The Ministry of Truth

Ministry of Truth

Orwell’s 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

The Administration in Power, no matter what party is currently in place, is the absolute last source to go to for a ruling on the truth.

82 thoughts on “The Ministry of Truth

  1. …”no matter what party is currently in place”…

    Aren’t you disturbed by the fact that the only time you say ANYTHING to that effect is when a Democrat is in the Oval Office? And, NO, it is not only Democrats who do that.


    1. Which Republican administration tried to empower the Dept of Homeland Security to rule on what is true and what is not?

      I can’t object to something they didn’t do.


      1. I know you weren’t asleep from 2017 to 2021. They made up truths all of the time. And YOU believed them, even when blatantly false. (Misspoke, didn’t mean it, misinformed, the list of excuses YOU provided goes on and on) SO the idea of our government ensuring that misinformation is debunked is a bad thing is ill-advised?

        If done properly, providing FACTS in the face of disinformation is a government service that should be welcomes for those who want the truth. But when you go out looking for things that continually get proven wrong or to be lies, your worldview is now threatened … TRUTH.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “Which Republican administration tried to empower the Dept of Homeland Security to rule on what is true and what is not?”

        Is it impossible for you to discuss government programs honestly? Your egregiously dishonest characterization of the mission of the Disinformation Governance Board is typical of the way you people roll. A tiny grain of truth buried in bullshit. Yes, you got the name of the board right. But that is about all and yet there you are parroting “Ministry of Truth” bullshit.

        It is part of DHS for a reason. It has been assigned to attack two specific problems both involving foreign actors deploying disinformation to harm us. The specific problems to be addressed are:

        1. Russian disinformation
        2. Disinformation that encourages illegal immigration.

        These are both serious problems requiring a serious response.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. And the Interstate Commerce clause was to prevent tariffs between states, the EPA was created to address pollution that crossed state lines, See the pattern?

          Once government’s nose is in the tent, you can’t keep the rest of it out.

          Government has no business as arbiter of truth, even a little


          1. “Government has no business as arbiter of truth, even a little.”

            Who or what is?

            Trust in government is the sign of a healthy society.

            Before the 1960’s, government was necessarily loved, but most Americans trusted it to do the right thing most of the time.

            After Nixon and Vietnam, things changed. Reagan hammered a few nails in the coffin, and the rest is history.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “Government has no business as arbiter of truth, even a little.”

            So truthy! And such baloney.

            Maybe you ought to develop a better understanding of what DHS has been tasked to do before getting up on your doctrinaire high horse again.

            This is NOT about your free speech or the government – instead of me – calling out your falsehoods. It is about defending the country from FOREIGN adversaries. We are under constant attack. Trump did nothing about it, for sadly obvious reasons. There is a new sheriff in town. One who is not a Putin patsy.





            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “It is about defending the country from FOREIGN adversaries.”

            A culture that supports free speech has nothing to fear from disinformation. I’m in favor of allowing foreign adversaries to say whatever they want in our public square.


          4. “A culture that supports free speech has nothing to fear from disinformation.”

            Nothing? Really?

            How about if, say Russia, hires a thousand hackers to spend all day every day on social media spreading the word that leading Republican politicians have a history molesting children. No harm? Or, say they spent such an effort hiding behind bots and fake identities spreading the idea that white people are the victims of discrimination or that brown immigrants come here to live on welfare. No harm to the social fabric and cohesion of our country?

            I would say that you – as an American citizen – have a free speech right to say whatever you want – true or false. But that right does not extend to foreign actors or bots.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. RE: “I would say that you – as an American citizen – have a free speech right to say whatever you want – true or false. But that right does not extend to foreign actors or bots.”

            My free speech rights don’t come from the government. They are rights in natural law, and thus extend to every human being, regardless of citizenship.

            I reject — utterly — the notion that it can be appropriate to abridge or curtail natural rights.


