China Spreads Propaganda to U.S. On Facebook, a Platform It Bans at Home(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
China Spreads Propaganda to U.S. On Facebook, a Platform It Bans at Home
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/technology/china-facebook.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ftechnology&action=click&contentCollection=technology®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront
122 comments
* US spreads propaganda and lies around the globe (Voice of America) but doesn't like it when RT does the same.
This should be a WTO principle or something: you’re only allowed to sell products/services to foreign countries thay you allow to circulate internally and on similar conditions.
> you’re only allowed to sell products/services to foreign countries thay you allow to circulate internally and on similar conditions.
Did you mean Voice of America?
VOA is forbidden to broadcast within the United States by the 1948 Smith Mundt-Act, Section 501
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act#Excerp...
Did you mean Voice of America?
VOA is forbidden to broadcast within the United States by the 1948 Smith Mundt-Act, Section 501
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act#Excerp...
Why?
Because that's the globalist answer to everything. Find some organization that you feel is responsible for fixing some moral failing you perceive in the world. Lobby them, claiming that they are responsible for the moral failing and immoral if they don't fix it. Get some lame piece of regulation out of it that causes more harm than good. That harm becomes your next moral failing and the process repeats. But everyone involved gets to project the outward impression that they are making the world a better place.
How do you propose we better address perceived moral failings?
[deleted]
Because it helps ensure you're not attempting to export products, services, and ideas with the goal of undermining other countries?? It's not a perfect idea. But the export of harmful things just so one nation can offload the cost to other nations is a pretty cuntish practice and should be stopped.
Not the parent you're replying to, but a guess:
Because the presence of regulation suggests at least some vector for the regulated thing doing harm. Wantonly exporting something tightly regulated in its place of origin implies that the government is aware of its potential to do harm, and sells it anyway without the regulatory guiderails, which is a shitty thing to do.
Because the presence of regulation suggests at least some vector for the regulated thing doing harm. Wantonly exporting something tightly regulated in its place of origin implies that the government is aware of its potential to do harm, and sells it anyway without the regulatory guiderails, which is a shitty thing to do.
> * The US manufactures and exports cigarettes and pharmaceuticals, but tightly regulates them at home.
Add alcohol and gambling to the list there, and I'm not sure if pharma should be on it given the opioid rise...
Add alcohol and gambling to the list there, and I'm not sure if pharma should be on it given the opioid rise...
The opioid rise is a problem, but the fact that we do still have tight regulation is what distinguishes US pharmacies from pharmacies abroad.
I can't (yet) walk into CVS and arbitrarily buy Vicodin, Xanax, or Ambien in the US because we know how dangerous it is and regulate it. In other countries, it's shockingly easy to get.
I can't (yet) walk into CVS and arbitrarily buy Vicodin, Xanax, or Ambien in the US because we know how dangerous it is and regulate it. In other countries, it's shockingly easy to get.
Pretty sure that alcohol and gambling are fairly global vices...
Yeah but the extremely hypocritical view on alcohol and gambling in the US (IIRC it's legal in some states to drive a full blown semi truck at 20 while beer drinking age is 21 - and gambling... well Vegas and the Native reservations, but that's it, contrasted to the crackdowns on fully foreign online gambling venues and even their banks, even if they don't do US business!) warrant a separate mention IMO.
What view on alcohol and gambling? Who is being hypocritical? There's a huge range of views on both subjects, and no single view is going to be used as canon between the many various human organizations that shape public opinion and the institutions that enact laws and regulation.
You're basically personifying a collective of individuals. There is no single 'view' on alcohol and gambling. You're just cherry picking the view of the moral right and calling it hypocritical as if it's the official view of the US.
You're basically personifying a collective of individuals. There is no single 'view' on alcohol and gambling. You're just cherry picking the view of the moral right and calling it hypocritical as if it's the official view of the US.
I'd add it to the list if I understood your position better.
To my knowledge the US isn't in the business of foisting gambling products or services on other countries, even if it is highly regulated domestically.
To my knowledge the US isn't in the business of foisting gambling products or services on other countries, even if it is highly regulated domestically.
US doesnt manufacture cigs and pharms. Companies do that. Those companies are subject to the law of the conutries they sell their products too.
If the French want to allow 16yr olds to drink whiskey. So be it. (not sure if thats the law, but the French like their livations)
You make a long list and each point is intellectual dishonest. Do a little research. You are on HN not facebook. We have standards of intelligence here. I dont think this list meets those standards.
