U.S. disinformation researcher laments 'incredible witch hunt'

Freedom of speech was great until social media came along. Make people have to click a warning to see the nonsense!!!

Freedom of speech was great until social media came along.

And maybe the podcasts.

Did you hear about the scandal that all the right-wing podcasts our resident readers so proudly listened to were being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Russians to push their propaganda to the MAGA idiots?

In the Soviet Union, anything that ran contrary to the official party line was deemed "disinformation"

It seems that the US ruling class has adopted the same technique.

She was formerly with the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), a non-partisan disinformation research project.

Recommed everyone to read Surveillance Capitalism

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/03/harvard-professor-says-surveillance-capitalism-is-undermining-democracy/

to understand the world you are living in today.

“We received a letter and then a subpoena from Jim Jordan”

He sure gets around. Fortunately he also doesn’t get anything done.

In the Soviet Union, anything that ran contrary to the official party line was deemed "disinformation"

It still is. The Russian media is run by the Kremlin, and if they broadcast anything the censors don't like, they get the gulag.

You have been branded “CIA Renee” by trolls insinuating that you have secret ties with the US intelligence agency.

Comedy gold.

Here's Alex Stamos, former Chief Security Officer for Facebook and her boss at Stanford, introducing DiResta at some event last year. DiResta he says, "has gone out and worked for the CIA".

https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1633824045652221954

So Alex Stamos is an internet troll. Funny. This sudden resuscitation of the fake Russian Interference story is clearly an attempt to distract from the astonishing corruption of the entire US political elite by AIPAC and Zionist dollars.

And The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff is a must read!

"U.S. disinformation researcher laments 'incredible witch hunt'"

Interesting, although it's true we have disinformation problem. We still have the right of "freedom of speech." Therefore, it's appropriate to let the people decide what they seem as true or false information. Afterall those same people talking us down about disinformation are the same people who can't define what's a woman.

Therefore, it's appropriate to let the people decide what they seem as true or false information

That is incorrect, people can decide what they can believe or not, but they can't decide if something is true or not, at much they can choose to be correct about it or live in denial.

Afterall those same people talking us down about disinformation are the same people who can't define what's a woman.

Making up imaginary flaws is one way to demonstrate when people are already aware their beliefs are false, so without the option of defending those beliefs with actual evidence or arguments (since there is none) it becomes necessary to make up something to keep pushing the disinformation. "You can't define the rich and complicated concept of gender in a couple of words? then you must be lying".

Freedom of speech was great until social media came along.

Oh, I see; so freedom of speech was great when only a select few were able to disseminate information?

Shades of Nazi Germany. Very scary.

Understanding disinformation has emerged as a lightning rod in the United States ahead of the November election, with academics and think-tanks facing lawsuits by right-wing groups and subpoenas from a Republican-led congressional committee.

Of course, because people realized that what was censored as disinformation turned out to be true; and vice versa, the mainstream narrative largely turned out to be disinformation.

Oh, I see; so freedom of speech was great when only a select few were able to disseminate information?

That people with names and reputations can be hold responsible when they lie? that is much better than nameless people endlessly repeating falsehoods trying to mislead others for personal profit. People are now trying to get freedom of consequences not of speech.

Of course, because people realized that what was censored as disinformation turned out to be true; and vice versa, the mainstream narrative largely turned out to be disinformation.

When things are demonstrated as disinformation by definition they are not true, facts do not change just because people are unable to accept them, that only makes them worse. What things demonstrated as disinformation by the SIO "turned out ot be true"? without proving this claim there is no need to give it any value, it is at best misinformation, and when used on purpose while knowing it has no basis it becomes disinformation.