          6. Wherever “rights” come from, in our country some are protected from curtailment by the government. Free speech is one of those rights. The protection YOU have of your “natural right” of free speech as an American citizen should not be extended foreign agents and bots. IMHO.

            “I reject — utterly — the notion that it can be appropriate to abridge or curtail natural rights.”

            That is pure nonsense. “Natural rights” can be and should be abridged or curtailed. It happens every day. You have a “natural right” to pee wherever you wish but you will end up jail if you decide to pee on the sidewalk in front of a school. You have a “natural right” to defend yourself but if a child threatens you with a snowball, you better not pull out your gun and shoot her. You have a “natural right” to say whatever you want but better not yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. etc. etc. etc.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. RE: “So the First Amendment is irrelevant?”

            Of course not. It protects a pre-existing right.


          8. I believe we are both accurate in our assessments. Thus my quote of the opening of the 1A.

            However, your screaming harpie comments about how Libs hate the 1A is just a bunch of whoie.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. And you defend the idea of a dishonest incomplete history of this country.

            They can say whatever they want. Others can also call their lies what they are: LIES.

            I don’t see this as a censorship, like I don’t see gun registrations as a means to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens.

            You want lies? Have at it. If I read something in question, there is nothing wrong with any entity, government or private, calling bullshit bullshit.


          10. When have I ever opposed an honest and complete history of the US?

            I have and continue to oppose a replacing one incomplete account with another slanted from another direction.

            History must include the context of the time and not be distorted by ‘presentism,’ judging historical figures by today’s standards rather than those of their times.


          11. “History must include the context of the time and not be distorted by ‘presentism,’ judging historical figures by today’s standards rather than those of their times.”

            So, because grossly and obviously (even then) immoral views about the legitimacy of slavery were widely held in the South, we should teach Lost Cause nonsense in the schools and not the indisputable FACT that secession and civil war was caused by Southerners unwilling to give up the wealth generated by forced slave labor?

            And because we NOW know it is bad (“presentism”), children should not learn that African-Americans were systematically excluded from the benefits of the GI Bill that created the white middle class?

            etc. etc.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. Repeating lies does not make them true. The US had a growing middle class before the GI Bill resulting from the industrial revolution and a growing labor shortage at the turn of the century. But certainly, Jim Crow laws and union policies in both the North and South limited access to that middle class by Blacks.

            But the best example I can offer of maligning historical figures is Thomas Jefferson.

            Jefferson clearly understood the evils of slavery, but aware of the Haiti uprisings, he warned that ‘We have a wolf by the ears, we cannot hang on yet we dare not let go.’

            For decades, our history classes conveniently ignored his relationship with Sally Hemmings. That relationship opens a window on the times if viewed in context, but instead people want to depict Jefferson as a rapist version of Simon Legree. That view is no more helpful than the previous refusal to acknowledge her.

            Revisionists point to the fact that Jefferson never emancipated her as proof of evil intent. But consider that in those times, both cohabitation and interracial marriage were illegal in Virginia. The only way the pair could be together was for her to remain his slave or to leave. Jefferson did both.

            While he was ambassador to France, Hemmings was treated as the ambassador’s wife in social settings.

            When he returned, they could be together only if she were not free.

            So, the invisible Hemmings history and the Jefferson as cruel slave master history are both less than the truth and the complete truth is far more informative and human. People can only be judged in the context of the reality they lived in.


          13. “Repeating lies does not make them true. ”

            That is a lesson that you should take to heart.

            Because you choose to be deliberately ignorant of the historical role of the GI Bill in building the white middle class does not make me a liar. It makes you deliberately ignorant. And whatever tendency towards a middle class that might have started from 19th century industrialization was wiped out by the Great Depression.

            As for Thomas Jefferson, you are beating up a straw man. Not many people have come to view Thomas Jefferson as a “rapist version of Simon Legree.” I think a more common view that comes out of the Sally Hemmings truth-telling is that even a great man can have feet of clay and make poor moral choices. And they can be hypocrites. The lofty words of the Declaration of Independence were not matched in either Jefferson’s personal life nor in his political life. And that’s a fact. And he knew it. That is not “presentism.”