If the French want to allow 16yr olds to drink whiskey. So be it. (not sure if thats the law, but the French like their livations)
You make a long list and each point is intellectual dishonest. Do a little research. You are on HN not facebook. We have standards of intelligence here. I dont think this list meets those standards.
US Companies do that. You're trying to split hairs to start an ideological argument. It's the US insofar as the US (as a regulatory entity) could stop it. There are caveats to both "the Chinese" and "the US" which are only monolithic in concept. This isn't insight.
We all agree that hypocrisy is not good, right? Or am I missing something?
It's a comment, not a thesis statement.
Replace "US" with "US-based companies" if it makes you feel better.
Replace "US" with "US-based companies" if it makes you feel better.
IIRC Pachinko (the ubiquitous gambling slot machines in Japan) were invented in South Korea but are now banned in SK. I would imagine there are still exports from SK, or at least SK ownership of Japanese corporations in the industry.
I'm so glad my government, the United States Government, has definitely never spread propaganda in foreign countries with the express interest of creating a more favorable political climate there for their interests.
I think this opinion is very narrow minded. Who is the person you're trying to convince with this thought? No one is doubting that we are doing this overseas, that doesn't make it any less concerning that it is happening here. It is a weapon that doesn't result in war, I hope my government, the United States Government, uses this more as an early option instead of going to war. If anything, I'm upset they are not more effective at this.
When a foreign government disrupts my free elections though, I'm going to be troubled by it. What you're saying is effectively belittling the importance of hardening our own systems from this foreign influence.
When a foreign government disrupts my free elections though, I'm going to be troubled by it. What you're saying is effectively belittling the importance of hardening our own systems from this foreign influence.
> Who is the person you're trying to convince with this thought?
Anyone who reads the article, and thinks "this is outrageous!" instead of treating it as a chess move by an opponent.
Anyone who reads the article, and thinks "this is outrageous!" instead of treating it as a chess move by an opponent.
Chess moves that have implications, and the OP might have a vested interest in an outcome that is favorable to his human rights and the economic stability of his country.
It's outrageous to the extent we're completely unprepared and maybe unwilling to deal with it.
Radio Free Europe was at least just using the airwaves. These efforts are using US corporations against the US.
Radio Free Europe was at least just using the airwaves. These efforts are using US corporations against the US.
Don't put a knight on the board if you don't know how it moves.
I'm not sure what that even means, knights have moved the same way for thousands of years and we're just discovering how internet society works in real time.
Having the hyper-free-speech internet that we created turned against us in ways that more authoritarian countries are immune to is a huge slap in the face. We need to figure out a way to handle this.
Having the hyper-free-speech internet that we created turned against us in ways that more authoritarian countries are immune to is a huge slap in the face. We need to figure out a way to handle this.
> No one is doubting that we are doing this overseas
The 2nd highest comment is "honestly curious" whether the US participates in propaganda campaigns.
The 2nd highest comment is "honestly curious" whether the US participates in propaganda campaigns.
The US established an entire Twitter clone in Cuba with the aim of fomenting a revolution.
That brings the count for number of times the US has attempted to foment a revolution in Cuba to at least 2.
Uh, yeah, I'd say definitely more than that
I definitely dont want to belittle the importance of this kind of activity. But I very much want to shift the dialog about such machinations on the part of foreign powers towards a conversation where we acknowledge or own systemic failures in democracy at home and our rampant interventionism abroad.
I really only see the outcome of this outrage over foreign interference in our democracy resulting in a spectrum of terrible to shameful. In the terrible case, we are hyping up defensive nationalism and disregarding our own actions and history, which may very well lead to all kinds of barbaric, jingoistic policies moving forward. In the shameful case, we are taking advantage of these stories on foreign manipulation as a means to ignore what is wrong with our society, passing the blame solely onto a non american third party.
In neither case are we reviewing our history as a nation. I fear we will ignore all the possible lessons we might learn from honestly reviewing the times where we have disenfranchised our own people, overthrew foreign governments for adhering to a different socio-economic ideology, or were so blinded by our own propaganda and fear that we were convinced of conveniently simple narratives about who was bad and who was good and who we had to kill and who had to do the killing.
