Ukraine / Russia

[SAJ-99]

Since it was discussed on this thread---it now seems that the new "Disinformation" office is on hold and supposedly Nina has resigned. I will leave it to others, far smarter than I to decide whether or not the "Disinformation office" is a good thing or bad, but if it does move forward at some point, it is my opinion someone with less political baggage than Nina should run it.

It seems they had problems countering the disinformation from the other side of the political aisle. LOL. If you have trouble with that, I have no idea how they thought they could stop coordinated disinformation from foreign actors like China and Russia. What I worry about is that our own government becomes less transparent. It would have been easy to set up the group in the DHS and let them go about their daily tasks and not make any type of announcement about it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It seems they had problems countering the disinformation from the other side of the political aisle. LOL. If you have trouble with that, I have no idea how they thought they could stop coordinated disinformation from foreign actors like China and Russia. What I worry about is that our own government becomes less transparent. It would have been easy to set up the group in the DHS and let them go about their daily tasks and not make any type of announcement about it.

Our Def Dept does need to track and consider disinformation promoted by foreign actors as I mentioned earlier in this thread - but censorship should not be one of their tools in responce.

We need to remember that the answer to free speech we don't like is more speech. It is always been attractive to think we could some how prune speech to eliminate the most destructive portions of it, but that is a pipe dream.

If the govt is concerned about false Russian bot info flooding social media (which is a legit concern) how does govt, or govt-induced social media companies) blocking it help? The info will get through somehow, some way, and in the process the most susceptible audience now has reason to distrust its own govt and media outlets for censorship. By de-platforming folks they are just pushed to communication venues with even fewer counterarguments, enhancing their own echo chamber.

I would go so far as to say if Trump had been banned from Twitter in 2018 he would have won in 2020. Lots of good data showing he would have easily won the electoral college if those who voted GOP for governor or US senator had also voted for Trump at the same rate. You are talking folks who actively voted cross-ticket for Joe because of their concerns about Trump's behaviors - behaviors he put on full display via social media. Fun fact, in 2016, Trump's SIL changed Trump's twitter password 3 weeks before the election and his polling numbers instantly improved and started to suggest he could win.

Blocking speech does not improve democracy and does not bring down foreign tyrants. But remaining ignorant of the threats does not either.

 

[SAJ-99]

Our Def Dept does need to track and consider disinformation promoted by foreign actors as I mentioned earlier in this thread - but censorship should not be one of their tools in responce.

We need to remember that the answer to free speech we don't like is more speech. It is always been attractive to think we could someone prune speech to eliminate the most destructive portions of it, but that is a pipe dream.

If the govt is concerned about false Russian bot info flooding social media (which is a legit concern) how does govt, or govt-induced social media companies) blocking it help? The info will get through somehow, some way, and in the process the most susceptible audience now has reason to distrust its own govt and media outlets for censorship. By de-platforming folks they are just pushed to communication venues with even fewer counterarguments, enhancing their own echo chamber.

I would go so far as to say if Trump had been banned from Twitter in 2018 he would have won in 2020. Lots of good data showing he would have easily won the electoral college if those who voted GOP for governor or US senator had also voted for Trump at the same rate. You are talking folks who actively voted cross-ticket for Joe because of their concerns about Trump's behaviors - behaviors he put on full display via social media. Fun fact, in 2016, Trump's SIL changed Trump's twitter password 3 weeks before the election and his polling numbers instantly improved and started to suggest he could win.

Blocking speech does not improve democracy and does not bring down foreign tyrants. But remaining ignorant of the threats does not either.

I agree with the premise. The problem is that there is no way to counter bots with offsetting accurate info. unless, i guess, you create your own bots and flood social media with the true message. Bots aren't real. Wack-a-mole may be the only way to slow the information spread. Part of this is our own fault as we can't tell real info from disinformation anymore, and people generally just want to believe what they want to believe. I'm not sure the solution, but I do favor free speech, but sources need to be held to some standard (like being a real person seems a good start).

