Talk:Disinformation Governance Board

Newsweek reliable on this topic?

Per WP:NEWSWEEK, the site is considered generally unreliable, with exceptions to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Given the clear political rhetoric around this group, and said political bias being the reason Newsweek is considered generally reliable, it seems unlikely this article is worthy of a Newsweek exception. Open to hearing disagreement on this. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I replaced two Newsweek citations that had since been added, as nobody has made the case yet that they're worth the exception. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating this article. There has more coverage by other news outlets..

Whoisjohngalt (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk Twitter Aquisition

“The announcement was made two days after the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk.”

Is there any relevance to this? It should be explained why elon musk acquiring twitter is relevant if it’s going to be on the page. 24.21.58.83 (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's completely relevant. Had there been no purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk, there is little evidence that this DGB would even exist. It's creation, or at least implementation, has a strong appearance of a response to this purchase, particularly in respect to the timing. If there is evidence to the contrary, that this board had been in the works for months previously with an anticipated implementation at this time, those sources should be provided. (IdahoMtnMan)

No. That is completely irrelevant. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears I misunderstood what you said. I've added a clarification needed tag after "the announcement" as it doesn't make it clear what this announcement is. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Statement has been removed so what I just said is now meaningless. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely worth considering if it's relevant information. I'd argue it is, but in the context of explaining that people have claimed (seemingly without evidence) that the two announcements are related. Not in the originally added form which merely implied this, citing deprecated biased sources. Probably a notable reaction once we cite who's making that claim and why. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yet another reason Fox News should be deprecated as a source. Absolute trash. soibangla (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

PArt of the reason why I avoid the news nowadays. Pure politics. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is completely relevant. All has to do with the principle of free speech that is going on right now. Skcin7 (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The question is whether it's directly relevant, or if it's an imaginary connection being made to further an unconnected narrative. At a minimum, we need to be clear about who is making the claim about the connection between the two announcements, rather than merely stating them with an assumption of relevance. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a Fox News fabrication. soibangla (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the purpose of deprecated sources. Fox News doesn't exist as a impartial new source without bias, just like MSNBC doesn't either. It's a bunch of people with their viewpoints. It's especially useful for when one is trying to gauge the general reaction of a specific crowd right of the aisle on certain issues, as many major political events are sure to have reactions that are important enough to include on an encyclopedic site. EytanMelech (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I am far less concerned about bias than about lying. Fox News outright lies to fabricate false narratives. It should be deprecated. soibangla (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

>I am far less concerned about bias than about lying.

At this point if I was concerned about lying I'd ban all news publications because I haven't found one that is consistently truthful about anything since 2012. EytanMelech (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the announcement was coincident with the Elon Musk acquisition. And perhaps also mentioned that many drew a Post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion in that context. (It's the first thing that many people thought of when they first heard the DGB creation announcement, even if they immediately rejected a connection.) This is (or should be) history, after all. Drsruli (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Coincidence itself is not notable. Otherwise why not mention the announcement was the day after VP Harris caught COVID, and the day before the NFL Draft began?

The post hoc ergo propter hoc connection made by others is what might be considered notable, but it needs to be phrased as such ("This person said they thought the two were related") rather than bare wikivoice which presumes a link to that timing. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that is what I meant. (Of course, this coincidence is notable because it invites the perception that the two events were connected; the other examples would require convoluted processes to associate.) Drsruli (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is completely relevant due to the context in how the white house responded to the news of Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter and the subsequent announcement days later by the White House of the Disinformation Governance Board. It's definitely related. AnimeJanai (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that say they're related. It's yet another preposterous conspiracy theory. soibangla (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

As the article states, the decision to form the board was made in 2021, and it had already been operating prior to the Musk/Twitter thing, they just announced it a couple months after they started operations. So it doesn't really make any sense for the board to have formed in response to Elon Musk trying to buy Twitter, and it's not something I've seen speculated about in reputable sources. Endwise (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The White House didn't even announce it, congress mentioned it in a budget hearing with DHS. The White House only spoke up when reporters (Fox News ones, in particular) started asking questions about it. Some of them ridiculous, as they clearly weren't aware DHS has been addressing misinformation as part of its mission for years.

