6 ms·

President Signs Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill into Law

34 points by perseusprime11 10y ago

rememberlenny 10y ago
Important points: New counter-propaganda law was put in place - provides grant funding for NGOs working to reduce disinformation from propaganda - institutionalize the support of a free-press overseas, particularly around Russia/China
sbarre 10y ago
Anyone else see a risk of the sitting government funding orgs that are only tackling disinformation that said sitting government disapproves of?
czep 10y ago
Anyone else just slightly concerned that the phrasing of the bill essentially identifies both Russia and China as enemies? This just doesn't seem to make much diplomatic sense.
- cmurf 10y ago
  I'm not concerned, and I think it makes complete sense. That they are geopolitical adversaries in more ways than our interests are aligned doesn't make it undiplomatic to recognize and confront their information warfare - which is itself the actual instance of undiplomatic behavior.
- tptacek 10y ago
  See edit below If it's the same as the House bill, the citations to Russia and China occur only in the "Sense of Congress" section (which isn't legally binding) and include only: (1) foreign governments, including the Governments of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, use disinformation and other propaganda tools to undermine the national security objectives of the United States and key allies and partners; (2) the Russian Federation, in particular, has conducted sophisticated and large-scale disinformation campaigns that have sought to have a destabilizing effect on United States allies and interests; (3) in the last decade disinformation has increasingly become a key feature of the Government of the Russian Federation’s pursuit of political, economic, and military objectives in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Balkans, and throughout Central and Eastern Europe; I would dispute that this constitutes an identification of Russia as an "enemy". Edit Further: my understanding now is that this was an amendment on the 2017 NDAA. I read the text of the 2017 NDAA (or, at least, searched it for all clauses pertaining to "Russia" and "propaganda") and it's not the same bill, nor does it call out Russia or China.
hubert123 10y ago
The whole 'fakenews' narrative is just a ploy to get censorship passed, I hope you guys all realize this. Any foreign media can be classified as propaganda and be called a national security risk - and be banned at will.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  Where is the authority to ban anything being granted?
  - hubert123 10y ago
    What do you think "proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests" means? It means that US "facts" will get priority in the media over foreign "non-facts". Somebody will decide what is and isnt a fact and those somebodies will sit in the state departement. Nobody is ever going to make a bill saying "we will censor russian and foreign media", you do realize that right? The wording will always seem a lot less threatening.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      It's always tricky to tell if commenters here are from Europe, the US, or elsewhere, but on the off chance that you're not from the US: the US federal government has virtually no control over the US media industry, and can't prioritize any particular kind of content in it.
      - pdkl95 10y ago
        > US federal government has virtually no control over the US media industry They may not have any control de jure, but the government (federal or otherwise) has de facto gained a lot of control by threatening the media's "access". Yes, this should be an empty threat that the media shouldn't submit to so easily, but in practice it has been extremely effective in keeping some topics off the news.
        10y ago
danharaj 10y ago
Who decides what is propaganda? Here is my favorite piece of "counter-propaganda": http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/31/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-united-states-has-invaded-22-count/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/... Why is this my favorite? Because it defines a word which has an obvious meaning, "invasion" in this case in such a way that it excludes situations that any reasonable person would identify as a referent of that word. For example, according to this article, the United States didn't invade Afghanistan. It also does not count use of air power to enforce a no-fly zone as an invasion. This definition is very in tune with the legal and linguistic shenanigans the US goes through in order to justify their military intervention all over the world. Fact checking can be propaganda too. The idea that the United States' propaganda is justified and others' is not is pure doublethink. This bill claims that it'll preserve democracy by giving the US government the power and resources to create its own propaganda networks (which, by the way, it has been running clandestinely for decades anyway). The people who will enshrine totalitarianism in the law will do it while honestly believing they are saving something they call freedom.
- igorigor 10y ago
  Nice try, RT
  - danharaj 10y ago
    RT is little more than the personal blog of Vladimir Putin who is a far-right authoritarian who has engorged his assets by selling his country's resources and wealth to plutocrats.