To be clear, the problem in this case administration was more controlling the narrative, not necessarily completely inaccurate info- sure some of that mixed in, but mostly just old-school politics.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

If the govt is concerned about false Russian bot info flooding social media (which is a legit concern) how does govt, or govt-induced social media companies) blocking it help?

Some sort of turing test to login... captcha or the like

Mandatory dual factor... 1 number per account

IP blocking...

You'd piss of boomers can't figure out how to use it but, it's not that hard. Any big company with an IT company worth a damn is already doing most of these.

 

[Randi]

Our Def Dept does need to track and consider disinformation promoted by foreign actors as I mentioned earlier in this thread - but censorship should not be one of their tools in responce.

We need to remember that the answer to free speech we don't like is more speech. It is always been attractive to think we could someone prune speech to eliminate the most destructive portions of it, but that is a pipe dream.

If the govt is concerned about false Russian bot info flooding social media (which is a legit concern) how does govt, or govt-induced social media companies) blocking it help? The info will get through somehow, some way, and in the process the most susceptible audience now has reason to distrust its own govt and media outlets for censorship. By de-platforming folks they are just pushed to communication venues with even fewer counterarguments, enhancing their own echo chamber.

I would go so far as to say if Trump had been banned from Twitter in 2018 he would have won in 2020. Lots of good data showing he would have easily won the electoral college if those who voted GOP for governor or US senator had also voted for Trump at the same rate. You are talking folks who actively voted cross-ticket for Joe because of their concerns about Trump's behaviors - behaviors he put on full display via social media. Fun fact, in 2016, Trump's SIL changed Trump's twitter password 3 weeks before the election and his polling numbers instantly improved and started to suggest he could win.

Blocking speech does not improve democracy and does not bring down foreign tyrants. But remaining ignorant of the threats does not either

I agree, very nicely stated


I also believe Trump would have won in 2020, if he had stayed off twitter a bit more AND in my case, we ( my family ) did not like the "nicknames" .

But, He might have also won if the truth had been know about Hunters laptop and what was on it, or if the truth about the Russia hoax that the Clinton campaign fabricated had been known sooner. Both of these were "disinformation" campaigns . One totally made up to win an election and the other an attempted cover up to help win an election.

Some are now saying both these incidents were simply proving that politics is a blood sport and dirty trucks is nothing new and that those who control the internet in todays world, control the election.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Some sort of turing test to login... captcha or the like

Mandatory dual factor... 1 number per account

IP blocking...

You'd piss of boomers can't figure out how to use it but, it's not that hard. Any big company with an IT company worth a damn is already doing most of these.

It is not about if we technically can. It is when we do, do the most likely to believe build strong distrust that the blocking is being done without prejudice for/against particular political viewpoints. If you ran a library and some users complained that it was full of junk, sure, you can go through and clean up a library, but if half the people then believe the library used the clean up as an excuse to politically edit the contents of the library and therefore refuse to go to the library or listen to anything said by those who do go to the library have you really made the town more informed or better off?

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

It is not about if we technically can. It is when we do, do the most likely to believe build strong distrust that the blocking is being done without prejudice for/against particular political viewpoints. If you ran a library and some users complained that it was full of junk, sure, you can go through and clean up a library, but if half the people then believe the library used the clean up as an excuse to politically edit the contents of the library and therefore refuse to go to the library or listen to anything said by those who do go to the library have you really made the town more informed or better off?

I think that well has been poisoned already. We have DHS at the boarders, I'm 100% fine with cyber security mandates.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I agree with the premise. The problem is that there is no way to counter bots with offsetting accurate info. unless, i guess, you create your own bots and flood social media with the true message. Bots aren't real. Wack-a-mole may be the only way to slow the information spread. Part of this is our own fault as we can't tell real info from disinformation anymore, and people generally just want to believe what they want to believe. I'm not sure the solution, but I do favor free speech, but sources need to be held to some standard (like being a real person seems a good start).

