7 ms·

Good. Disinformation is a threat to our infrastructure and the country. Not all weapons are physical. To be clear: disinformation is not a free speech issue.

Good. Disinformation is a threat to our infrastructure and the country. Not all weapons are physical. To be clear: disinformation is not a free speech issue. It is a weapon of war. Saying we shouldn’t fight it is as invalid as saying we shouldn’t repel an invading force because that enemy has a right to bear arms. (the 13 critical infrastructures that the DHS protects includes our voting system, our water system, roads and bridges, etc. look it up)

pc86 4y ago
This is valid opinion but it really is a strong negative to just spout something like this as if it's self-evident, and that any disagreement is obviously just so stupid you don't even need to spend the extra 30 seconds or so to justify it. The biggest and most obvious question is who gets to decide what qualifies as "disinformation" - including what the difference is between disinformation and just being wrong, and how is that protected from changes in the political landscape?
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  Unfiltered, anonymous speech on major social media platforms is the equivalent of a supervirus. Bad, poisonous ideas spread more quickly than truth and logic can catch up, and no one is silenced or held to account when these bad ideas keep spreading. I don't know what the solution to organized disinformation is. I don't know if the "cure" would be worse than the disease of disinformation. But it's naive to think nation-states are not using social media to leverage peoples' negative emotions and dividing society and making people disrespect really important things that should be held in really high regard in society, like truth and science.
  - fakethenews2022 4y ago
    Interestingly the biggest purveyors of organized disinformation are governments. Anyone else remember how the US government had a massive disinformation campaign that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and then orchestrated an invasion? Even more revealing is that the disinformation campaign was aided and abetted by US media including such supposed stalwarts as the New York Times.
    - unethical_ban 4y ago
      I think there is more trust to be had in the stalwarts still than in the alternatives I see my mother watch and read, notably fox news and OANN and Investmentwatchblog.com .
  - pc86 4y ago
    Nonsense, but even if this is all true, the solution is more education, more debate, more speech, not heavy-handed government imposition of what can and cannot be said in what contexts. Eventually, the people - or person - wielding that heavy hand will not have your best interests at heart.
smeej 4y ago
"Suppressing disinformation" is a power battle, nothing more. Whoever has the right to say their understanding is the correct one and all others should be repressed has power over speech. Freedom of speech means ALL speech or it means nothing. If someone defrauds you, prove the fraud and the damage and sue them. Otherwise, whether you want them to or not, people have a right to tell you what they think, or even to lie to you and tell you something they don't even think. Otherwise "stopping disinformation" is just "censorship" by another name.
- pxmpxm 4y ago
  Yeah I'm sure this new department will not be used strictly for political gain. Bad inflation numbers going into the midterms? Joe B flubbing some speech or person reference? Just call it misleading or misquote on some stretch technicality and down moderate.
  - andirk 4y ago
    The mostly uninteresting Hunter Biden laptop story suppression from mainstream media, Twitter, and Facebook in a very obviously concerted effort, and only for a period of time before the election, with orders from the top is a sign that, when pushed, the Arbiters of Truth will squash dissent to save face. (Here come the downvotes)
    - CharlesW 4y ago
      You mean the Hunter Biden laptop story literally everyone has heard about incessantly for years? The same one that They suppressed from the mainstream media, Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia¹? The one that's the reason They are going to downvote your post? ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controvers...
      - andirk 4y ago
        1) Most MSM harped on that it happened but not its contents. Same with other leaks such as emails, paid speeches, cables, etc. The story gets out. The substance of the leaks, however, are not widely discussed. Only that it happened. 2) I clearly stated that it was suppressed by MSM, Twitter, Facebook for a short period before the election. Twitter and Facebook admitted it outright. Zuckerberg himself said they got a call from the State to "watch out" for it. It's no longer a debatable as to whether the suppression before the election happened. And no, the downvotes come in droves when speaking less than positively about the American Democratic Party.
pfortuny 4y ago
And who declares what “disinformation” is? Who is the arbiter of truth? Will it be the Republican DHS when (not if) they win in the future? Why not?
excite1997 4y ago
Strategic disinformation that can be attributed to foreign operations? Maybe, although it would probably be better to expose, not suppress it. Taking down parody accounts and flagging people for COVID conspiracy theories, as documented in the article? Probably less so.
more_corn 4y ago
I’m not sure it’s sane to classify disinformation as a weapon of war. There’s all kinds of bullshit that definition doesn’t fit. At best you’re if ignoring it, at worst you’re lumping it together.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Maybe. Just maybe. If the system did not produce ignorant citizens, there would be no need to police disinformation systems those citizens engage in. Which brings me to another point, how comfortable do you feel about DHS determining what is sufficiently non-disinformationy? Do you think DHS would have an opinion as to whether Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are disinformation? I do not understand the naivety that comes with this particular view. The freedom of speech is not about saying a $slur. It is about ensuring we are not Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Russia or China. Why are people clamoring so hard to become like those states? Beyond government, who benefits from this? It is not the citizens of US. edit: added Iraq since that reference may not be as evident in in 2022.