            Liked by 2 people

          14. “What better choices were available to Jeffersin inhis reality?”

            Uh, free his slaves.
            Many contemporaries did exactly based on moral standards that they knew as much as we “presentists” do.

            Stay faithful to his wife and stay away from the quarters. Many did that as well.

            Not promote the idea of white supremacy as he did in his 1785 book.

            Liked by 2 people

          15. What book is that, and did you read it or are you going by someone else’s characterization?

            Jefferson’s wife died in 1782, in 1785, he was joined in Paris by Hemmings. The only book I know of in that period was on agricultiure.


          16. The former of your cites is a collection of notes between Jefferson and a French diplomat. I am unsure if it was published as a book at that time. The latter is a subset of those notes pertaining to slavery.

            Like Lincoln 80 years later, Jefferson wanted to free the slaves and resettle them in Africa,


          17. “No more than the perspective of the oppressor.”

            What would THAT perspective be? Maybe that Europeans found an empty continent with a few small bands of primitive but welcoming locals who taught them how to grow corn? Something like that?

            Liked by 1 person

          18. Natural selection does not preclude the telling of the complete history.

            With one notable exception, the victors write the history.


          19. “No more than the perspective of the oppressor.”

            That perspective has been the simple lesson of history for decades. Unbiased truth is called for. Too bad the “oppressor” gets to write the history, while the “oppressed” is ignored.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. RE: “‘Natural rights’ can be and should be abridged or curtailed.”

            Perhaps you assume that natural rights include the right to do wrong. I don’t.


          21. “Perhaps you assume that natural rights include the right to do wrong. I don’t.”

            You have dug yourself into a bottomless pit. Not only are the words “natural” and “right” not defined but now you close the loop of nonsense with another undefined word – “wrong” – because, it seems, these “natural rights” are self-constraining.

            And all this nonsense because you want to uphold the “right” of Russian bots to spread disinformation without interference from our government.

            Liked by 1 person

          22. RE: “The GOVERNMENT is required to protect the right. ‘Congress shall make no laws’….”

            By doing nothing?


          23. If that’s what you want them to do.

            But there is a difference between protecting the freedom of speech right and informing the people that a certain “speech” is a lie, I see no issue with them identifying it as such.

            You had no issue with TFG proclaiming the press to be the “enemy of the people”. When in actuality, without the government identifying lies, the press was the people’s only informer.

            Liked by 1 person

          24. RE: “because, it seems, these ‘natural rights’ are self-constraining.”

            Well, they are not infinitely un-constraining.


          25. Let me explain the hole you have dug yourself into. . .

            First, in response to the government taking action against foreign disinformation you declare. . .

            “I reject — utterly — the notion that it can be appropriate to abridge or curtail natural rights.”

            When it is pointed out that various “natural rights” such as free speech or self-defense are routinely curtailed, you get on your own high horse – Tabor has one too – and answer “Perhaps you assume that natural rights include the right to do wrong. I don’t.”

            So “natural rights” cannot be curtailed, and “natural rights” do not include a right to do wrong. Telling lies that harm other people is wrong. Therefore, no one has a “natural right” to tell lies that harm other people. And since there is no such “natural right,” the government is not violating any of your principles when it takes steps to curb harmful disinformation.

            Liked by 1 person

          26. Let me see if I can explain it in a way a statist can understand.

            You have natural rights to act as you choose within the limits created by the natural rights of others. You have no right to transgress the rights of others.

            I can swing my arm but I have no right to strike you, other than in self defense.

            No one is curtailing my right to strike you because I have no such right.


          27. Well, I guess I am not a “statist” whatever the fuck you think that is because you have lost me.

            But your conclusion is . . .
            “No one is curtailing my right to strike you because I have no such right.”

            By the same token, the government curtailing the spreading of lies harmful to others would would be okay because no one has a right to spread lies harmful to others. And even less so Russian hackers and bots.