whack 10y ago
One man's propoganda is another man's counter-propoganda. If the bill aimed to empower independent sources, such as BBC/Reuters etc, I'd be all for it. But a group that's beholden solely to the US federal government? I wouldn't expect anything less than a biased mouthpiece for the President's interests.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  One man's independent media is another woman's income stream. Clinton Foundation donors 2015 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati... $1,000,000-$5,000,000 Carlos Slim - Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder James Murdoch - Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox Newsmax Media - Florida-based conservative media network Thomson Reuters - Owner of the Reuters news service $500,000-$1,000,000 Google News Corporation Foundation - Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company
  - untog 10y ago
    Here's the thing I don't get about that, maybe you can help me out. How did the Clintons profit from the Clinton Foundation? I'm looking on Politifact, which says: "The Clintons don’t take a salary from this work, and they don’t receive any other direct monetary benefit." "The Clinton Foundation is a public charity that, as we have reported, allocates about 80-90 percent of its expenditures to charitable programs, while the rest goes to fundraising and overhead." So, I'm trying to work how this matches up with what basically became a mass meme, that the foundation was utterly corrupt. It certainly doesn't sound like a particularly valuable "income stream", as you call it. What am I missing? I can see it being an example of the Clintons being too close to the rich donor class, but then, Trump met Carlos Slim the other day (describing him as a great guy) so it's hardly as if there was only one candidate guilty of that. (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/hilary-rosen/democrat-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/...)
    - 10y ago
btrask 10y ago
Great, we needed something to counter the domestic propaganda that was legalized in 2013: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-propaganda-ban-repealed-freeing-state-dept-to-direct-its-broadcasting-arm-american-citizens.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-... Oh, it's about foreign propaganda? Never mind...
- tptacek 10y ago
  This (2016) bill is extremely silly. But so was that Techdirt story. Can you identify the government "propaganda" we've been subjected to since 2014 that we weren't subjected to in (say) 2007?
  - btrask 10y ago
    No, independently these moves are inconsequential. But the trajectory is clear, and reason to worry.
    - RodericDay 10y ago
      this is a good reply. people often get stuck because they get goaded into trying to describe a single "smoking gun" that doesn't exist in such a blatant form. propaganda is much more subtle, a well-timed unsubstantiated allegation that is later claimed to be a good faith error, when the damage is already done. it's good to refuse to play that game altogether, and focus instead of facts such as the the fact that WMDs were not found, the CIA torture report was not discussed by talking heads, drone bombings aren't personal interest stories, and that bird's eye view kind of stuff.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Every one of those things you just cited preceded the bill Techdirt was freaking out about.
        btrask 10y ago
ilaksh 10y ago
This is an excuse for censorship. Censorship is a big problem on the internet. Including sites like Hacker News. Make a somewhat political statement that is popular, it will be upvoted. Make a somewhat political statement that is very critical of the United States or contradicts a mainstream liberal media myth or bias, you will be flagged (censored). This is the same as what happens in China when you criticise the government.
- cooper12 10y ago
  This is a ridiculous statement. You are not entitled to free speech on a private website. Downvoting is not censorship; not every comment is privileged to be at the top or completely visible. I agree that flagging is abused at times, but it means that the community has found that some part of your post violates its guidelines, and it's their right to do that. When site staff ban you, they are moderating their community and it is not censorship. Sorry, but "censorship" is not a shield you can use to deflect any criticism or repercussions of your actions. You might find this comic enlightening: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/. Lastly no, this is not at all what happens in China. In China the government will kidnap and arrest you, not hide your comment on an internet forum.
  - ilaksh 10y ago
    I didn't say downvoting, I said flagging. I have seen it or other moderation used many times to remove contributions that contradict belief systems or site-accepted political worldviews but do not violate terms of use. And HN/reddit/etc. are very large groups that allow public participation.
mark_l_watson 10y ago
I enjoy reading news sources from around the world, including China Daily and Russian Times. All news media carries some bias, and my strategy for understanding the world is to read news from many countries. The news in my country (USA) is also heavily biased. I expect to see less freedom in the Internet in the future, but I hope I am wrong about that!