Bring a reliable source, or it's just WP:OR. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit war: Jankowicz criticisms

Following disputed edits have resulted in an edit war. Let's resolve it here.

Seems there's a bit from Stop Fake and RFERL on Ukraine, and some criticisms sourced to Twitter. As I see it, key question is whether these are reliable sources for the claims, or not. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue is RFERL did not report StopFake is associated with leaders of far-right or neo-Nazi groups. It reported that had been alleged. And who would be most likely to allege that? Russian disinformation agents seeking to discredit an organization that exposes Russian disinformation, of course, as StopFake noted. soibangla (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop? Really?

What relation in all of God’s creation does Hunter Biden’s laptop have with this article? 2605:A601:A82F:1B00:2D0B:EBA0:2535:8687 (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It goes to what exactly the new sec'y believes is disinformation and what is truth. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:5C62:9935:6E0A:FE52 (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Jankowicz said the laptop was a "Trump campaign product", but it later turned out that some of the emails on the laptop were authentic[1]. X-Editor (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The consensus on Wikipedia is that the Hunter Biden laptop thing is still a conspiracy theory. 92.220.156.99 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The consensus on Wikipedia is that the Hunter Biden laptop thing is still a conspiracy theory. - Wikipedia is part of the liberal propaganda. As stated by Wikipedia itself, then deleted the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90C8:503:BE18:5D8A:D806:D5D9:61FD (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of National Review claim on Steele

The claim about Jankowicz' opinion concerning Christopher Steele and its supporting citation to the National Review has been removed and restored multiple times. Rather than edit warring (fun as it may be), the discussion is open here. I contend that although National Review is considered partisan, the specific citations content does not conflict with WP:BLP, and it is not undue as claims it makes are also mentioned in other sources. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

For convenience: National Review article Edit 1 Edit 2 Somers-all-the-time (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

First, I withdraw my WP:PAYWALL objection. That said, it seems to me NR, an RSP yellow source, gets excessive emphasis in this article, and this raises possible BLP concerns because it addresses Jankowicz specifically. In my view, we should be careful to avoid anything other than ironclad reliable sources in a matter in which poor DHS communication created an opportunity for partisan sources to pounce. A piranha feeding frenzy ensued, as these things often do, and if history is any guide, sources like NR will do little to nothing to ever walk any of it back. A lie gets halfway round the world before the truth gets its pants on. I realize conservative media is hyperventilating over this, which may tempt editors to rush it into this encyclopedia, but let's slow down and stick with fully green reliable secondary sources. soibangla (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

DHS did not communicate anything about Jankowicz's previous statements related to disinformation generally. The thing is, they didn't need to because it's entirely reasonable for an outside observer to criticize the new director's background and previous opinions as they may be related to her anticipated duty on the new board. For the criticism relating to her praise of Steele, both sources attributed the source of their criticism to public comments from Jankowicz's Twitter, which should have an uncontroversial expectation to be criticized. So, WP:BLP objections don't hold weight.

For WP:DUE, a single attributed sentence to the two sources seem entirely reasonable as it stands. Furthermore, the Washington Examiner published another criticism from a subject-matter expert who seems like a more balanced contributor (at least on first impressions per this Atlantic article) which includes again the criticism about Jankowicz's comments on Mr. Steele and disinformation.

If you need help accessing paywalled sources in the future, I (and assumedly others) can and will help you do that, and the editing process will be smoother because of it.

Somers-all-the-time (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The Paywall objection was nonsensical to begin with as you can easily circumvent it by a few quick keystrokes. That's what I did.

NR is getting "excessive emphasis" at all. The facts mentioned in NR are attributed to other sources as well while the opinions are clearly presented as such. Which lie are you talking about? The only lies I see are her comments on the laptop and the dossier.

PS. That is under discussing here should not be used as another excuse to remove unwanted coverage. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The content has been challenged. The ONUS is upon you to gain consensus for inclusion. This is BRD. soibangla (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You add additional claims and say "the content has been challegend" - there is no ONUS at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Copy-pasting a possibly relevant omment by User:Endwise from this diff, so it doesn't get lost in the history of the article.

Either this should be written as criticism of the board vis a vis Jankowicz, or it should not be included. "Jankowicz praised Christopher Steele" is not in itself relevant to *this* article, possibly Jankowicz's though.