          28. “no one has a right to spread lies harmful to others.”

            Are you going to apply that to politicians?

            Who is the arbiter of truth?

            I would classify pretty much everything the administration says about climate as lies, and very harmful ones at that.

            So, how do I go about making them stop?


          29. “Who is the arbiter of truth?”

            I think you have totally lost sight of the subject. You did that from the get go with the Ministry of Truth bullshit. The actual mission of DHS is to stop two foreign sources of disinformation – Hostile state actors (Russia) and criminals encouraging migration with disinformation. There is nothing about this mission that involves what Winston Smith was paid to do. There is nothing about this mission that has anything to do with the free speech of Americans. Nothing.

            As for stopping all the supposed lying about the climate, I think it was you who said good information rationally presented is all that is needed to fight disinformation. How’s that goin’ for ya? But keep plucking away with your cherry-picked studies. Maybe someday you can change minds.

            Liked by 1 person

          30. Who is to say it is the Russians, and not our own government, which is lying?

            As to climate, the censorship on that topic by the MSM and social media is crushing for normal debate.

            Contrary views, no matter how well supported, get no where outside the part of the internet already skeptical.

            Have you seen Curry’s piece on climate models anywhere but here? How can the issue be debated when work like that is suppressed?


          31. “Who is to say it is the Russians, and not our own government, which is lying?”

            So, here in the real world you STILL believe that “information” provided by the murdering fascist war-mongering dictator who has made telling the truth a crime is on a par with information provided by our security services, free press and President.

            You have become a walking, talking example of how a mantra of lies repeated ad nauseum can overwhelm evidence and reason.

            Maybe you are frustrated about climate information because you would rather quibble about possible errors in SOME models than look at the whole picture. Mankind is destroying the planet and we need to stop. Whether it happens quickly or slowly, the problem is the same.


          32. “Mankind is destroying the planet”

            Well, there you go again, because you say so?

            Not even NASA or the IPCC claim that anymore.

            And there are NO climate models that can accurately reproduce the present from past data. Have you ever read Curry’s explanation, which I have provided for you several times, or do you just reject it without reading?

            Click to access Curry-2017.pdf

            There are multiple sources, many of which Mr Roberts has provided for you, that show the MSM account of Ukraine is no more accurate than Putin’s view.


          33. “Well, there you go again, because you say so?”

            No, because it is a FACT. Mankind IS destroying the planet.

            Irresponsible abuse of the atmosphere is only one aspect of what we are doing. And maybe not the most harmful. I would mention the destruction of the planet’s “lungs” in the forests and the seas as more seriously impactful than air pollution. Then there are the unknown consequences of epoch-ending mass extinctions. For example, insect populations upon which the production of food relies are crashing as we sit here. And, BTW, nature can no longer feed us. Without fossil-based chemical fertilizers we would starve. That resource is finite and irreplaceable.

            You read my comment to be about what YOU want to talk about – Judith Curry. It wasn’t. It is the big picture of which climate change is only a part.

            Liked by 1 person

          34. I will agree that there are other threats far worse than climate change.

            And many of them are made worse by the obsession with CO2.

            Right here, bottomland forests that survived from Colonial times are being clear cut to make wood pellets for Britain’s Renewable Energy Carbon credit policy. The deforestation is wrecking the hydrology of our rivers and the loss in habitat diversity is catastrophic for many species. But you can’t get the Sierra Clubs’s attention because it’s about CO2 and nothing else matter any more.

            But do read Curry’s explanation of the models, if nothing else, it will relieve you of unnecessary worry. Climate change has costs, but less than the cost of premature abandonment of fossil fuels.


          35. “I am unsure if it was published as a book at that time.”

            Too bad you did not bother to read the link and prefer to shuck and jive some more rather than just acknowledge the simple truth of what I first wrote and that was he continued to promote the idea of white supremacy in his 1785 book.

            As for you being unsure here is the second paragraph of the link you did not read. . .