I feel like there is a common aphorism about how you need to fail 10 times to have a decent chance to succeed once. It seems like we have an opportunity to review our history at this moment. We didn't do any such examination after the fall of the USSR in the 90s. Nope, we were vindicated and there was no longer a reason to pen-test neoliberal-capitalism as either an economic system or a larger ideology.
It took 2 inane wars, a massive recession, and the election of idiot-nationalist reality tv show star / shitty condo developer to provide us with an opportunity to introspect, and I'll be damned if I dont make the strongest appeal my young perspective can muster for us to do that introspection.
I really only see the outcome of this outrage over foreign interference in our democracy resulting in a spectrum of terrible to shameful. In the terrible case, we are hyping up defensive nationalism and disregarding our own actions and history, which may very well lead to all kinds of barbaric, jingoistic policies moving forward. In the shameful case, we are taking advantage of these stories on foreign manipulation as a means to ignore what is wrong with our society, passing the blame solely onto a non american third party.
In neither case are we reviewing our history as a nation. I fear we will ignore all the possible lessons we might learn from honestly reviewing the times where we have disenfranchised our own people, overthrew foreign governments for adhering to a different socio-economic ideology, or were so blinded by our own propaganda and fear that we were convinced of conveniently simple narratives about who was bad and who was good and who we had to kill and who had to do the killing.
I feel like there is a common aphorism about how you need to fail 10 times to have a decent chance to succeed once. It seems like we have an opportunity to review our history at this moment. We didn't do any such examination after the fall of the USSR in the 90s. Nope, we were vindicated and there was no longer a reason to pen-test neoliberal-capitalism as either an economic system or a larger ideology.
It took 2 inane wars, a massive recession, and the election of idiot-nationalist reality tv show star / shitty condo developer to provide us with an opportunity to introspect, and I'll be damned if I dont make the strongest appeal my young perspective can muster for us to do that introspection.
Ha! I'm pretty sure deusofnull was being sarcastic here.
A former president of the United States led successful efforts to overturn the Smith-Mundt Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." Fulbright’s amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such "propaganda" should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."
Yeah, even if they completely corrupt our political systems we can sleep well at night knowing that we've always taken the high ground on things like this.
Yeah, and it sure is a good thing we always pick the "moderate rebels" to provide material aid to, and i am so grateful that those "moderate rebels" we give weapons to never morph into horrific radical insurgencies that end up subsequently haunting us for decades.
wow, I totally overestimated people's ability to get sarcasm.
are people really missing the beat here? that makes me feel genuine sadness.
Clearly Voice of America should not be considered propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
Well, that's arguable, but that's hardly the extent of US psyops. http://www.adweek.com/digital/us-secretly-built-cubas-twitte...
US is worde. We send physical assassins and covert military operations.
The USA didn’t ban wechat, if that’s what you are getting at.
And aren’t you just exercising a black or white binary fallacy when we are really comparing a light shade of grey to a much darker one?
And aren’t you just exercising a black or white binary fallacy when we are really comparing a light shade of grey to a much darker one?
I wasn't really trying to make a specific criticism where one country would come out as the "lighter" or the "darker", more so that the fabricated outrage and incredulity on the part of the US regarding foreign intervention in our "democracy" is an absurd kafkaesque delusion regarding our history.
> And aren’t you just exercising a black or white binary fallacy when we are really comparing a light shade of grey to a much darker one?
And which are you saying is which?
And which are you saying is which?
The lighter being China?
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-his...
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-his...
The one that feels the need to block Facebook of course is worse. I’ll let you figure out what country is that.
Why is blocking Facebook bad? I do not think the existence of Facebook has been a net-positive for society.
Propaganda and censorship are two different evils, the latter is worse than the former, IMHO, because it silences the conversation all together.
And I'll let you figure out which country is more guilty in manipulating elections.
China doesn’t have elections (well, meaningful ones at least), so you are probably right there.
[deleted]
Ok.
I think it is generally improper, or not preferable, to use coercive or manipulative force to alter the autonomous decision making process of a population you yourself (or your cadre) have lite or no direct stake in, accountability to, or reliance on. When the US interferes in foreign politics in a duplicitous way, we betray most of the principles of democracy. When any government or corporation or religion does this, they stomp on the idea that people should be able to make decisions for themselves. And when you live in a world dominated by the influence of immaterial third-parties, you become deeply frustrated, and this is one of the reasons things are so volatile right now.