- kolanos 4y ago
  > Maybe. Just maybe. If the system did not produce ignorant citizens, there would be no need to police disinformation systems those citizens engage in. > I do not understand the naivety that comes with this particular view. Frighteningly, producing ignorant and naive citizenry works for governments on both fronts. On one front, it makes the populace susceptible to "foreign" propaganda, thus a justification for censorship. On the other front, it makes them susceptible to government overreach and the erosion of their own civil rights to combat this "threat".
revnode 4y ago
> disinformation is not a free speech issue. Yes, it is. > Saying we shouldn’t fight it is as invalid as saying we shouldn’t repel an invading force because that enemy has a right to bear arms. You're conflating the rights of citizens vs foreigners. Your own citizens are not your enemy. You should never call them that. That sort of thinking is what gets you internment camps. That is a road which we already traveled and do not need to travel again. The difference between "you can't say that" and "you will go to jail if you say that" is very minor and plenty of western nations have already breached that wall.
fakethenews2022 4y ago
Among the information labeled as disinformation was the Hunter Biden laptop which turned out to be true. So this disinformation apparatus ended up doing the opposite and suppressed true information. Not only that but the government knew at the time that this information was true. Just label this for what it is, government censorship supported by big tech.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  Excuse me, do you have any reputable sources for the so-called "Biden laptop" story being anything but Russian propaganda? Right-wing blogs spreading Russian propaganda don't count.
  - fakethenews2022 4y ago
    Yes. Go to the New York Times, Washington Post, etc… Need a link? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-tax-bill-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
    - puffoflogic 4y ago
      The NYT is pretty unambiguous that the laptop is disinformation: > Russian intelligence officers were using Mr. Giuliani, who provided the hard drive copy to the tabloid, as a conduit for disinformation aimed at undermining Mr. Biden’s presidential run. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-laptop.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-... Also, if you're going to break HN rules by using your account to do ideological battle and spread disinformation, maybe make it a little less obvious in your username?
      - fakethenews2022 4y ago
        Did you not read that the New York Times changed their mind a year after your story? Go read the article I linked that was published a full year after your article. Shame on you for spreading misinformation.
andirk 4y ago
How about "fight" "disinformation" "weapons" with explanations of the truth. The 4th branch of the govt AKA the mainstream media has proven a failure of disseminating truth when it counts, and thus has eroded our trust in it. PSAs paid for w/ public tax $ like The Ad Council have their controversies but are generally countering some social issue with a "this is bad" message [0] but outright censorship of even blatantly false information is a sign that our government's integrity is shot to hell. Next time you hear someone spewing some bullshit like the 2016 election was rigged (Russia) or the 2020 election was rigged (tbh not sure who the main villain rigged this one), remember that people have been accustomed to lies from the top and are not completely crazy for looking to the fringes for the real scoop. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Council#Famous_and_Controversial_Campaigns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Council#Famous_and_Controve...
- dctoedt 4y ago
  > explanations of the truth Mass purveyors of disinformation are thieves of the time of the rest of us, and should be treated accordingly.
  - unknownaccount 4y ago
    Should we persecute every author of fiction novels too for wasting peoples time with their disinformation?
    - dctoedt 4y ago
      > Should we persecute every author of fiction novels too for wasting peoples time with their disinformation? People read fiction novels voluntarily, and the authors don't lie about their work being fact. (Also: You mean "prosecute," I think.)
  - EarlKing 4y ago
    God forbid anyone should have their time wasted. Purveyors of Prior Restraint are thieves of our natural rights and should be treated accordingly.
bondarchuk 4y ago
If one has to equate information with direct physical violence before arguing for suppression of information, what does that say about the validity of the argument? If it's so important to suppress certain information one should be able to argue for this in terms of information qua information, without having to falsely equate it to literal physical violence first. It's also quite constructive to conceive of "disinformation" as information (as opposed to physical violence) because it leads naturally to the realization that the remedy should be in the realm of information as well (education, establishing trust, trustworthy or verifiable information from trusted sources, etc..), instead of violence (suppression, shutting down, imprisonment).
- squeaky-clean 4y ago
  "The pen is mightier than the sword" isn't a new idea.
  - bondarchuk 4y ago
    So then use the pen and not the sword, to fight "disinformation". Also that quote does not necessarily equate information with physical violence ("mighty" is something quite different), which is what I am objecting to.