To be clear, the problem in this case administration was more controlling the narrative, not necessarily completely inaccurate info- sure some of that mixed in, but mostly just old-school politics.

There has always been too much info for a person to digest, and there has always been a lot of misleading crap out there - and I know the internet turned these truths to 11 - but for a long time, folks had generally agreed that if you read the WSJ and the NYTimes you probably had both sides of the relevant truth in hand. But now we have a meaningful percentage of the population who rejects any large, institutional, attempt at separating the wheat from the chaff. No amount of computer filtering can solve for a lack of generally earnest and reliable sources.

The issue at hand is, how can we have a relatively short list of professional and responsible information sources that the average joe can rely on? (This includes depoliticizing big parts of our government bureaucracy.) Even if tilted one way or the other, we need organizations to at least try to present information objectively and do so from more angles than the popular one at the time. Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, we have had too many instances of govt agencies, large TV networks (left and right), large news orgs (left or right) who have outright fabricated stories or in the alternative suppressed stories that later turned out to have merit. This trust must be restored, and further censorship does not advance that cause.

 

[SAJ-99]

There has always been too much info for a person to digest, and there has always been a lot of misleading crap out there - and I know the internet turned these truths to 11 - but for a long time, folks had generally agreed that if you read the WSJ and the NYTimes you probably had both sides of the relevant truth in hand. But now we have a meaningful percentage of the population who rejects any large, institutional, attempt at separating the wheat from the chaff. No amount of computer filtering can solve for a lack of generally earnest and reliable sources.

The issue at hand is, how can we have a relatively short list of professional and responsible information sources that the average joe can rely on? (This includes depoliticizing big parts of our government bureaucracy.) Even if tilted one way or the other, we need organizations to at least try to present information objectively and do so from more angles than the popular one at the time. Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, we have had too many instances of govt agencies, large TV networks (left and right), large news orgs (left or right) who have outright fabricated stories or in the alternative suppressed stories that later turned out to have merit. This trust must be restored, and further censorship does not advance that cause.

As the quote says, a lie can go around the world in the time it takes the truth to put on its shoes. This is especially a problem when our collective attention span is about 72 hours. Any media source gets paid on clicks, which can be measured in real-time. There is a huge push to be first, and that has cost a few traditional sources some credibility. Others have embraced that and make the most inflammatory headline possible, and it works. The truth doesn't matter. it is all entertainment. I mean, Hunter Biden owned a laptop so...

 

[LWC55]

There has always been too much info for a person to digest, and there has always been a lot of misleading crap out there - and I know the internet turned these truths to 11 - but for a long time, folks had generally agreed that if you read the WSJ and the NYTimes you probably had both sides of the relevant truth in hand. But now we have a meaningful percentage of the population who rejects any large, institutional, attempt at separating the wheat from the chaff. No amount of computer filtering can solve for a lack of generally earnest and reliable sources.

The issue at hand is, how can we have a relatively short list of professional and responsible information sources that the average joe can rely on? (This includes depoliticizing big parts of our government bureaucracy.) Even if tilted one way or the other, we need organizations to at least try to present information objectively and do so from more angles than the popular one at the time. Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, we have had too many instances of govt agencies, large TV networks (left and right), large news orgs (left or right) who have outright fabricated stories or in the alternative suppressed stories that later turned out to have merit. This trust must be restored, and further censorship does not advance that cause.

I try and watch the GMA highlights every morning. That way I know that every bs narrative they are pushing is almost always 180 degrees the opposite. It may take a couple of months to come out but I get a good head start on the truth lol.

 

[Randi]

I agree, very nicely stated


I also believe Trump would have won in 2020, if he had stayed off twitter a bit more AND in my case, we ( my family ) did not like the "nicknames" .