I dunno, all you did was link to a logical fallacy article on wikipedia, so like maybe you didnt ask for me to write a missive on this notion of mine, but if I am being honest, I am honestly so frustrated by the prevalence of people thinking that pointing out a logical fallacy (aka rhetorical technique) functions as anything other than tepid dismissal.
I think it is generally improper, or not preferable, to use coercive or manipulative force to alter the autonomous decision making process of a population you yourself (or your cadre) have lite or no direct stake in, accountability to, or reliance on. When the US interferes in foreign politics in a duplicitous way, we betray most of the principles of democracy. When any government or corporation or religion does this, they stomp on the idea that people should be able to make decisions for themselves. And when you live in a world dominated by the influence of immaterial third-parties, you become deeply frustrated, and this is one of the reasons things are so volatile right now.
I dunno, all you did was link to a logical fallacy article on wikipedia, so like maybe you didnt ask for me to write a missive on this notion of mine, but if I am being honest, I am honestly so frustrated by the prevalence of people thinking that pointing out a logical fallacy (aka rhetorical technique) functions as anything other than tepid dismissal.
typical "what about whataboutism?" reply.
Or domestically. White House Press Releases serve to inform, not propagandize.
All countries do this or attempt to do this, as much as they are able.
All countries also need to defend themselves against this. Sovereignty isn’t just about borders.
All countries also need to defend themselves against this. Sovereignty isn’t just about borders.
I think a good place to start is principles.
Y'know, like if you're a nation who is always going on about democracy and freedom (who even starts wars that kills 100,000s of people for these ideals), maybe don't subjugate the majority and centralize socio-economic power into the hands of a tiny minority.
Y'know, like if you're a nation who is always going on about democracy and freedom (who even starts wars that kills 100,000s of people for these ideals), maybe don't subjugate the majority and centralize socio-economic power into the hands of a tiny minority.
China didn't ban Facebook b/c they don't think it should exist, they banned it b/c its a propaganda engine that they didn't want to compete with.
In the world of international jockeying and competition it would be naive to assume they would use a tool like facebook against their economic rivals.
In the world of international jockeying and competition it would be naive to assume they would use a tool like facebook against their economic rivals.
They also banned it so the Chinese social graph is not leaked out to hostile countries.
> they banned it b/c its a propaganda engine that they didn't want to compete with
That's a good way to put it. Since China is so in-love with AI, I wonder if we could use AI with the same purpose - spreading "freedom" information in China.
Something like this actually happened recently:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-chatbots-...
That's a good way to put it. Since China is so in-love with AI, I wonder if we could use AI with the same purpose - spreading "freedom" information in China.
Something like this actually happened recently:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-chatbots-...
Or maybe it'll just end up spreading racism and denying the Holocaust.
Something like this actually happened recently:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/24/microsoft-silences-its-new...
Something like this actually happened recently:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/24/microsoft-silences-its-new...
> they banned it b/c its a propaganda engine that they didn't want to compete with
No, they banned it because they don't know how to take down posts.
No, they banned it because they don't know how to take down posts.
At what point is "propaganda" just annoying advertising?
I mean, I've seen these silly promotion ads where they interview random people who say China is great. They're annoying, but not unlike random mattress ads or ebook ads I see everywhere on the timeline. Most of the time i just ignore them always.
Besides, they're no where near the level of nastiness of local political ads that denounce other sides as rapists and child molester (at least in my area, where they basically show latinos as gang members)
I mean, I've seen these silly promotion ads where they interview random people who say China is great. They're annoying, but not unlike random mattress ads or ebook ads I see everywhere on the timeline. Most of the time i just ignore them always.
Besides, they're no where near the level of nastiness of local political ads that denounce other sides as rapists and child molester (at least in my area, where they basically show latinos as gang members)
How is this news? Every global and regional power does this sort of thing to further their economic and political interests. They do it against both friend and foe. They've been doing it since newspapers first became popular.
And there's nothing wrong with it. Sure it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but Facebook posts filled with misinformation, sponsored by foreign agents disguised as your countrymen are vastly preferable to the alternatives which have historically included sponsored coups, astroturfed bloody protests, economically crippling sanctions, and assassinations.
[1] China, Russia, the US, the UK, Israel, KSA, India, Germany, etc. Yes, even Germany which many people on HN seem to think miraculously stopped spying in 1989 and ascended to ethical heaven. I wouldn't be surprised if Canada used it during the Keystone pipeline debate.