            “Notes was first published in Paris in 1785 in an edition of 200. Both a French translation, published in 1786, and the widely circulated London edition of 1787 incorporated important structural changes and a detailed map”

            As for your statement about Jefferson wanting to ship blacks back to Africa as Lincoln did decades later, that is true as far as it goes. You left out of your summary Jefferson’s long discussion of the MANY ways that whites are the superior race.


          36. I also did not get into his contention that not sending the freed Blacks back to Africa would inevitably lead to the extermination of one race or the other, due to their justifiable grievances.

            Fortunately that did not come to pass.


          37. “How about that natural selection applies to cultures as well as species.”

            Wow! The inherent superiority of European culture again.

            But sure. Let’s teach our children the white man’s rationale for genocide. That would be peachy.

            Liked by 1 person

          38. The Amerindian population was doomed to be conquered or assimilated the moment its isolation was broken. And that is how it should be.

            They held the richest continent in the world from the end of the last ice age, entering from Asia as a stone age people and were still a stone age people 17,000 years later.

            Had we not pushed them from the East, the Russians would have conquered them from the West.

            Inefficient cultures yield to the more efficient. Always have, always will.

            It would have been morally wrong to let the rest of the world starve while a few million Amerindians squandered the potential of the Americas.


          39. “It would have been morally wrong to let the rest of the world starve while a few million Amerindians squandered the potential of the Americas.”

            Well, Archie Bunker, you are full of shit and even more so than usual with your ignorant, racist stereotypical beliefs about the nature of the cultures and civilizations that were thriving in the New World before the arrival of Europeans. I will not bother to once again go through the many ways that New World civilizations were the equal of or superior to European civilization in the 15th century. You literally do not want to know. But take it from me, referring to you as “Archie Bunker” is being kind. It wrongly assumes a good heart hidden behind the bigotry. The idea that genocide “is how it should be” is beyond morally abhorrent. Might does not make right as much as you social Darwinists would like to think it does.

            Liked by 1 person

          40. “First, assimilation is not genocide.”

            Maybe not, but genocide is what was done – not assimilation.

            As far as what “historians” think about Mann’s book, some guy on Quora is not “historians.” And maybe you did not read your link but that guy was pretty positive about the reporting that Mann provided.

            Unlike you, I have read the book. Twice. There is PLENTY of coverage of the North American civilizations who shaped and developed the landscape, had trade routes spanning the continent, who had advanced political ideas and who left behind monumental structures that still have not been fully investigated.

            You can talk all you want about Aztec cruelty. You think Europeas were any better? Never heard of the Spanish Inquisition, the Autos de Fe, the witch burning, the religious wars, the so-called Crusades, etc. Or, for that matter, the Holocaust?

            Liked by 1 person

          41. I didn’t say the Aztecs were the only bad guys. Any time the people give up power to a government, whatever its form, you will get atrocities sooner or later. That’s why the people must always have power over government.


          42. “That’s why the people must always have power over government.”

            Republicans have been working hard to find pathways around “the people” so they can nullify an election by those same people.

            They tried in the 2020 election but thanks to a handful of Republicans with integrity were unable to pull it off. Even through extreme violence and extortion.

            Republicans don’t want power to the citizens. Just power.

            Liked by 2 people

          43. What’s happened to you? You weren’t always this relentlessly partisan.

            Were the Aztecs Republican?

            I made a general statement about the nature of government and the importance of the people having the ability to overcome a bad government, and you immediately make it about Trump.

            I go weeks without Trump crossing my mind, but he lives rent free in your head 24/7.


          44. First of all, my views have changed little. When it is becoming clearer that our elected leaders plotted to overturn the election by any means necessary, including violence, I find it hard to respect their followers.

            Second, Trump is in control of most Republicans, which is just under half the country. To me, and any caring American, that is a huge red flag. I don’t believe in cults.

            Third, I didn’t mention Trump at all, but you sure jumped on it might quick.