Somers-all-the-time (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know there was a talk page discussion about this, sorry. I agree with what I said in my edit summary though: as written it was just a fact of Jankowicz's life, not a criticism of her that explains its relevance to the board. Endwise (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a relevant concern. To avoid a WP:Coatrack violation, stick more closely to the topic. Avoid bringing other topics into it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit by HarveyBlues

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disinformation_Governance_Board&diff=1085678494&oldid=1085670508

Radio Liberty did not report what HarveyBlues asserts. It reported this was alleged. The edit is a BLP violation as it associates Jankowicz‎‎ with Nazis. Needs to come out. soibangla (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

HarveyBlues has some interesting original research there, but that OR is definitely a no bueno per WP:BLP. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I reported an AN/EW. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

1984

Is it named after the book 1984? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.38.240 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Why would it? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Some have compared the Disinformation Governance Board to the Ministry of Truth in 1984, which is noted in the article. X-Editor (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Also note that the title of the book is preferentially spelled out on Wikipedia. Nineteen Eighty-Four Drsruli (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I edited it back. Endwise (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

DGB was "met with an overwhelmingly negative response"

reports CBS News.[2] I believe this is a case of a reliable source getting it wrong and I have removed it.[3]

Actually, the negative response has been overwhelmingly if not exclusively from Republicans, falsely depicting DGB as a "ministry of truth" and such. Partisan politics.

CBS News reports "Even Democratic lawmakers were skeptical" and goes on to cite one Democratic senator who didn't actually criticize DGB's creation, but rather noted Republican misinformation about it and told Mayorkas "You should probably set the record straight about what the goals of your efforts in this area are," furthering Mayorkas's acknowledgment that DHS hadn't communicated the rollout well. But that's not a criticism of DGB itself. soibangla (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your edit. CBS seems to have gotten the overall context correct (advisory board regarding best-practices for DHS agencies to address misinformation, especially foreign), but otherwise making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims we'd expect to see repeated elsewhere. Or at least, the way it was cited made it an issue of potentially cherry-picking for WP:UNDUE weight.

I'm not opposed to the attributed claim of According to CBS News, the board's creation "has been met with an overwhelmingly negative response" in general, but in this instance I don't think we should begin the section with a claim we feel needs to be attributed to a single outlet. Start with reliable information we can put in wikivoice, then provide further detail/context through attributed claims (another case of making sure we use our sources for DUE weight). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• The New York Times described it as a partisan fight... Within hours of the announcement, Republican lawmakers began railing against the board[4]. ABC News[5] and WaPo[6] similarly described the criticism as coming from Republicans as well. I think the weight of opinions presented in reliable sources is in favour of us describing the criticism as coming (at least primarily) from Republicans. I will note though that even Mayorkas himself acknowledges that the DHS bungled the announcement and that it was met with a very negative response, but it was not met with an "overwhemingly" as in a universally negative response; it was generally partisan in nature, as reliable sources generally attest. So I think the CBS News quote should be left out. Endwise (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've been wondering if there's a reasonable way to describe the response (particularly the initial 'surprise mention during a budget hearing' reactions) as being both partisan and majority negative. Specifically, why so few Democrats spoke out (or at least, were reported as) in support of the board. Risk of political blowback? Lack of details on which to base their support? Answering this with a reliable source would help give a clearer picture.

  Coupled with the National Review pundits who did give support to the stated mission (suggesting it's not a opposition on conservative principles, but an apparently partisan 'political football' for scoring points with sound bites), describing it all accurately and neutrally is tricky. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  At the onset of all this, the DHS just announced a board with a bit of a creepy/Orwellian sounding name, and (originally) declined to provide any specific details on what it would actually do. There's not a lot to support there, other than something noncommittal like "Jankowicz seems qualified" (the only bit of Democratic support we actually have in this article...), but it's easy to let your imagination run wild and imagine all the horrible and dystopian things this board could be doing. After they revealed details about the board and the truth of it was actually really quite boring, there's still not much to "support". Just a boring advisory board/working group of the DHS that doesn't really do all that much.