And there's nothing wrong with it. Sure it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but Facebook posts filled with misinformation, sponsored by foreign agents disguised as your countrymen are vastly preferable to the alternatives which have historically included sponsored coups, astroturfed bloody protests, economically crippling sanctions, and assassinations.
[1] China, Russia, the US, the UK, Israel, KSA, India, Germany, etc. Yes, even Germany which many people on HN seem to think miraculously stopped spying in 1989 and ascended to ethical heaven. I wouldn't be surprised if Canada used it during the Keystone pipeline debate.
It's news because China runs by far the largest overseas propaganda campaign, spending over $10bn per year on it. They spend 15x more than the US does on overseas propaganda. What's worrisome is not the fact that they do it, but the sheer scale of their program.
China also influences Hollywood movies. Their censors will ban films with plots that are the least bit critical of the PRC. China is a large percentage of global cinema revenues so filmmakers either forgo a large percentage of their potential revenue or avoid criticizing China. Guess which choice they generally pick.
Where did you get that digit?
$1.6B figure was leaked on the state budget in 2009
$1.6B figure was leaked on the state budget in 2009
$10bn estimate from 2015 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2015-06-16/chi...
It is news the same way you get frequent news about evil corporations or brutal police, or SF housing bubble. I didn’t see any one arguing those aren’t news.
I don’t feel outrageous at this at all. The US have arguably done something similar for as long as anyone can remember. It is however a reminder the world we are living in. China is a rising super power and they have been flexing their muscle in the global scale and you may be targeted more often than you think.
The next time you assure yourself you’re immune to corporate speak, informercial, propaganda from the left or the right, add foreign powers to the list.
It's also newsworthy that China is spreading propaganda via Facebook. They are afraid of its influence to their population, and use it to their advantage elsewhere.
So be glad of the existence of all the propaganda you're getting daily, because it is still up to you to filter and not the government to do it for you.
> And there's nothing wrong with it. Sure it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but Facebook posts filled with misinformation, sponsored by foreign agents disguised as your countrymen are vastly preferable to the alternatives which have historically included sponsored coups, astroturfed bloody protests, economically crippling sanctions, and assassinations.
Do you think China (or Russia or another foreign country) have never engaged in any of the things you mentioned? And the propaganda they are spreading today aren't preluded to something more evil tomorrow?
I don’t feel outrageous at this at all. The US have arguably done something similar for as long as anyone can remember. It is however a reminder the world we are living in. China is a rising super power and they have been flexing their muscle in the global scale and you may be targeted more often than you think.
The next time you assure yourself you’re immune to corporate speak, informercial, propaganda from the left or the right, add foreign powers to the list.
It's also newsworthy that China is spreading propaganda via Facebook. They are afraid of its influence to their population, and use it to their advantage elsewhere.
So be glad of the existence of all the propaganda you're getting daily, because it is still up to you to filter and not the government to do it for you.
> And there's nothing wrong with it. Sure it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but Facebook posts filled with misinformation, sponsored by foreign agents disguised as your countrymen are vastly preferable to the alternatives which have historically included sponsored coups, astroturfed bloody protests, economically crippling sanctions, and assassinations.
Do you think China (or Russia or another foreign country) have never engaged in any of the things you mentioned? And the propaganda they are spreading today aren't preluded to something more evil tomorrow?
> How is this news?
It isn't news. It's propaganda. NYTimes and WaPo have been spearheading a political/propaganda campaign against social media ( fb, reddit, youtube, etc ) to reign them in. The last thing the nytimes wants is competition to the propaganda arena.
Traditional media has been trying to get social media to fall in line for nearly a decade. The last election put a sense on urgency in the establishment and the media mouthpieces they control. Also it helps to scapegoat russia, china, etc for how ineffective the media was last election in shaping the narrative.
It isn't news. It's propaganda. NYTimes and WaPo have been spearheading a political/propaganda campaign against social media ( fb, reddit, youtube, etc ) to reign them in. The last thing the nytimes wants is competition to the propaganda arena.
Traditional media has been trying to get social media to fall in line for nearly a decade. The last election put a sense on urgency in the establishment and the media mouthpieces they control. Also it helps to scapegoat russia, china, etc for how ineffective the media was last election in shaping the narrative.
> It isn't news. It's propaganda. NYTimes and WaPo have been spearheading a political/propaganda campaign against social media ( fb, reddit, youtube, etc ) to reign them in. Traditional media has been trying to get social media to fall in line for nearly a decade.