pc86 4y ago

This is valid opinion but it really is a strong negative to just spout something like this as if it's self-evident, and that any disagreement is obviously just so stupid you don't even need to spend the extra 30 seconds or so to justify it. The biggest and most obvious question is who gets to decide what qualifies as "disinformation" - including what the difference is between disinformation and just being wrong, and how is that protected from changes in the political landscape?

unethical_ban 4y ago
Unfiltered, anonymous speech on major social media platforms is the equivalent of a supervirus. Bad, poisonous ideas spread more quickly than truth and logic can catch up, and no one is silenced or held to account when these bad ideas keep spreading. I don't know what the solution to organized disinformation is. I don't know if the "cure" would be worse than the disease of disinformation. But it's naive to think nation-states are not using social media to leverage peoples' negative emotions and dividing society and making people disrespect really important things that should be held in really high regard in society, like truth and science.
- fakethenews2022 4y ago
  Interestingly the biggest purveyors of organized disinformation are governments. Anyone else remember how the US government had a massive disinformation campaign that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and then orchestrated an invasion? Even more revealing is that the disinformation campaign was aided and abetted by US media including such supposed stalwarts as the New York Times.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    I think there is more trust to be had in the stalwarts still than in the alternatives I see my mother watch and read, notably fox news and OANN and Investmentwatchblog.com .
- pc86 4y ago
  Nonsense, but even if this is all true, the solution is more education, more debate, more speech, not heavy-handed government imposition of what can and cannot be said in what contexts. Eventually, the people - or person - wielding that heavy hand will not have your best interests at heart.

smeej 4y ago

"Suppressing disinformation" is a power battle, nothing more. Whoever has the right to say their understanding is the correct one and all others should be repressed has power over speech. Freedom of speech means ALL speech or it means nothing. If someone defrauds you, prove the fraud and the damage and sue them. Otherwise, whether you want them to or not, people have a right to tell you what they think, or even to lie to you and tell you something they don't even think. Otherwise "stopping disinformation" is just "censorship" by another name.

pxmpxm 4y ago
Yeah I'm sure this new department will not be used strictly for political gain. Bad inflation numbers going into the midterms? Joe B flubbing some speech or person reference? Just call it misleading or misquote on some stretch technicality and down moderate.
- andirk 4y ago
  The mostly uninteresting Hunter Biden laptop story suppression from mainstream media, Twitter, and Facebook in a very obviously concerted effort, and only for a period of time before the election, with orders from the top is a sign that, when pushed, the Arbiters of Truth will squash dissent to save face. (Here come the downvotes)
  - CharlesW 4y ago
    You mean the Hunter Biden laptop story literally everyone has heard about incessantly for years? The same one that They suppressed from the mainstream media, Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia¹? The one that's the reason They are going to downvote your post? ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controvers...
    - andirk 4y ago
      1) Most MSM harped on that it happened but not its contents. Same with other leaks such as emails, paid speeches, cables, etc. The story gets out. The substance of the leaks, however, are not widely discussed. Only that it happened. 2) I clearly stated that it was suppressed by MSM, Twitter, Facebook for a short period before the election. Twitter and Facebook admitted it outright. Zuckerberg himself said they got a call from the State to "watch out" for it. It's no longer a debatable as to whether the suppression before the election happened. And no, the downvotes come in droves when speaking less than positively about the American Democratic Party.

pfortuny 4y ago

And who declares what “disinformation” is? Who is the arbiter of truth? Will it be the Republican DHS when (not if) they win in the future? Why not?

excite1997 4y ago

Strategic disinformation that can be attributed to foreign operations? Maybe, although it would probably be better to expose, not suppress it. Taking down parody accounts and flagging people for COVID conspiracy theories, as documented in the article? Probably less so.

more_corn 4y ago

I’m not sure it’s sane to classify disinformation as a weapon of war. There’s all kinds of bullshit that definition doesn’t fit. At best you’re if ignoring it, at worst you’re lumping it together.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

Maybe. Just maybe. If the system did not produce ignorant citizens, there would be no need to police disinformation systems those citizens engage in. Which brings me to another point, how comfortable do you feel about DHS determining what is sufficiently non-disinformationy? Do you think DHS would have an opinion as to whether Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are disinformation? I do not understand the naivety that comes with this particular view. The freedom of speech is not about saying a $slur. It is about ensuring we are not Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Russia or China. Why are people clamoring so hard to become like those states? Beyond government, who benefits from this? It is not the citizens of US. edit: added Iraq since that reference may not be as evident in in 2022.

