> Jen Easterly, Biden’s appointed director of CISA, swiftly made it clear that she would continue to shift resources in the agency to combat the spread of dangerous forms of information on social media. “One could argue we’re in the business of critical infrastructure, and the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure, so building that resilience to misinformation and disinformation, I think, is incredibly important,” said Easterly, speaking at a conference in November 2021.
How can anyone who was rightly against the authoritarian insanity during the War On Terror justify this sort of thinking? "Trump is bad/election deniers are bad/anti-vaxxers are bad" is not enough. This can and will be spun right around and used against you.
You seem to assume this will work by censorship, but I haven't seen anything to substantiate that. So as far as I can tell, there will be more information and how is that a bad thing?
This would be worthwhile if you hadn't read the article and already decided that twitter execs meeting with DHS weekly to discuss specific accounts and what should be done about them is not censorship.
The US gave a report of what was misinformation and requested that social media companies respond with a report of what, if anything, was done about it. What were the repercussions of Twitter didn't do anything? Oh, none? Okay.
The US does this weekly, and about specific people and subjects that it wants to communicate its concern over.
> What were the repercussions of Twitter didn't do anything? Oh, none? Okay.
Why are you convinced that you have some sort of inside information about repercussions twitter may or may not have when the government approaches them with concerns about content? Who convinced you?
>"Why are you convinced that you have some sort of inside information about repercussions twitter may or may not have when the government approaches them with concerns about content? Who convinced you?"
I'm not convinced there were. I don't think the Biden admin would do that as its flatly unconstitutional. Sending a list of misinformation, weekly, daily, monthly, whatever, is flatly constitutional.
It's not really a matter of a religious belief, it speaks more to their desire for political expediency, which would be thrown out the window if they actually did violate the first amendment. Not that I expect you to bring a realistic view of the current political climate to this conversation.
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, look at where Jen has worked in the past, what organizations specifically. One of them performed the exact operations she's trying to prevent.
Because Moscow doesn't have to beat the US on the battlefield of Ukraine if they can ignite a US civil war and force a military withdrawal assymetrically.
How can anyone who was rightly against the authoritarian insanity during the War On Terror justify this sort of thinking? "Trump is bad/election deniers are bad/anti-vaxxers are bad" is not enough. This can and will be spun right around and used against you.