This gives these media companies way too much credit. If they had this much self-awareness and intelligence they wouldn't have been caught out by the rise of social media in the first place.
"Traditional media" has had hundreds of years to get it's business model down and comfortably integrated into society, so of course new media is having the lion's share of the problems which is being reported on. This should all be totally obvious and expected - it's not really a massive conspiracy - it's innovative business models forcing new problems into the open. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have been in the public consciousness for less than 15 years.
This gives these media companies way too much credit. If they had this much self-awareness and intelligence they wouldn't have been caught out by the rise of social media in the first place.
"Traditional media" has had hundreds of years to get it's business model down and comfortably integrated into society, so of course new media is having the lion's share of the problems which is being reported on. This should all be totally obvious and expected - it's not really a massive conspiracy - it's innovative business models forcing new problems into the open. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have been in the public consciousness for less than 15 years.
> This gives these media companies way too much credit.
I'm not giving it any credit.
> If they had this much self-awareness and intelligence they wouldn't have been caught out by the rise of social media in the first place.
That would be giving it too much credit.
Traditional media is just protecting its own turf. Or it is trying to.
I'm not giving it any credit.
> If they had this much self-awareness and intelligence they wouldn't have been caught out by the rise of social media in the first place.
That would be giving it too much credit.
Traditional media is just protecting its own turf. Or it is trying to.
I mean, it bans Facebook exactly because it's easy to spread propaganda through it.
What the hell is up with this title? "Country attacks with weapons, the same thing it bans internally". Obviously?
What the hell is up with this title? "Country attacks with weapons, the same thing it bans internally". Obviously?
No, not obviously. Why isn't it banned in every country that's not a US ally? Just China...
For all the talk about democracy, freedom, diversity and dissent the country seems extremely uncomfortable and insecure in the face of diversity and dissent it has no control over, unlike tightly controlled narratives in traditional media and is now seeing gremlins everywhere. This is paranoia.
This is a new form of McCarthyism and its a double edged sword. Other countries can use the exact same logic to ban hollywood and western media for propaganda and you can't then lecture them on free press or accuse them of authoritarianism.
It should be taken for granted there is going to be fair share of propaganda and rumour mongering everywhere and always has been in human society.
The only way to 'control' this is to establish a 'ministry of truth'. But given the level of double speak and paranoia I won't be surprised to hear folks advocating a tightly controlled 'ministry of truth' to 'protect' our fragile democracies.
This is a new form of McCarthyism and its a double edged sword. Other countries can use the exact same logic to ban hollywood and western media for propaganda and you can't then lecture them on free press or accuse them of authoritarianism.
It should be taken for granted there is going to be fair share of propaganda and rumour mongering everywhere and always has been in human society.
The only way to 'control' this is to establish a 'ministry of truth'. But given the level of double speak and paranoia I won't be surprised to hear folks advocating a tightly controlled 'ministry of truth' to 'protect' our fragile democracies.
Diversity of opinion is one thing. Dissent from official US positions, OK. But very effective manipulation from very skillful people is something a bit beyond "diversity of opinion". You can present a diverse opinion without trying to manipulate, and without being dishonest about who you are.
This is something above mere diversity of opinion, or even dissent. This is dishonest, covert propaganda.
This is something above mere diversity of opinion, or even dissent. This is dishonest, covert propaganda.
>But very effective manipulation from very skillful people is something a bit beyond "diversity of opinion".
You've just described the whole advertising industry.
You've just described the whole advertising industry.
Yes, I noticed that. Honest advertising is also something beyond "diversity of opinion", but it's one that we accept. Dishonest advertising is another step beyond that, one that we don't accept, and that we try to keep out of society. This (China/Russia Facebook propaganda) is more like dishonest advertising; we should seek to eliminate it.
I was wondering when someone was finally going to get around to asking if countries other than Russia spread memes on Facebook. To the surprise of no one except apparently Democrats, they do. Now the million dollar question, will anyone investigate _China's_ involvement in influencing the election? Of course not, that would weaken the narrative that Russia acted alone in this endeavor (with Trump, of course).
> Now the million dollar question, will anyone investigate _China's_ involvement in influencing the election?
If at all, China would have helped Clinton. An isolationist like Trump is not good for China which depends on exports to the US and other western countries to fuel its growth, which China needs in turn to prevent social unrest caused by poverty.
