee member, their name redacted, “provided recommendations” on how CISA could best answer uncomfortable questions about “surveillance and monitoring” if they were asked by their targets, or the media. Twitter’s Vijaya Gadde “affirmed this course of action,” and at another meeting “recommended” the rebranded DGB have “broad scope” in terms of what media it polices, rather than “limiting” its activities to “just social media.”
**

It's function is to combat propaganda and lies, especially from Russia and China.

I think that Felix Livshitz, the author of the RT article, has a good rebuttal to that:

**
One passage in the leaked June CISA report states that the DHS defines disinformation as “false or misleading information that is purposefully seeded and/or spread for a strategic objective.” It is a very sick joke indeed that the biggest fake news stories of this year have been about the Disinformation Governance Board. In particular that it would simply be advisory body, have no power, and eventually be closed down.
**

[anatta]

But while the Department of Homeland Security shut down the Disinformation Governance Board back in August
the board's functions were simply passed on to another DHS agency, in this case
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA for short.

[AProudLefty]

I think that Felix Livshitz, the author of the RT article, has a good rebuttal to that:

**
One passage in the leaked June CISA report states that the DHS defines disinformation as “false or misleading information that is purposefully seeded and/or spread for a strategic objective.” It is a very sick joke indeed that the biggest fake news stories of this year have been about the Disinformation Governance Board. In particular that it would simply be advisory body, have no power, and eventually be closed down.
**

Let's see what that guy thinks about this. The disinformation mitigation strategies are nothing new, especially during WWII and the Cold War.


During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union refined covert methods of political intervention and conflict, making use of proxy wars, election interference, and disinformation campaigns to advance their respective interests. Work such as Dov H. Levin’s research tracking election interference (2016) illustrates that both superpowers used disinformation as a core tactic throughout the Cold War and the subsequent decade. Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. and USSR competed in an arms race of fictions, attempting to cultivate ideological support internationally and domestically.

In response, presented with sophisticated and widespread Soviet disinformation, the U.S. created a thengroundbreaking interagency organization called the Active Measures Working Group (AMWG). The AMWG operated using a “Report-Analyze-Publicize” strategy that prioritized overt disinformation and successfully challenged Soviet active measures in the 1980s (Bailey, 1998). At the international level, both the Non-Aligned Movement, with its focus on non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries, and the United Nations’ General Assembly more generally attempted to address the issue.

Some have posited Cold War mitigation strategies could be used to combat the newest itineration of harmful propaganda and disinformation (Cull, et al, 2017; Neal, 2019; Selga & Rasmussen, 2017; Deeks, McCubbin, & Poplin, 2017), but while Cold War disinformation mitigation tactics may provide aspirational frameworks for modern efforts, they are largely inapplicable in a modern disinformation battlefield. The birth of the internet, the removal of centralized and shared information sources, and the increase in the number of actors involved in information dissemination creates a landscape substantially different in nature.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publica...ion-strategies

[Phoenyx]

Let's see what that guy thinks about this. The disinformation mitigation strategies are nothing new, especially during WWII and the Cold War.


During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union refined covert methods of political intervention and conflict, making use of proxy wars, election interference, and disinformation campaigns to advance their respective interests. Work such as Dov H. Levin’s research tracking election interference (2016) illustrates that both superpowers used disinformation as a core tactic throughout the Cold War and the subsequent decade. Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. and USSR competed in an arms race of fictions, attempting to cultivate ideological support internationally and domestically.

In response, presented with sophisticated and widespread Soviet disinformation, the U.S. created a thengroundbreaking interagency organization called the Active Measures Working Group (AMWG). The AMWG operated using a “Report-Analyze-Publicize” strategy that prioritized overt disinformation and successfully challenged Soviet active measures in the 1980s (Bailey, 1998). At the international level, both the Non-Aligned Movement, with its focus on non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries, and the United Nations’ General Assembly more generally attempted to address the issue.

Some have posited Cold War mitigation strategies could be used to combat the newest itineration of harmful propaganda and disinformation (Cull, et al, 2017; Neal, 2019; Selga & Rasmussen, 2017; Deeks, McCubbin, & Poplin, 2017), but while Cold War disinformation mitigation tactics may provide aspirational frameworks for modern efforts, they are largely inapplicable in a modern disinformation battlefield. The birth of the internet, the removal of centralized and shared information sources, and the increase in the number of actors involved in information dissemination creates a landscape substantially different in nature.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publica...ion-strategies

There is nothing wrong with disinformation mitigation strategies. The problem is when the goal is not really disinformation mitigation but rather throttling the truth. Have you read the 1984 book, or seen one of the film versions? The "Ministry of Truth" comes from the book- it's all about maintaining a false narrative that benefits those in power and ruthlessly supressing narratives that don't, regardless of what the truth actually is.

[AProudLefty]

There is nothing wrong with disinformation mitigation strategies. The problem is when the goal is not really disinformation mitigation but rather throttling the truth. Have you read the 1984 book, or seen one of the film versions? The "Ministry of Truth" comes from the book- it's all about maintaining a false narrative that benefits those in power and ruthlessly supressing narratives that don't, regardless of what the truth actually is.

Give an example of them "throttling" the truth.

I am aware that the concept of 'Ministry of Truth' came from 1984.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect.

Which Party does it sound like?

[Phoenyx]

Give an example of them "throttling" the truth.

I'll give you 2 for the U.S. and one for the U.S. and internationally:
How The Censorship Of Hunter Biden’s Laptop Story Helped Joe Biden Win | The Daily Wire

How Russia-gate Rationalized Censorship | Strategic Culture Foundation


The U.S. and internationally:
International censorship mounted against Russian state-affiliated media outlets | wsws.org

I am aware the concept of 'Ministry of Truth' came from 1984.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect.

Which Party does it sound like?

It sounds like the deep state to me, which is currently the majority of democrats and republicans. Since republicans have been generally been in opposition recently, it stands that they'd make more noise about the censorship, since governing parties are the ones with the most access to the tools of censorship, but the more power Republicans get, the more I expect them to welcome censorship for their own purposes. There are generally a few holdouts in both parties that buck the deep state's trend. They're the ones to vote for and support.

[Jade Dragon]

Give an example of them "throttling" the truth.

I am aware that the concept of 'Ministry of Truth' came from 1984.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect.

Which Party does it sound like?

Didn't Dukkah ban the same people and post Russian bullshit?