There are a multitude of concerns about the existence of the Disinformation Governance Board. Still, one aspect of semantics has to be addressed.
They chose the word "disinformation" for the board.
Disinformation is distinguished from misinformation on the basis of intent. Namely, misinformation can come from somebody who is telling the truth as he or she sees it while being wrong while disinformation is coming from somebody who is actively and wilfully lying.
If we're placing any substantive burden of proof on this board, that's a high fucking bar.
I mean when my ex cheated on me, she said a few things to other people about me that were true and other things that were false. If I felt compelled to fight her statements in court, I could show that her false statements were false; but, I don't think that I could prove that she lied.
People are really good at manufacturing perspectives. She could have reasoned herself into believing certain lies just like I probably have.
That's why there's a high bar for defamation cases in the USA. People are allowed to say things that are wrong and they should be allowed. People are even allowed to lie in this country and they should be allowed.
If there's one aspect of the law of the land that is solid and true it's the fact that speech shall never be pre-emptively punished or filtered through a government agency. When disinformation is shared domestically, at most, there's a jury trial to determine whether or not the disinformation took place and there were measurable damages. It's decided by the people. Suddenly there's this board of appointed assholes, one in particular, who gets to make unilateral decisions about who's lying when I can't confidently say that a person who I've been inside of was lying or not.
Yes, words matter. Even if they used the word "misinformation" we should be concerned. What board of appointed officials has the right to determine truth? It would still be less ambitious.
Nonetheless, I could potentially take some solace in the possibility that the Disinformation Governance Board might take the words literally and hold themselves to the same standards as the rest of us when it comes to the burden of proof that a person is saying something that is objectively wrong and that person knows that what he or she is saying is wrong. Only, I'm not an idiot. I don't think that the board will hold itself to those standards. They're going to decide for us what we're allowed to see or read or hear.
I will not accept this.