Important points: New counter-propaganda law was put in place - provides grant funding for NGOs working to reduce disinformation from propaganda - institutionalize the support of a free-press overseas, particularly around Russia/China

sbarre 10y ago

Anyone else see a risk of the sitting government funding orgs that are only tackling disinformation that said sitting government disapproves of?

czep 10y ago

Anyone else just slightly concerned that the phrasing of the bill essentially identifies both Russia and China as enemies? This just doesn't seem to make much diplomatic sense.

cmurf 10y ago
I'm not concerned, and I think it makes complete sense. That they are geopolitical adversaries in more ways than our interests are aligned doesn't make it undiplomatic to recognize and confront their information warfare - which is itself the actual instance of undiplomatic behavior.
tptacek 10y ago
See edit below If it's the same as the House bill, the citations to Russia and China occur only in the "Sense of Congress" section (which isn't legally binding) and include only: (1) foreign governments, including the Governments of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, use disinformation and other propaganda tools to undermine the national security objectives of the United States and key allies and partners; (2) the Russian Federation, in particular, has conducted sophisticated and large-scale disinformation campaigns that have sought to have a destabilizing effect on United States allies and interests; (3) in the last decade disinformation has increasingly become a key feature of the Government of the Russian Federation’s pursuit of political, economic, and military objectives in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Balkans, and throughout Central and Eastern Europe; I would dispute that this constitutes an identification of Russia as an "enemy". Edit Further: my understanding now is that this was an amendment on the 2017 NDAA. I read the text of the 2017 NDAA (or, at least, searched it for all clauses pertaining to "Russia" and "propaganda") and it's not the same bill, nor does it call out Russia or China.

hubert123 10y ago

The whole 'fakenews' narrative is just a ploy to get censorship passed, I hope you guys all realize this. Any foreign media can be classified as propaganda and be called a national security risk - and be banned at will.

vonmoltke 10y ago
Where is the authority to ban anything being granted?
- hubert123 10y ago
  What do you think "proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests" means? It means that US "facts" will get priority in the media over foreign "non-facts". Somebody will decide what is and isnt a fact and those somebodies will sit in the state departement. Nobody is ever going to make a bill saying "we will censor russian and foreign media", you do realize that right? The wording will always seem a lot less threatening.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    It's always tricky to tell if commenters here are from Europe, the US, or elsewhere, but on the off chance that you're not from the US: the US federal government has virtually no control over the US media industry, and can't prioritize any particular kind of content in it.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      > US federal government has virtually no control over the US media industry They may not have any control de jure, but the government (federal or otherwise) has de facto gained a lot of control by threatening the media's "access". Yes, this should be an empty threat that the media shouldn't submit to so easily, but in practice it has been extremely effective in keeping some topics off the news.
      - 10y ago

danharaj 10y ago

Who decides what is propaganda? Here is my favorite piece of "counter-propaganda": http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/31/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-united-states-has-invaded-22-count/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/... Why is this my favorite? Because it defines a word which has an obvious meaning, "invasion" in this case in such a way that it excludes situations that any reasonable person would identify as a referent of that word. For example, according to this article, the United States didn't invade Afghanistan. It also does not count use of air power to enforce a no-fly zone as an invasion. This definition is very in tune with the legal and linguistic shenanigans the US goes through in order to justify their military intervention all over the world. Fact checking can be propaganda too. The idea that the United States' propaganda is justified and others' is not is pure doublethink. This bill claims that it'll preserve democracy by giving the US government the power and resources to create its own propaganda networks (which, by the way, it has been running clandestinely for decades anyway). The people who will enshrine totalitarianism in the law will do it while honestly believing they are saving something they call freedom.

igorigor 10y ago
Nice try, RT
- danharaj 10y ago
  RT is little more than the personal blog of Vladimir Putin who is a far-right authoritarian who has engorged his assets by selling his country's resources and wealth to plutocrats.

whack 10y ago

One man's propoganda is another man's counter-propoganda. If the bill aimed to empower independent sources, such as BBC/Reuters etc, I'd be all for it. But a group that's beholden solely to the US federal government? I wouldn't expect anything less than a biased mouthpiece for the President's interests.