  I'm not sure if there's a way to succinctly say "Republicans criticised it, and Democrats didn't really say much at all", but it's I guess implied to an extent by the lack of any noteworthy responses from Democratic politicians in the reception section. Endwise (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm also hesitant to make a leap that would end up as WP:OR. The bigger through line seems to be the modern increase in disinformation and how DHS handles it (CISA being one of the forefront agencies tackling this, with some election context on how they've struggled with how to address that), and going back further with propaganda and psyops being historical tactics both disseminated and addressed.

  The topic feels like it would be good to address more clearly to explain why the stated goals would be a necessary defense for any competent world power, but again I'd want to find someone publishing that linkage being made to avoid the OR accusation. Though I think there's a stronger case to blue link something like troll farms and Russian web brigades as some of the targets of this board than the random 1984 mentions. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Some more background on disinformation and the DHS would be good, though I agree we should do it through sources that connect that context to the DGB, where they exist. That would probably be more helpful to readers looking to learn than the 1984 stuff, but the 1984 stuff is basically why this board is even notable, so it has to go in too of course. Endwise (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  I added a sentence on CISA and 2020 election disinformation efforts, and the firing of Chris Krebs. I held off from the above news story I linked here, because that does seem to be a bit more of a link than I'm comfortable making without more consensus. Definitely agree the 1984 rhetoric is clearly notable, just aiming to ensure we give appropriately WP:DUE weight to other aspects. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Continuing discussion about this diff as a partial revert of my above mentioned edit (the Chris Krebs firing) and pinging Somers-all-the-time. While I can appreciate the WP:COATRACK concerns (and WP:OR), I would like to put forth a bit more of an argument that this is relevant background information to the misinformation fighting mission of the DHS, and the proposed purpose of this board. Particularly in light of today's news that Jankowicz resigned, and that the board was intended to produce best practices for the fighting of dis- mis- and mal-information, that President Trump fired a DHS secretary for addressing misinformation appears to me to be quite relevant background information. My attempt to avoid COATRACK/OR was to not make any particular claims that the firing led to the formation of the board, or that the board would have produced recommendations which avoided the incident; simply to provide the conclusion that there was a notable personnel change at the conclusion of the most notable recent DHS anti-disinformation effort. I'd like to ask for a reconsideration based on that argument, and ask if there's a rewording which would be considered more directly relevant, as well as some additional opinions. Thanks! Bakkster Man (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  So, upon doing more research, we may not need to discuss WP:OR at all. I found this article from SC Magazine, which seems to say what was in the article previously. If you agree that the source says that, I have no issue with putting that information into the article to provide more context. Also slightly tangential, but the stopped clock that is the New York Post also juxtaposed Krebs's firing with the spread of disinformation during the 2020 election. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Great find, and yes I agree this backs up that background connection from CISA/Krebs and the government's (and DHS in particular) struggles to address misinformation. Would also be a good source to back-up those more moderate criticisms asking whether DHS was the right parent agency for the mission, and more. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pause

This board has been put on "pause". LOL. That should be added into the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It was added to the lead many hours before you wrote that. You did the same thing here. Are you suggesting it's being suppressed? You could've added it yourself if it wasn't here (and there). soibangla (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Reminder this is WP:NOTFORUM. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Biden administration controversies

This article should probably be added to Category:Biden administration controversies.176.83.21.188 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable given how RS cover the topic, e.g.: How the Biden administration let right-wing attacks derail its disinformation efforts: A 15-year veteran of the department [...] called the DHS response to the controversy “mind-boggling.” (WaPo). Endwise (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Undoing of revision

I accidentally submitted an undo edit for someone else before being able to type summary, so I will put it here.

Someone removed the "ministry of truth likening" from the lead, but considering that the likening of the board to the ministry of truth, especially being one of the top trending topics on twitter, is definitely important to mention as comparing the boards in motive was basically crucial to the downfall of the board. EytanMelech (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, I think what we should be trying to do for that sentence is summarising the "Reception" section. There's a lot in there, including the Ministry of Truth thing, but the comparison to 1984 I don't think makes a good summary of the entire section. There's a lot of different specific criticisms/allegations/etc, I think we should just note the existence of the backlash in the lead and get into the details of the criticism (e.g. "it is like 1984") in the body. Endwise (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur, it's a detail that's hard to be brief enough for the lede and stay NPOV. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"foreign"

