My faith that some people in the government have the best interest for the American people is at absolute ZERO!!!!!!

‘Secret reports’ reveal how government worked to ‘censor Americans’ prior to 2020 election, Jim Jordan says

'The federal government, disinformation 'experts' at universities, Big Tech, and others worked ... to monitor & censor Americans’ speech,' said Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assisted in the creation of a "disinformation" group at Stanford University that worked to "censor" the speech of Americans prior to the 2020 presidential election, according to a number of communications outlined in a report by the House Judiciary Committee.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-...ordan-says

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

My faith that some people in the government have the best interest for the American people is at absolute ZERO!!!!!!

‘Secret reports’ reveal how government worked to ‘censor Americans’ prior to 2020 election, Jim Jordan says

'The federal government, disinformation 'experts' at universities, Big Tech, and others worked ... to monitor & censor Americans’ speech,' said Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assisted in the creation of a "disinformation" group at Stanford University that worked to "censor" the speech of Americans prior to the 2020 presidential election, according to a number of communications outlined in a report by the House Judiciary Committee.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-...ordan-says

How awful.
Let's make sure whoever was President in 2020 is never President again.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

My faith that some people in the government have the best interest for the American people is at absolute ZERO!!!!!!

‘Secret reports’ reveal how government worked to ‘censor Americans’ prior to 2020 election, Jim Jordan says

'The federal government, disinformation 'experts' at universities, Big Tech, and others worked ... to monitor & censor Americans’ speech,' said Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assisted in the creation of a "disinformation" group at Stanford University that worked to "censor" the speech of Americans prior to the 2020 presidential election, according to a number of communications outlined in a report by the House Judiciary Committee.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-...ordan-says

How awful.
Let's make sure whoever was President in 2020 is never President again.

That’s what they’re trying to do now. Don’t you read the papers?

---

My faith that some people in the government have the best interest for the American people is at absolute ZERO!!!!!!

‘Secret reports’ reveal how government worked to ‘censor Americans’ prior to 2020 election, Jim Jordan says

'The federal government, disinformation 'experts' at universities, Big Tech, and others worked ... to monitor & censor Americans’ speech,' said Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assisted in the creation of a "disinformation" group at Stanford University that worked to "censor" the speech of Americans prior to the 2020 presidential election, according to a number of communications outlined in a report by the House Judiciary Committee.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-...ordan-says

How awful.
Let's make sure whoever was President in 2020 is never President again.

Yes, because it's clear that Trump benefitted from these polices. You're so daft.

---

Holy hell, the internet and social media were rampant with metric tons of disinformation in that cycle.
(Most of it foreign propaganda that ultimately doesn't aid ANY of us.)
So of course there were efforts to curb it.
AND - of course several of the more extreme legislators well known to post "alternate facts" got censored. 

This article - like most of the whining from pedophile-harboring Jim Jordan and Fox infotainment - is utter horse [BLEEP].

But what do you expect?  This is coming from a movement whose whole philosophy has become: "you can believe whatever the [BLEEP] you want! Alternate facts are awesome! We don't need truth to put conservatives in office! Americans are morons! Just tell them you're Christian and love guns! They'll vote for you!" 

LOL

---

It's gotta be miserable being a liberal.. You almost feel sorry for them lolol..

Almost..

---

How awful.
Let's make sure whoever was President in 2020 is never President again.

That’s what they’re trying to do now. Don’t you read the papers?

Oh what a relief.  I assume you support these efforts as well?

---

How awful.
Let's make sure whoever was President in 2020 is never President again.

Yes, because it's clear that Trump benefitted from these polices. You're so daft.

So you're saying he didn't benefit from his own policies.  I guess he proved pretty incompetent then, huh?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Holy hell, the internet and social media were rampant with metric tons of disinformation in that cycle.
(Most of it foreign propaganda that ultimately doesn't aid ANY of us.)
So of course there were efforts to curb it.
AND - of course several of the more extreme legislators well known to post "alternate facts" got censored. 

This article - like most of the whining from pedophile-harboring Jim Jordan and Fox infotainment - is utter horse [BLEEP].

But what do you expect?  This is coming from a movement whose whole philosophy has become: "you can believe whatever the [BLEEP] you want! Alternate facts are awesome! We don't need truth to put conservatives in office! Americans are morons! Just tell them you're Christian and love guns! They'll vote for you!" 

LOL

More gobbledygook.

---

That’s what they’re trying to do now. Don’t you read the papers?

Oh what a relief.  I assume you support these efforts as well?

---

Yes, because it's clear that Trump benefitted from these polices. You're so daft.

So you're saying he didn't benefit from his own policies.  I guess he proved pretty incompetent then, huh?

Are you suggesting these were Trump's policies? Links please.

