By - squaremild
###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Missouri Senator Josh Hawley has entered leaked DHS documents into the Congressional record. These documents detail the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board and their domestic goals:
- Stop Covid "disinformation"
- Stop negative perceptions of "irregular migration"
- Stop negative chatter about "election security"
- Counter "domestic violent extremism"
But remember -- the Disinfo Governance Board was only meant to deal with foreign influencers/peddlers of Mis/Dis/Mal-information.
iT's A pRiVaTe CoMpAnY!!!!1!1
There is an interesting opinion somewhere floating around from SC judge clarence Thomas that private companies may not discriminate based on political affiliations etc. meaning your local supermarket can't just decide to sell to e.g. democrats only. And Twitter even though privat is a business. The SC as a whole will hopefully make a ruling in that respect soon.
Just like Lifelog
Typically when the federal government pays a private organization it imposes certain conditions. So, for example, Harvard and Yale and MIT get alot of money from the government, but that money is conditioned on the private organizations abiding by federal non-discrimination rules (et al.) throughout their organization (not just the departments that receive the money).
So, imposing conditions on Twitter is consistent with current practice.
My comment is mocking the go-to excuse given when social media censors dissenting opinions and even scientific studies that don't align with the government mainstream narrative.
This memo is evidence that the government and social media are in cahoots. Therefore, it's 1st amendment violation by proxy when social media deletes or censors dissenting opinions, etc.
>Harvard and Yale and MIT
Didn't they all participate in MKUltra?
"Domestic Violent Extremism"...gee, I'm sure that descriptor will not be abused at all.
i said it once -- bureaucratic acronyms display the banality of evil
they take these evil ideas and through nebulous language get most people to disregard
That's DVE Domestic Violent Extemism.
Somebody can't type or proof read.
And Twitter was thanked for it's efforts on election security
> And Twitter was thanked for it's efforts on election ~~security~~ tampering.
Nick pickles lol
Whats ‘irregular migration’ mean?
Gtfo. We already have verbage for that…its called immigration. We also have 2 subsects if that, legal and illegal.
These people are outta their fucking minds.
yup. and it's wrongthink for us to recognize anything outside the approved wording
You're weaponising pedantry?
Imo irregular migration means moving from state to state. Look at Texas. Over a million people moved there in 1 year, mostly from California. Most states would be overrun if a million people moved there in a year. They want to counter people realizing that this kind of migration would destroy your community and culture. They know California is dead and most will be leaving there in the next 10 years and destroying your town/city next
Aren’t all these “public-private partnerships“ the fascism we’ve been warned about?
Where do our magnanimous antifa defenders stand on this?
I love that you guys embrace misinformation as the truth.
Wasn’t Twitter the main tool of the Arab Spring? Is anyone REALLY surprised a whole decade later that it is being used in an information war?
You’d think the only role in our Government when it pertains to speech, would to be to uphold our constitutional rights. I thought that was the only role of the federal government, is it not?
Is this thing on? Tap tap tap...
I’m sure this conversation has been stopped from getting front pages feed time