The Disinformation Governance Board Is Dead. Here’s The Right Way To Fight Disinformation.

"Reid erroneously stated by overturning Roe v. Wade would make abortion illegal, rather it would mean states will be once again allowed to make their own abortion."  Julio Rosas discussing MSNBC's Joy Reid 

 

Forbes   "The Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board has been paused, only three weeks after it was announced. Reports have variously announced that partisan fights and right-wing attacks on the Board’s leader, Nina Jankowicz, led to its demise. However, the Board was doomed from the moment it was named. The name itself suggests illegal government activity that the American people would never tolerate, regardless of their partisan affiliation. Legally, it is rarely permissible for the U.S. government to be the arbiter of truth. The name suggested that it would do just that—despite DHS officials’ protests that it was designed to protect free speech.
"Meanwhile, the Internet burns while partisans fiddle. The interagency must act to combat adversary disinformation. The Board must be replaced with an interagency body with a clear and transparent mission to fight information warfare by U.S. adversaries, while protecting the First Amendment freedoms that Americans hold dear.". . .

. . ."The U.S.’s robust freedom of speech is at the core of what makes America great, and at the essence of what it means to be American. It also makes information warfare by U.S. adversaries hard to combat. U.S. adversaries have no similar restrictions on accessing the data of U.S. citizens and weaponizing it. U.S. adversaries can root out those who are susceptible to disinformation and use their data to target them with disinformation. And Congress has had a hard time stopping them. Since Russia’s attacks on the 2016 elections, Congress has done little to combat information warfare by U.S. adversaries, especially as related to elections. Bills to enhance U.S. government efforts to combat disinformation have stalled in Congress, in part due to their lack of adequate procedural and constitutional safeguards.". . .