---

Holy hell, the internet and social media were rampant with metric tons of disinformation in that cycle.
(Most of it foreign propaganda that ultimately doesn't aid ANY of us.)
So of course there were efforts to curb it.
AND - of course several of the more extreme legislators well known to post "alternate facts" got censored. 

This article - like most of the whining from pedophile-harboring Jim Jordan and Fox infotainment - is utter horse [BLEEP].

But what do you expect?  This is coming from a movement whose whole philosophy has become: "you can believe whatever the [BLEEP] you want! Alternate facts are awesome! We don't need truth to put conservatives in office! Americans are morons! Just tell them you're Christian and love guns! They'll vote for you!" 

LOL

More gobbledygook.

---

Oh what a relief.  I assume you support these efforts as well?

---

So you're saying he didn't benefit from his own policies.  I guess he proved pretty incompetent then, huh?

Are you suggesting these were Trump's policies? Links please.

It would be pretty remarkable if federal government policies ran contrary to lawful direct orders from the President.  I'd say the burden of proof is on you.

(Note the key words: lawful and direct)

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol. Myopic. Once again, you side with the opposition of liberty in the name of orange man bad.

---

Lol. Myopic. Once again, you side with the opposition of liberty in the name of orange man bad.

Once again you make stuff up and say the burden of proof is on me to show you made it up.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't think you understand how this works. You made a claim. I asked you to support your claim, and you're telling me that's on me? You do this every time I call you out on your BS.

That’s what they’re trying to do now. Don’t you read the papers?

Oh what a relief.  I assume you support these efforts as well?

---

Yes, because it's clear that Trump benefitted from these polices. You're so daft.

So you're saying he didn't benefit from his own policies.  I guess he proved pretty incompetent then, huh?

I am asking you to show me where this was his policy. The burden of proof is on you. Once you've established this was his policy (which shouldn't be hard), then we can talk about his lack of competence.

---

I don't think you understand how this works. You made a claim. I asked you to support your claim, and you're telling me that's on me? You do this every time I call you out on your BS.

Oh what a relief.  I assume you support these efforts as well?

---

So you're saying he didn't benefit from his own policies.  I guess he proved pretty incompetent then, huh?

I am asking you to show me where this was his policy. The burden of proof is on you. Once you've established this was his policy (which shouldn't be hard), then we can talk about his lack of competence.

Does that font size change help you see the issue?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I mean - this all seems pretty simple.

Over a two year period of time leading up to the 2020 election - US social media was indeed used as a propaganda device by foreign governments and special interest groups.

We know this to be true. And it need not be a partisan issue.
While Russia lead a campaign to aid tRump's re-election - Iran led a campaign to undermine it. This stuff is a threat to us all regardless of your politics. So let's put aside trying to argue whether or not censorship of propaganda was needed. Zuckerberg was unwilling to take the necessary steps without this involvement. So the Feds were forced to get involved. And, yes, tRump was in office when this happened.

Here's a declassified intelligence doc on the subject.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents...6MAR21.pdf

SO - There was indeed a ton of misinformation and disinformation making the rounds.
I saw things daily in my feed that had the typical grammatical errors common to language translating software and so did everyone I asked personally about also seeing those ads and posts.

So the DOH and other agencies rightfully began efforts to intervene and censor accordingly.

Now- fast forward a bit- and Jim Jordan and others who had been well documented as prone to posting inaccuracies on social media got caught up in the fray when some of their inaccurate posts were removed.

In the grand scheme of things - who cares? There was a larger design at work to shield people from much more harmful election influence from those who wish us all ill will.

Is it really too much to ask of our lawmakers that they not post blatant lies on Facebook and twitter?
Sadly - I know the answer to that rhetorical question and it doesn't bode well for any of us.

---

I don't think you understand how this works. You made a claim. I asked you to support your claim, and you're telling me that's on me? You do this every time I call you out on your BS.


I am asking you to show me where this was his policy. The burden of proof is on you. Once you've established this was his policy (which shouldn't be hard), then we can talk about his lack of competence.

Does that font size change help you see the issue?

It helps me understand your inability to understand cause and effect. I said Trump didn't benefit from "these" policies, not "his" policies. You're the one who changed that modifier, not me. So, I ask you again, can you show me where this was a process that was put in place by Trump?

---

I mean - this all seems pretty simple.

Over a two year period of time leading up to the 2020 election - US social media was indeed used as a propaganda device by foreign governments and special interest groups.

We know this to be true. And it need not be a partisan issue.
While Russia lead a campaign to aid tRump's re-election - Iran led a campaign to undermine it.  This stuff is a threat to us all regardless of your politics. So let's put aside trying to argue whether or not censorship of propaganda was needed. Zuckerberg was unwilling to take the necessary steps without this involvement. So the Feds were forced to get involved. And, yes, tRump was in office when this happened.