But, He might have also won if the truth had been know about Hunters laptop and what was on it, or if the truth about the Russia hoax that the Clinton campaign fabricated had been known sooner. Both of these were "disinformation" campaigns . One totally made up to win an election and the other an attempted cover up to help win an election.

Some are now saying both these incidents were simply proving that politics is a blood sport and dirty trucks is nothing new and that those who control the internet in todays world, control the election.

I have been told that this type of post will get the thread locked, if that is true, I apologize

I was attempting to expand on Vikingsguus post, which I quoted and said I agreed with---but---possibly I have read about the independent investigation into past stories incorrectly. I also believe there are lawsuits now connected to the other one. But possibly everything that has been said about the two stories I mentioned have no disinformation connected to them.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Can Ukraine Win? Five Scenarios for the War’s Next Phase

Russia’s shift to a scaled-down offensive in the east and southeast looks increasingly difficult for Putin to pull off. Analysts weigh the possibilities of where the conflict goes from here.

www.wsj.com

 

[Randi]

Turkey/Russia/NATO/Finland and Sweden

Turkey, at this time, depends on Russia for oil, gas, and wheat. And, of course Russia need that income especially right now.

Turkey is saying they will vote no on Finland/Sweden joining NATO because those two countries protect a terrorist group ( according to Turkey )

Anybody have any thoughts on how this will play out.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Turkey/Russia/NATO/Finland and Sweden

Turkey, at this time, depends on Russia for oil, gas, and wheat. And, of course Russia need that income especially right now.

Turkey is saying they will vote no on Finland/Sweden joining NATO because those two countries protect a terrorist group ( according to Turkey )

Anybody have any thoughts on how this will play out.

My guess - the US and Germany will find some way to placate/pressure Turkey, and Finland and Sweden do some public prostration and Turkey will allow.

 

[LWC55]

I try and watch the GMA highlights every morning. That way I know that every bs narrative they are pushing is almost always 180 degrees the opposite. It may take a couple of months to come out but I get a good head start on the truth lol.

Pfizer says three doses of its vaccine provides ‘strong’ immunity against COVID for kids 6 months to 5 years old

Three doses of a child-size Pfizer COVID vaccine is both safe and effective for kids from six months to 5 years old, the company said Monday. Pfizer plans to submit its trial data to the Food and D…

www.nydailynews.com

‘Everybody Should Be Concerned’ About Monkeypox, Biden Warns (Published 2022)

Only one case of the virus has so far been identified in the U.S., but public health officials say the disease is likely to spread.

www.nytimes.com

Two from today

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Pfizer says three doses of its vaccine provides ‘strong’ immunity against COVID for kids 6 months to 5 years old

Three doses of a child-size Pfizer COVID vaccine is both safe and effective for kids from six months to 5 years old, the company said Monday. Pfizer plans to submit its trial data to the Food and D…

www.nydailynews.com

‘Everybody Should Be Concerned’ About Monkeypox, Biden Warns (Published 2022)

Only one case of the virus has so far been identified in the U.S., but public health officials say the disease is likely to spread.

www.nytimes.com

Two from today

Actually had beers last night with the MD on that floor... kinda a gnarly disease. Way higher mortality rate that Covid if left untreated, but it's not airborne and requires close contact for transmission.

Apparently treatment is giving the patient the smallpox vaccine within the first 4 days of developing symptoms.

Does not seem like something to be concerned about at this point... though always that off chance monkey pox and covid combine in a corgi and create the thanos plague.

 

[hank4elk]

...the corgi bites a dobie in the ankle and rides it to the battle and the dobie turns into the Alien and...

 

[Cheesehead]

Right now I’m more about this than monkeypox

 

[LWC55]

Right now I’m more about this than monkeypox

View attachment 223437

 

[Big Fin]

Well, I guess every Monday we have to bury the political meter to see if we can derail a thread. Get it back on track. This is about Ukraine and Russia. Save the other bullshit for Facebook.