kolanos 4y ago
> Maybe. Just maybe. If the system did not produce ignorant citizens, there would be no need to police disinformation systems those citizens engage in. > I do not understand the naivety that comes with this particular view. Frighteningly, producing ignorant and naive citizenry works for governments on both fronts. On one front, it makes the populace susceptible to "foreign" propaganda, thus a justification for censorship. On the other front, it makes them susceptible to government overreach and the erosion of their own civil rights to combat this "threat".

revnode 4y ago

> disinformation is not a free speech issue. Yes, it is. > Saying we shouldn’t fight it is as invalid as saying we shouldn’t repel an invading force because that enemy has a right to bear arms. You're conflating the rights of citizens vs foreigners. Your own citizens are not your enemy. You should never call them that. That sort of thinking is what gets you internment camps. That is a road which we already traveled and do not need to travel again. The difference between "you can't say that" and "you will go to jail if you say that" is very minor and plenty of western nations have already breached that wall.

fakethenews2022 4y ago

Among the information labeled as disinformation was the Hunter Biden laptop which turned out to be true. So this disinformation apparatus ended up doing the opposite and suppressed true information. Not only that but the government knew at the time that this information was true. Just label this for what it is, government censorship supported by big tech.

puffoflogic 4y ago
Excuse me, do you have any reputable sources for the so-called "Biden laptop" story being anything but Russian propaganda? Right-wing blogs spreading Russian propaganda don't count.
- fakethenews2022 4y ago
  Yes. Go to the New York Times, Washington Post, etc… Need a link? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-tax-bill-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    The NYT is pretty unambiguous that the laptop is disinformation: > Russian intelligence officers were using Mr. Giuliani, who provided the hard drive copy to the tabloid, as a conduit for disinformation aimed at undermining Mr. Biden’s presidential run. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-laptop.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-... Also, if you're going to break HN rules by using your account to do ideological battle and spread disinformation, maybe make it a little less obvious in your username?
    - fakethenews2022 4y ago
      Did you not read that the New York Times changed their mind a year after your story? Go read the article I linked that was published a full year after your article. Shame on you for spreading misinformation.

andirk 4y ago

How about "fight" "disinformation" "weapons" with explanations of the truth. The 4th branch of the govt AKA the mainstream media has proven a failure of disseminating truth when it counts, and thus has eroded our trust in it. PSAs paid for w/ public tax $ like The Ad Council have their controversies but are generally countering some social issue with a "this is bad" message [0] but outright censorship of even blatantly false information is a sign that our government's integrity is shot to hell. Next time you hear someone spewing some bullshit like the 2016 election was rigged (Russia) or the 2020 election was rigged (tbh not sure who the main villain rigged this one), remember that people have been accustomed to lies from the top and are not completely crazy for looking to the fringes for the real scoop. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Council#Famous_and_Controversial_Campaigns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Council#Famous_and_Controve...

dctoedt 4y ago
> explanations of the truth Mass purveyors of disinformation are thieves of the time of the rest of us, and should be treated accordingly.
- unknownaccount 4y ago
  Should we persecute every author of fiction novels too for wasting peoples time with their disinformation?
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    > Should we persecute every author of fiction novels too for wasting peoples time with their disinformation? People read fiction novels voluntarily, and the authors don't lie about their work being fact. (Also: You mean "prosecute," I think.)
- EarlKing 4y ago
  God forbid anyone should have their time wasted. Purveyors of Prior Restraint are thieves of our natural rights and should be treated accordingly.

bondarchuk 4y ago

If one has to equate information with direct physical violence before arguing for suppression of information, what does that say about the validity of the argument? If it's so important to suppress certain information one should be able to argue for this in terms of information qua information, without having to falsely equate it to literal physical violence first. It's also quite constructive to conceive of "disinformation" as information (as opposed to physical violence) because it leads naturally to the realization that the remedy should be in the realm of information as well (education, establishing trust, trustworthy or verifiable information from trusted sources, etc..), instead of violence (suppression, shutting down, imprisonment).

squeaky-clean 4y ago
"The pen is mightier than the sword" isn't a new idea.
- bondarchuk 4y ago
  So then use the pen and not the sword, to fight "disinformation". Also that quote does not necessarily equate information with physical violence ("mighty" is something quite different), which is what I am objecting to.