Here's a declassified intelligence doc on the subject.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents...6MAR21.pdf

SO - There was indeed a ton of misinformation and disinformation making the rounds.
I saw things daily in my feed that had the typical grammatical errors common to language translating software and so did everyone I asked personally about also seeing those ads and posts.

So the DOH and other agencies rightfully began efforts to intervene and censor accordingly.

Now- fast forward a bit- and Jim Jordan and others who had been well documented as prone to posting inaccuracies on social media got caught up in the fray when some of their inaccurate posts were removed.

In the grand scheme of things - who cares?  There was a larger design at work to shield people from much more harmful election influence from those who wish us all ill will.

Is it really too much to ask of our lawmakers that they not post blatant lies on Facebook and twitter?
Sadly - I know the answer to that rhetorical question and it doesn't bode well for any of us.

NYC, good post worth addressing, but I can't get to it now.

---

Does that font size change help you see the issue?

It helps me understand your inability to understand cause and effect. I said Trump didn't benefit from "these" policies, not "his" policies. You're the one who changed that modifier, not me. So, I ask you again, can you show me where this was a process that was put in place by Trump?

We already addressed that also.  I said it would be remarkable and strange if federal government policies rolled out in response to new events were contrary to the President's wishes and direct lawful orders.  We should presume they were not until we have evidence otherwise.

Either way you want to play this game, you get the burden of proof.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Considering the evidence is just coming out over the last couple of years the FBI has been working with social media companies to enforce censorship, it would seem from this EO that Trump was unawares, would it not? 

Don't take my unwillingness to let you slide on another lazy attempt at reasoning for anything other than contempt for your "intellectualism." Here's an executive order from Trump demanding social media companies stop censoring Americans. I mean, I know everything he does is a grift, but the whole idea behind Truth social was a platform that doesn't censor political ideals. I know this is going to conflict with your notion that there is no bureaucracy unaccountable to the American people, so I'm expecting you'll double down somehow. Well, let's see it. 

PREVENTING ONLINE CENSORSHIP

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms "flagging" content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician's tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called "Site Integrity" has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans' speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for "human rights," hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China's mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China's propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today's digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230© of the Communications Decency Act (section 230©). 47 U.S.C. 230©. It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230© was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a "publisher" of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230© makes clear, the provision provides limited liability "protection" to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in "'Good Samaritan' blocking" of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a "forum for a true diversity of political discourse." 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph ©(2) expressly addresses protections from "civil liability" and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable "on account of" its decision in "good faith" to restrict access to content that it considers to be "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable." It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that -- far from acting in "good faith" to remove objectionable content -- instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph ©(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph ©(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230© properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs ©(1) and ©(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph ©(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph ©(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider's responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not "taken in good faith" within the meaning of subparagraph ©(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be "taken in good faith" if they are:

(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider's terms of service; or

(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech

---

I mean - this all seems pretty simple.

Over a two year period of time leading up to the 2020 election - US social media was indeed used as a propaganda device by foreign governments and special interest groups.

We know this to be true. And it need not be a partisan issue.
While Russia lead a campaign to aid tRump's re-election - Iran led a campaign to undermine it.  This stuff is a threat to us all regardless of your politics. So let's put aside trying to argue whether or not censorship of propaganda was needed. Zuckerberg was unwilling to take the necessary steps without this involvement. So the Feds were forced to get involved. And, yes, tRump was in office when this happened.

Here's a declassified intelligence doc on the subject.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents...6MAR21.pdf

SO - There was indeed a ton of misinformation and disinformation making the rounds.
I saw things daily in my feed that had the typical grammatical errors common to language translating software and so did everyone I asked personally about also seeing those ads and posts.

So the DOH and other agencies rightfully began efforts to intervene and censor accordingly.

Now- fast forward a bit- and Jim Jordan and others who had been well documented as prone to posting inaccuracies on social media got caught up in the fray when some of their inaccurate posts were removed.

In the grand scheme of things - who cares?  There was a larger design at work to shield people from much more harmful election influence from those who wish us all ill will.

Is it really too much to ask of our lawmakers that they not post blatant lies on Facebook and twitter?
Sadly - I know the answer to that rhetorical question and it doesn't bode well for any of us.

I have no problem with this as an idea, but the problem is always the same: How do you police it and keep it free from political bias. Misinformation and disinformation have always been a thing. However, it happens on the left just as much as it happens on the right, yet these two sides do not have the same accountability. The left routinely uses their platforms to manipulate the masses, which is textbook disinformation. Here's a few examples of headlines that are verifiable untrue about Trump:

• CNN's Chris Cilizza accused Trump of lying about wiretapping at Trump Tower, yet there were confirmed wiretaps involving Trump Tower associates.
  
