You may recall the "Disinformation Governance Board" (DGB) that was contemplated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to be headed by Nina Jankowicz, herself a serial spreader of misinformation.

(It has since been "paused." )

We were all told that it was actually no big deal, that concerns about it amounted to right-wing conspiracy theories -- in other words, the kinds of things they say when something is absolutely true.

NPR ran a headline about our supposedly exaggerated fears of this new board: "How DHS's disinformation board fell victim to misinformation."

But thanks to new whistleblower documents, we know that a much broader scope for the Disinformation Governance Board was in fact contemplated than our rulers let on.

They were seeking with this board to regulate “disinformation related to the origins and effects of COVID-19 vaccines or the efficacy of masks," for example. Further, the Department had been "working on plans to 'operationalize' its relationships with private social media companies to implement its public policy goals."

Senators Chuck Grassley and Josh Hawley, in a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, laid out their concerns:

Collectively, whistleblower allegations and the documents we’ve reviewed raise concerns that DHS could be seeking an active role in coordinating the censorship of viewpoints that it determines, according to an unknown standard, to be “MDM” [mis-, dis-, or mal-information] by enlisting the help of social media companies and big tech. The DGB’s charter also specifically states that the DGB should “serv[e] as the Department’s internal and external point of contact for coordination with state, local, tribal, and territorial partners, the private sector, and nongovernmental actors regarding MDM.” The First Amendment of the Constitution was designed precisely so that the government could not censor opposing viewpoints – even if those viewpoints were false. DHS should not in any way seek to enlist the private sector to curb or silence opposing viewpoints. It is therefore imperative for DHS to provide additional clarity regarding its policies and procedures for identifying and addressing “MDM,” as well as its efforts to “operationalize” public-private partnerships and the steps it is taking to ensure that it does not infringe on the constitutional rights of American citizens.

The two senators have requested the following clarifications:

1. Has DHS at any point in time asked or suggested to Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, or any other social media executives that they should censor, flag, add context to, or remove any social media posts that it believes to be disinformation?

2. Has DHS at any point in time asked or suggested to Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, or any other social media executives that they suspend or ban the account(s) of individuals believed to be promoting information it believes to be disinformation?

3. Please provide all documents, including all written and electronic communications, memoranda, and organizational documents, related to the DGB from the point that DHS first considered establishing a DGB until the present.

4. Please provide all documents, including all written and electronic communications and memoranda, related to Nina Jankowicz’s selection as Executive Director of the DGB.

5. Please explain why, in your public statements and testimony before Congress, you have not fully explained the key role that the DGB was designed to play in coordinating among DHS components and engaging the assistance of the private sector.

6. Please explain how DHS defines “MDM” and how DHS decides whether a given news story or other piece of information fits its definition of “MDM.” Please identify who exactly is ultimately responsible for making this determination.

7. Please explain the criteria DHS uses when deciding whether to spend taxpayer resources addressing a particular news item or narrative that it has classified as “MDM.”

8. Please describe all safeguards that DHS has put in place to ensure that its efforts to counter the spread of disinformation do not infringe on Americans’ constitutional right to free speech.

9. Did DHS Under Secretary for the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans Robert Silvers meet with Twitter executives on April 28, 2022? If so, please provide a summary of topics discussed during the meeting.

10. Please define what DHS means by the phrase, “operationalizing public-private partnerships.”

All excellent questions and points.

Now even though the prospect of a Disinformation Governance Board horrifies you and me, we should be aware of how many people favor such a thing. A 2021 Pew Research Poll found that 65 percent of Democrats thought the U.S. government should take steps to restrict false information online, even if it limits freedom of information. Some 76 percent of Democrats thought Big Tech platforms should do so.

Also, not considered amidst all this is who gets to decide whether something is "false" in the first place. The U.S. government doesn't exactly have a stellar track record here.

Of course, the best approach is no censorship at all, and it's bizarre that in the United States, of all places, this has suddenly become controversial.

The suppression of badly needed dissenting voices over the past couple of years has been one of the worst aspects of Covid hysteria. That's why I run a censorship-free group, full of bright, normal people who seek the truth and are tired of the moronic "fact-checkers" who make discussion impossible.

It's getting harder and harder to find a space online where you can speak your mind without fear, and where you can get consistently reliable information.

join me here before im suspended. UNCENSORED FREE SPEECH SOCIAL MEDIA site LiftingTheVeil.Locals.com