Endwise:

Instead, it was meant to coordinate the department’s various agencies in the fight against malicious disinformation by foreign adversaries, drug or human traffickers or other international crime groups.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disinformation_Governance_Board&curid=70650667&diff=1092920299&oldid=1092769400

soibangla (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't mean their efforts are exclusively about foreign disinformation, though Russia/other adversaries, cartels/human traffickers, etc., are a major focus. In general, "misinformation related to homeland security"[8] is what is in their remit. For example, in the DHS's fact sheet, they list issues FEMA faces, like misinformation about the safety of drinking water during hurricane Sandy. That's misinformation that threatens the security of the homeland, but it's domestic, not foreign. In general though, I don't find sources saying they are exclusively dealing with foreign disinformation anyway. Endwise (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The DHS fact sheet does not contain the word domestic and doesn't say the Sandy disinfo was necessarily domestic. An objective of foreign disinfo is to destabilize and sow chaos. At minimun the article should say primarily foreign. soibangla (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The way secondary sources and the DHS themselves tend to describe it is something like "misinformation that threatens the security of the homeland, including [x y z examples of foreign disinformation]". I think it's fine for us to say something like that as well, rather than making a point about the amount of misinformation they're monitoring that would come from foreign governments/organisations vs. not, that we can't find made in an RS. Endwise (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a source on how much mis/dis/mal-information they were expecting to address was foreign? I was under the impression one of the duties of the board would have been to give guidance on which (if any) domestic threats were handled and how (see: CISA's Chris Krebs countering President Trump). Without that, I agree that we shouldn't try and define the proportion of foreign campaigns being addressed without that.

The current article already says "protect national security", and is a DHS agency, so I don't think we need to jump through grammatical hoops to use the words "homeland security". I think we should add the FEMA example to the other two already present, and any other foreign examples if available. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine for us to say something like that as well as in, at minimum, primarily foreign. Reliable sources like NYT above consistently emphasize foreign, so if we're going to assert it's also domestic, we need RS that explicitly say that. Otherwise, it fuels the false narrative that the DGB was spying on Americans. soibangla (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If we reworded the sentence after to include the phrase "foreign adversaries" when talking about Russia (like in that NYT article), would that alleviate your concerns? Endwise (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a particular concern you have that we're misrepresenting any potentially domestic component? We don't seem to be explicitly stating any domestic component, but it's not a stretch to follow the FEMA example given by DHS which shows the definition of mis/dis/mal-information includes scammers, trolls, and people who were just out of date or wrong.[9] As I said above, I suspect DHS was intentionally vague about any potential domestic component, instead saying "FEMA addresses disaster response misinformation". DHS hasn't been shy that disinfo can be domestic (in the above PDF, they refer to the 'crisis actor' mass shooting victim conspiracy). I share your concern about fueling false narratives, but we should simply describe the DHS descriptions as they apply instead of trying to correct their (flawed) descriptions. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

But what have reliable sources reported? Foreign or domestic, or both? soibangla (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Foreign is explicitly referenced, regarding the Russian campaign targeting American elections.

Domestic, is perhaps less clear. There doesn't seem to be a widely-made explicit link about domestic sources of disinfo. But it does seem to have played a role, per the above PDF it's clear DHS (at least, certain agencies under its umbrella) is not limiting itself to only foreign adversaries. Domestic terrorists are referenced; as are scammers, non-malicious pranks, and well-intentioned mistakes on social media without any apparent exclusion of domestic sources. Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates appears to have described Jankowicz's role as "efforts to better combat human smuggling and domestic terrorism" (WaPo and Fox among others).