• NBC News falsely reported that Trump had wiretapped his lawyer Michael Cohen, which they later had to retract.
  
• Time magazine reported that Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office on his first day, which was incorrect.
  
• The media narrative on Russian collusion was proven to be unfounded with the release of the Mueller report, which found no evidence of collusion (this is a huge one).
  
• Newsweek published a headline suggesting there was "Scientific Proof That Trump’s Hands are Too Small to Hold a Water Bottle Like a Normal Adult," which was not supported by any scientific evidence.
  

I mean, that's just few. I could fill up a whole thread if I wanted to be specific. These are just the ones that are inarguable. If I included the ones that are debatable, either because people are blindly partisan or because people think Trump just got lucky, I'd be here all week. I'm not trying to do that. I just want to know how you set up boundaries on misinformation and disinformation. Who gets to determine it. It's well known that our fact checkers are biased and partisan. How are you going to make this work in a way that doesn't disenfranchise a group? 

We can't even hold our media accountable, and you want to hold individuals accountable? We can't even hold our corporations accountable, and you want our corporations to hold us accountable? We can't even hold our government accountable, and you want our government to hold corporations accountable?

---

Considering the evidence is just coming out over the last couple of years the FBI has been working with social media companies to enforce censorship, it would seem from this EO that Trump was unawares, would it not? 

Don't take my unwillingness to let you slide on another lazy attempt at reasoning for anything other than contempt for your "intellectualism." Here's an executive order from Trump demanding social media companies stop censoring Americans. I mean, I know everything he does is a grift, but the whole idea behind Truth social was a platform that doesn't censor political ideals. I know this is going to conflict with your notion that there is no bureaucracy unaccountable to the American people, so I'm expecting you'll double down somehow. Well, let's see it. 

...

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?

---

I mean - this all seems pretty simple.

Over a two year period of time leading up to the 2020 election - US social media was indeed used as a propaganda device by foreign governments and special interest groups.

We know this to be true. And it need not be a partisan issue.
While Russia lead a campaign to aid tRump's re-election - Iran led a campaign to undermine it.  This stuff is a threat to us all regardless of your politics. So let's put aside trying to argue whether or not censorship of propaganda was needed. Zuckerberg was unwilling to take the necessary steps without this involvement. So the Feds were forced to get involved. And, yes, tRump was in office when this happened.

Here's a declassified intelligence doc on the subject.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents...6MAR21.pdf

SO - There was indeed a ton of misinformation and disinformation making the rounds.
I saw things daily in my feed that had the typical grammatical errors common to language translating software and so did everyone I asked personally about also seeing those ads and posts.

So the DOH and other agencies rightfully began efforts to intervene and censor accordingly.

Now- fast forward a bit- and Jim Jordan and others who had been well documented as prone to posting inaccuracies on social media got caught up in the fray when some of their inaccurate posts were removed.

In the grand scheme of things - who cares?  There was a larger design at work to shield people from much more harmful election influence from those who wish us all ill will.

Is it really too much to ask of our lawmakers that they not post blatant lies on Facebook and twitter?
Sadly - I know the answer to that rhetorical question and it doesn't bode well for any of us.

I have no problem with this as an idea, but the problem is always the same: How do you police it and keep it free from political bias. Misinformation and disinformation have always been a thing. However, it happens on the left just as much as it happens on the right, yet these two sides do not have the same accountability. The left routinely uses their platforms to manipulate the masses, which is textbook disinformation. Here's a few examples of headlines that are verifiable untrue about Trump:

• CNN's Chris Cilizza accused Trump of lying about wiretapping at Trump Tower, yet there were confirmed wiretaps involving Trump Tower associates.
  
• NBC News falsely reported that Trump had wiretapped his lawyer Michael Cohen, which they later had to retract.
  
• Time magazine reported that Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office on his first day, which was incorrect.
  
• The media narrative on Russian collusion was proven to be unfounded with the release of the Mueller report, which found no evidence of collusion (this is a huge one).
  
• Newsweek published a headline suggesting there was "Scientific Proof That Trump’s Hands are Too Small to Hold a Water Bottle Like a Normal Adult," which was not supported by any scientific evidence.
  

I mean, that's just few. I could fill up a whole thread if I wanted to be specific. These are just the ones that are inarguable. If I included the ones that are debatable, either because people are blindly partisan or because people think Trump just got lucky, I'd be here all week. I'm not trying to do that. I just want to know how you set up boundaries on misinformation and disinformation. Who gets to determine it. It's well known that our fact checkers are biased and partisan. How are you going to make this work in a way that doesn't disenfranchise a group? 

We can't even hold our media accountable, and you want to hold individuals accountable? We can't even hold our corporations accountable, and you want our corporations to hold us accountable? We can't even hold our government accountable, and you want our government to hold corporations accountable?

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.

---