SixSigma 10y ago
One man's independent media is another woman's income stream. Clinton Foundation donors 2015 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati... $1,000,000-$5,000,000 Carlos Slim - Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder James Murdoch - Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox Newsmax Media - Florida-based conservative media network Thomson Reuters - Owner of the Reuters news service $500,000-$1,000,000 Google News Corporation Foundation - Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company
- untog 10y ago
  Here's the thing I don't get about that, maybe you can help me out. How did the Clintons profit from the Clinton Foundation? I'm looking on Politifact, which says: "The Clintons don’t take a salary from this work, and they don’t receive any other direct monetary benefit." "The Clinton Foundation is a public charity that, as we have reported, allocates about 80-90 percent of its expenditures to charitable programs, while the rest goes to fundraising and overhead." So, I'm trying to work how this matches up with what basically became a mass meme, that the foundation was utterly corrupt. It certainly doesn't sound like a particularly valuable "income stream", as you call it. What am I missing? I can see it being an example of the Clintons being too close to the rich donor class, but then, Trump met Carlos Slim the other day (describing him as a great guy) so it's hardly as if there was only one candidate guilty of that. (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/hilary-rosen/democrat-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/...)
  - 10y ago

btrask 10y ago

Great, we needed something to counter the domestic propaganda that was legalized in 2013: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-propaganda-ban-repealed-freeing-state-dept-to-direct-its-broadcasting-arm-american-citizens.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-... Oh, it's about foreign propaganda? Never mind...

tptacek 10y ago
This (2016) bill is extremely silly. But so was that Techdirt story. Can you identify the government "propaganda" we've been subjected to since 2014 that we weren't subjected to in (say) 2007?
- btrask 10y ago
  No, independently these moves are inconsequential. But the trajectory is clear, and reason to worry.
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    this is a good reply. people often get stuck because they get goaded into trying to describe a single "smoking gun" that doesn't exist in such a blatant form. propaganda is much more subtle, a well-timed unsubstantiated allegation that is later claimed to be a good faith error, when the damage is already done. it's good to refuse to play that game altogether, and focus instead of facts such as the the fact that WMDs were not found, the CIA torture report was not discussed by talking heads, drone bombings aren't personal interest stories, and that bird's eye view kind of stuff.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Every one of those things you just cited preceded the bill Techdirt was freaking out about.
      - btrask 10y ago

ilaksh 10y ago

This is an excuse for censorship. Censorship is a big problem on the internet. Including sites like Hacker News. Make a somewhat political statement that is popular, it will be upvoted. Make a somewhat political statement that is very critical of the United States or contradicts a mainstream liberal media myth or bias, you will be flagged (censored). This is the same as what happens in China when you criticise the government.

cooper12 10y ago
This is a ridiculous statement. You are not entitled to free speech on a private website. Downvoting is not censorship; not every comment is privileged to be at the top or completely visible. I agree that flagging is abused at times, but it means that the community has found that some part of your post violates its guidelines, and it's their right to do that. When site staff ban you, they are moderating their community and it is not censorship. Sorry, but "censorship" is not a shield you can use to deflect any criticism or repercussions of your actions. You might find this comic enlightening: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/. Lastly no, this is not at all what happens in China. In China the government will kidnap and arrest you, not hide your comment on an internet forum.
- ilaksh 10y ago
  I didn't say downvoting, I said flagging. I have seen it or other moderation used many times to remove contributions that contradict belief systems or site-accepted political worldviews but do not violate terms of use. And HN/reddit/etc. are very large groups that allow public participation.

mark_l_watson 10y ago

I enjoy reading news sources from around the world, including China Daily and Russian Times. All news media carries some bias, and my strategy for understanding the world is to read news from many countries. The news in my country (USA) is also heavily biased. I expect to see less freedom in the Internet in the future, but I hope I am wrong about that!