            You want state legislators to supersede voters, but I don’t. That is the main reason the Big Lie is pushed daily so that you believe it. And by believing it, you will let the power slip from the people.

            You just don’t see what I think is an obvious threat to Western Democracies. And that is the threat of White nationalism. Hungary and Poland are two examples of the direction you want us to go. Now both countries are a lot more homogeneous, so one would expect a leader to ride the ultra nationalist horse when refugees with different beliefs or skin color migrates into their borders. But we are a mixed race, immigrant nation. For us to head that route would be a road to violence and repression.

            The irony of power to the people as you mentioned, is the lengths the Republicans are going to suppress it. That was my point. Hard to deal with that topic without the elephant in the room.

            Liked by 2 people

          45. And yet still you have not addressed the issue of the danger of government that has too much power over its people.

            That is true whether the government is Republican, Democrat, Nazi or Aztec.

            The only party that can be trusted with power is Libertarian, because the first thing they would do is get rid of it.


          46. Of course there is a danger of too much power in a government. Which is why elections need to fair, open, and accessible to all. You think guns are the solution, but that is just the worst thing that could happen. Voter participation, less monied influence and more representatives per capita. Rule of Law, not Rule of Anon, as in conspiracies.

            Libertarians would be just the same. You know that. In order to win, you need money. As soon as you get into office, the bills come due.

            Thank you conservatives for Citizens United and making all this possible.

            Liked by 1 person

          47. I didn’t say there was much chance of Libertarians being elected any time soon. It’s hard to raise money on a promise not to do you any favors, but not to do favors for anyone else either. People need to get sick of government meddling first,

            Whether you or I like the results of Citizens United or not, it was the right decision. You can’t give some groups the right to participate in politics and deny it to others. If the Sierra Club gets to donate, Exxon does too.


          48. No. Florida has shown that corporations that enjoy special treatment from the state must remain politically neutral. Much as civil service employees did for decades.


          49. Disney decided to stand with some of their employees AND customers. And that “special treatment” has saved the taxpayers of two counties about a billion a year in taxes they would have to pay if NOT for Disney’s autonomy. When the bills start to come due to the home and business owners of the special tax region, you won’t be able to find an elected GOP representative form those areas.


          50. “The only party that can be trusted with power is Libertarian”….

            Rainbows and unicorns think that statement is hooie.

            Once PEOPLE are in power, they aren’t real keen to give it up. The party may SAY they will do is “get rid of it”, but once the fruit has been tasted and found to be sweet, they will keep eating it.


        2. RE: “First, in response to the government taking action against foreign disinformation you declare.”

          No. In response to YOU saying that foreigners have no protected free speech rights, I say they do, because free speech is a natural right.

          RE: “When it is pointed out that various ‘natural rights’ such as free speech or self-defense are routinely curtailed…”

          No. When it is pointed out that YOU confuse rights with freedoms, you apparently can’t grasp the concept.

          RE: “And since there is no such ‘natural right,’ the government is not violating any of your principles when it takes steps to curb harmful disinformation.”

          No. Government control over “harmful disinformation” is a constitutional violation because it relies on laws that abridge the freedom of speech. As a practical matter, cultural support for free speech is in and of itself sufficient to protect against disinformation, harmful or otherwise.

          Your entire argument boils down to a contradiction: to have free speech it is necessary to compromise the principle of free speech.


          1. You do not like where YOUR statements lead? Too bad.

            Your postulates are wrong if they lead to absurdities – reductio ad absurdum

            I am not making any sort of argument. Merely pointing out that all our “natural rights” are abridged and curtailed by law. That is a simple matter of fact. I have given examples. When you try thinking maybe you will realize that fact is obviously true and understand that there is no violation of the Constitution when steps are taken to curb foreign adversaries and criminals from spreading harmful disinformation.

            I think I understand why this simple matter is hard for you. It is because Trumpism is nothing without the disinformation it spreads and depends upon. You take ANY limits on disinformation as an attack on your politics. To the extent they are fed by Russian trolls and bots, you are not wrong.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. RE: “The Administration in Power, no matter what party is currently in place, is the absolute last source to go to for a ruling on the truth.”