This post-mortem from Politico may be a strong source for us here, and I wonder if I missed a previous discussion about it. Of note, in addition to the Russian election interference and human smuggling, it adds "domestic violent extremists threatening members of Congress" to the list of "malicious internet activity" that DHS was tasked to address. Perhaps more to the point of making sure we're not feeding false narratives, and doing our best to describe the actual intentions, this quote seems notable: One particular concern was that some DHS components — like Immigration and Customs Enforcement — can legally go undercover online (for instance, to infiltrate a human smuggling organization’s chat group). But for others, like I&A, going undercover is prohibited. Were there policies in place to make sure that when different agencies within DHS shared information with each other, it was all done appropriately? ... They’re not sitting there saying, ‘Hey, what should we be doing about Russian disinformation focusing on X, Y, and Z? They’re focusing on, 'Hey, information is being gathered and collected under different sets of legal authorities. What is the appropriate way to share that information so we’re not in conflict with those legal authorities?' That perhaps helps focus the context of the board, firewalling which agencies can share which information with which other agencies as it relates to threats, with inter-agency information sharing being the original intent of DHS post-9/11.

Not looking to veer into WP:OR here, but we clearly can't say that DHS (or this board) does not address domestic sources. However, describing the context of the board (info sharing between all DHS agencies, from exclusively domestic to exclusively foreign and all the ones in between, and to protect citizen rights in that cooperation) would probably do a better job of describing why there was a concern there that got overblown and how. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The Intercept - "Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation"

• https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/

Just leaving this on the talk page because I'm not sure how to incorporate it into the article. Endwise (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The part that sticks out to me, and I'm surprised it never got more attention, is about halfway through discussing that the goal of this group was to put guardrails around MDM efforts which had been underway for a decade in some cases (the DHS fact-sheet points out FEMA addressing incorrect relief information in 2012 for hurricane Sandy as one example). And, most notably, those efforts (including CISA for election misinformation) haven't stopped, just the unified DHS-level coordination. This piece certainly seems to take the civil libertarian perspective for the most part, and maybe I missed it, but it seemed light on coverage of legitimate disinformation threats that makes the topic so challenging. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

For an update, some of the more extravagant claims in that article, as well as the general framing of it, has been criticised in this Tech Dirt piece by Mike Masnick: Bullshit Reporting: The Intercept’s Story About Government Policing Disinfo Is Absolute Garbage. The more extravagant claims didn't really relate to the DGB, and were more about CISA/the DHS writ large, though.

I agree with you about the fact that a lot of the work that fell under the DGB's remit didn't start with them, and it hasn't stopped after it got dissolved, and that would be a good thing to mention in this article in some capacity. Not sure how though. Endwise (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a not uncommon issue with such political topics. Especially ones without a ton of mainstream reliable coverage, it can be hard to source this kind of simple broad perspective stuff. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 disclosures of the board's charter

I recommend for inclusion on this article the board’s founding documents and charter, which were released by Congress in June 2022 after being provided by a whistleblower. These documents are the richest primary source of objective information about the board available, being written before the controversy, having few redactions in their release, and providing extensive detail on the actual scope and purview of the board both during its genesis and upon its establishment.

I have a potential COI in that I personally know the board’s former executive director, Nina Jankowicz, so I will merely offer this up for vetting and discussion by others. To propose a starting point, someone could add the following to the end of the first paragraph of the “Function” section:

---

The board’s charter and related communications, released by Congress on June 8, 2022, show that a founding principle of the board was to “ensure [the Department's] counter-disinformation efforts do not have the effect of chilling or suppressing free speech” and that the responses to disinformation that the board would support were limited to “factually countering disinformation through public communications channels”. Tentchair (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a very long primary source document, and Wikipedia usually relies on secondary sources.

It would require some analysis on the part of editors to try and summarise and pick apart the most important part of 31 pages of text. For example you picked the parts about free speech and public communications, which is not unreasonable, but someone else may pick something else for instance. This is why we rely on secondary sources to summarise the most important details, rather than relying on original research from editors, which Wikipedia generally prohibits. Endwise (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

propose removing "Censorship in the United States" tag

This page having the tag "Censorship in the United States" is unsupported by sources and likely to lead readers to false conclusions. I propose removing it. I have a potential COI as above so will leave this to others to consider.

The Board had absolutely no connection, directly or indirectly, to censorship (see prior talk topic) despite widespread baseless claims that it was the Board's purpose. The nature of these notable false claims and manufactured controversy is well (over)represented by citations in the current Reception section.

The presence of this tag, the other pages of which seem to contain actual examples of sources or targets of censorship, serves to further mislead the reader into the factual misunderstanding (notably still common, and still being exploited by politicians to this day) that the Board was an example of government censorship. Tentchair (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)