Talk:Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act

Foreign propaganda and not domestic propaganda?
The Act is rather dense reading yet it looks like the actual Act involves what the Oligarchy describes as "domestic propaganda" as well as foreign, provided the Oligarchy alleges that said domestic propaganda is "state sponsored by foreign State Actors."

Point being it looks like the extant article leaves out a great deal of details that are in the actual Act which people might want to know about without having to deep-dive in to the actual PDF document itself. The far right wing Oligarchy gave themselves the legal ability to designate any media artifact as "foreign propaganda," predicated upon the Oligarchy's say-so that same is influenced by "foreign State actors," a nebulous and meaningless rhetorical device to ensure that domestic coverage of the Oligarchy's crimes and abuses may be suppressed "legally." Damotclese (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Would need secondary sources commenting about above claims. Sagecandor (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleting Comment by Hillary Clinton
The date of the quoted text is "December, 2016" and Hillary Clinton was a recently defeated Presidential candidate, claiming that the "Russians" caused her to lose the election. The very LAST person whose opinion should be considered balanced, neutral or objective. Further, the quote claims Clinton "called attention" to the potentially non-existent "Russians" as if the issue was somehow a secret, and needed someone to speak up as it was being ignored. I remember, I was there during the post-election chaos of 2016 and that's the ONLY thing people were talking about. She didn't "call attention" to anything; she loudly proclaimed to all that the reason why she lost the election was because of "Russian Meddling" and the Left has stayed with that narrative for the last 2 years with little to no evidence to support it. I'm willing to tolerate a certain amount of blatant political bias in a Wikipedia Article, but this is WAY past my ability to withstand without "being bold".Tym Whittier (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh, it's relevant and sourced. And your description is misleading--Clinton called attention to the legislation and its need, and as the most high-profile target of Russian interference, her input was an important part of the conversation. Her involvement is an argument for the text's inclusion, not its excision, and the argument that a quoted individual need be neutral is not one rooted in policy. Removing this text while claiming the Russian interference was "potentially non-existent" makes it pretty clear this was a POV edit. Grandpallama (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)