    True enough, but ruling on truth doesn’t seem to be the charter. The name of the group is Disinformation Governance Board, suggesting the members will govern disinformation. This implies that some disinformation will be approved, whereas other disinformation will be disapproved.

    Such a narrow scope of operations is perhaps confirmed by an article we recently discussed here in the Forum:

    Once a government admits to openly lying to the people, it makes perfect sense to create a formal organization to manage the lies.


  3. “ The Administration in Power, no matter what party is currently in place, is the absolute last source to go to for a ruling on the truth.”

    A better argument for an independent and free press would be hard to create.

    This is the danger of state media as a sole source. And why TASS and RT were sources for state propaganda.

    (Also, why FOX being a de facto state media under the last administration was a red flag for most Americans.)

    Imagine a report like Roberts’ post by NBC News airing in Russia today. There would be a passel of reporters and executives crowding the Gulag.

    We are being told about government efforts to pre-empt Putin’s moves with intelligence raw and low to high confidence as the situation warrants by our DOD. Not by government, but by media.

    I am not naive enough to trust everything the administration says about the war. Truth is the first casualty. But with hundreds of private enterprise journalists free to write and analyze information someone will smell a ruse or a false report. Free market reporting will win out over time.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Some wag or other has noted that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Freedom of Speech is an important principle, but it does not apply to foreign actors whose purpose is to undermine and divide our society. Given that spreading malignant disinformation has become a significant weapon of war it is entirely appropriate for our government to seek it out and attempt to stop it at the source.

    If the efforts to stem the flow of foreign disinformation seem partisan to some, that would be because certain political actors in our country are wedded to divisive disinformation and reliant on the help of those malign foreign actors.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Leaving aside that you have grossly misstated the mission of this sub-agency, your proposed cure has been tried over and over again in this forum but you people keep repeating the same nonsense. In the real world Brandolini’s Law rules. Or to put it another way . . .

        “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it. If a lie be believed sometimes only for an hour, it has accomplished its purpose, and there is no further occasion for it.”

        Liked by 2 people

      2. “…rationally presented.”

        There is the rub.

        Jewish space lasers, Italian satellites, bamboo slivers from China, Chavez software bugs, vaccines magnetize, Gates’ chips, suitcases with ballots from somewhere, counting machines fed multiple times…

        All of these were rebuffed, debunked, and patently ridiculous. With rational and proven facts supporting such debunking. Results? The Big Lie is the sole core of 68% of Republican reason for existing. Vaccines were the Devil’s work.

        By the time one is debunked, 5 more looney “theories” take its place. Repetition is the key, as Stalin prescribed. Endless repetition to give the aura of “gee, so many believe it, it must be true”.

        24 hour news cycles and the internet have taken disinformation from a biplane to a Blackbird jet in so far as volume and speed. Plus Bots have added to the “volume” by making it seem as if thousands are fomenting conspiracies, so they must be true too.

        What to do if the marketplace is ineffective in separating wheat from chaff? I have two suggestions.

        First, control anonymity. Doable even with protection for whistleblowers via a data base owned by the servers. A court order is needed to ID posters if necessary.

        Second, charge a subscription fee for posting. Not large, but enough to make bots or mass postings really expensive. A subscription might be $5/month and includes a few hundred postings, then $0.25 each after that. Big posters and bot houses that post millions will be billed a lot more.
        Banning bots totally would be great.

        In the Wild West of the internet, it is like a lynch mob. No amount of “reasoning” can save the victim. But a list of participants might.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. Yes, I find it amusing but at the same time frightening that Democrats want to empower the sitting government, Democrats of course, to determine what is disinformation or not and at the same time presenting disinformation as the determined truth. Adam Schiff would be a great director of the department of disinformation informational parody of truth lies….or whatever they call it…just department of lies really anyway…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s