(11-10-2023, 10:41 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(11-09-2023, 03:25 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: So - the DHS was given an order to curb propaganda/disinformation on SM platforms during Trump's presidency and your argument is that he didn't know? 

You suggest he was unaware of the DHS mandate? Was it hidden from him? Did it receive executive approval or not? If it was (presumably) executively approved, that means he either knew it or signed off on something he didn't realize he didn't want.

What is the scenario you are suggesting took place?
How did something his lackeys now whine about get approved under his very nose?

(11-09-2023, 03:42 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: Of course the line between policing propaganda and censorship is a fine line.
Age old conundrum. 

Anecdotal information about times it didn't go the way of your political interests are of virtually zero value here.
You'd need a mountain of data to show any clear unfairness trend. You don't have it. 

Lastly - is your answer to just give up and let our social media be a cesspool on foreign influence and special interest meddling? 

I'm certainly not suggesting that DHS use a bunch of college researchers and students to be some permanent solution to the problem. But I'm also not gonna be OK with just letting the rotting wound fester.

(11-09-2023, 11:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: I asked you several questions in two posts responding to your own.

You've answered zero. 

Sorry it's so exhausting for you to defend your own dubious position.

---

Trump made 97 political stunt throw-away executive orders so he could grand stand in the rose garden and blather a bunch of rhetoric.

Most of them were exactly as empty as "I'll make Mexico pay for the wall." 

You really trying to put actual weight on that one? (e.o. that you cited)

Quote:Lucky2Last



Which questions have I missed? I will never avoid answering a question. I don't ever care if I'm wrong about something, so if I don't get back to you, it was lost or forgotten. To your point, you're on about intent again.

I highlighted all the [BLEEP] you ignored in green for you.

One more:
What was the issue date of the e.o. you're attempting to use as an excuse for Trump allowing this DHS censorship program his lackeys now condemn?

(11-10-2023, 12:46 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(11-10-2023, 11:26 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I doubt he was aware of that policy, which is my point. I posted the EO as a clear outward expression of HIS goals. Additionally, it was a frequent topic of public conversation. Trump said, "We’re asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order an immediate halt to social media companies' illegal, shameful censorship of the American people." He also sued several of these companies. As soon as he got out of office, he created his own social media company promising not to restrict political points of view. There is more than enough evidence to believe that Trump outwardly expressed a desire that social media companies should not be regulating American speech.

I believe you can take it at face value, but I'm sure you will object, because you know his intent. It's always "facts" until those aren't useful. 

I believe he thought this problem was exclusively coming from social media bias and moved to address it. I think if he KNEW the extent of collusion between government agencies, this would be done differently. For example, the information available does not indicate that President Trump was aware of the coordination between the FBI, DHS, and social media companies regarding censorship. The House Judiciary Committee's report reveals that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), particularly through its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), collaborated with the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) and the Center for Internet Security (CIS) to flag online speech by Trump and other Republicans for action by social media companies. This involved a "switchboard" process where reports of misinformation from state and local election officials were shared with social media platforms. However, there is no evidence in the report that Trump was informed about these activities.

In one instance, a local official flagged a tweet from Trump to CIS’ "misinformation" tipline, and this information was then forwarded to the EIP and CISA, and subsequently to Twitter, without informing the White House. “To be clear, this evidence shows an unelected executive branch official flagging a statement from the elected leader of the executive branch for removal from one of the world’s largest and most active public forums. CISA has not provided the Committee any evidence that it contacted the White House prior to making the referral to opine on the veracity of the claim in the tweet,” the report states. Do you really believe Trump would allow himself to be censored this way if he knew? Get out of here, man. 

The absence of direct communication to the White House, as indicated in the report, suggests that there might not have been explicit knowledge on the part of President Trump about these specific actions of censorship. I have now provided all of the information, and you have provided none.

HAHAHAHA!

So you don't know [BLEEP] and that's why you didn't answer the questions. 

Got it.

Man you could have saved yourself a lot of talking in circles with nothing but opinion and speculation there and just said "IDK"

1. You don't even know which came first? The e.o. or the DHS mandate? "get out of here, man" LOL
Another feeble attempt to ridicule when you know nothing to support your squawking. 

BTW - I don't have an ounce of problem with social media censoring any blatant lies in election-related posts and ads. 
Censor every single piece of disinformation whether it's from Jimmy Carter, Donald Trump, or the Dalai Lama. 
I despise the propagation of lies that the American people have adopted as normalcy. It's disgusting. We should be demanding better. 

Trumps censorship schtick has never been anything more than him carving out a way to lie without liability. 
Same with the clown that tried to blow this thing up in the press.

First of all, I didn't realize you posted between me and Mikey. So, that wasn't a response to you, it was a response to him. Normally I check to make sure my post followed the one that preceded it, so I can go back and quote the other poster, but I guess I didn't check this time. My bad. Let me go back and address your post.

Before we begin, I would like you to link me the DHS mandate to which you are referring. Specifically, if you can, the order that outlines what the mandate entails.

---