No one will waste resources in tracking down who helped the loser of the election.
If at all, China would have helped Clinton. An isolationist like Trump is not good for China which depends on exports to the US and other western countries to fuel its growth, which China needs in turn to prevent social unrest caused by poverty.
No one will waste resources in tracking down who helped the loser of the election.
Before someone points out that nations have always done this:
It has never been this effective, targeted or difficult to uncover.
It has never been this effective, targeted or difficult to uncover.
> It has never been this effective
Debatable, unless you're taking the claims that $100K of meme-tier ads on Facebook changed the outcome of the election at face value.
> or difficult to uncover.
Is it really? Facebook certainly seemed very sure of every little ad that was purchased by a Russian party.
Debatable, unless you're taking the claims that $100K of meme-tier ads on Facebook changed the outcome of the election at face value.
> or difficult to uncover.
Is it really? Facebook certainly seemed very sure of every little ad that was purchased by a Russian party.
> Debatable, unless you're taking the claims that $100K of meme-tier ads on Facebook changed the outcome of the election at face value.
It's not just Facebook, or Twitter, or 4chan, or Reddit, or HN, or IRC, or email, or TV ads, or superpac ads, etc....
Ads can be targeted moreso than ever, celebrities are more easily roped in willingly or as useful idiots. Content has wider possibilities ("verified" emails). People are much more primed for disinformation than they were in the past.
> Is it really? Facebook certainly seemed very sure of every little ad that was purchased by a Russian party.
They paid in rubles. They didn't seem to even think it was terribly important to hide.
It's not just Facebook, or Twitter, or 4chan, or Reddit, or HN, or IRC, or email, or TV ads, or superpac ads, etc....
Ads can be targeted moreso than ever, celebrities are more easily roped in willingly or as useful idiots. Content has wider possibilities ("verified" emails). People are much more primed for disinformation than they were in the past.
> Is it really? Facebook certainly seemed very sure of every little ad that was purchased by a Russian party.
They paid in rubles. They didn't seem to even think it was terribly important to hide.
It's never been this effectively targeted at The US. US meddling has been much more effective than this, and the tactics much more extreme. It's also not exactly difficult to uncover, Facebook is telling us exactly what they did.
“New York Times Spreads Propaganda to U.S. as it Realizes Their Monopoly on U.S. Propaganda is Coming to and End”
Perhaps Zuckerberg can ask another member of the Chinese government to name his next child to smooth this over.
Honestly curious - does the US spread propaganda to the rest of the world? If I had to guess it would be that hollywood historically did most of the work - exporting "American" values and culture to other nations, but I don't know if that's still the case.
Anyways, it would be interesting to know if there is any kind of US presence on Chinese/Russian social networks (like, is there some bizarro mirror world /r/the_donald in Russian with posts pushing some kind of US agenda?)
Anyways, it would be interesting to know if there is any kind of US presence on Chinese/Russian social networks (like, is there some bizarro mirror world /r/the_donald in Russian with posts pushing some kind of US agenda?)
The US certainly does spread propaganda to the rest of the world. Voice of America [0] has historical been the main vehicle for this. They also seem to have pioneered a lot of the internet based methods that are being used now with their concept of memetic warfare. [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
[1] http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a507172.pdf
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
[1] http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a507172.pdf
Yes, see Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, etc. for overt examples.
IMO we should not do covert activity that reciprocates Russia's in this case. We should do overt things like trade sanctions or embargoes.
IMO we should not do covert activity that reciprocates Russia's in this case. We should do overt things like trade sanctions or embargoes.
I’m not so sure—propaganda can be both ethical and useful. The question is, can groups be ethical at the scale of government? If it’s about spreading information about freedom of speech, evading censorship, etc, it’s hard to see how this could hurt humanity. If it’s spreading “freedom”, that seems to be a dogwhistle for protecting domains of influence—pure imperialism.
I mean, i think it comes down to whether or not you can sleep at night knowing what you’re doing. Much of the “voice of america” actions of the last century do not pass this sleep test.
I mean, i think it comes down to whether or not you can sleep at night knowing what you’re doing. Much of the “voice of america” actions of the last century do not pass this sleep test.
There are overt examples like Radio Free Europe etc. But I would argue the entire Hollywood industry is to a large degree intertwined with propaganda and US government has ways to inject its ideas into content being produced in big movies. If you are more cynical, also media such as NYT or WaPo could be considered propaganda similar to Russia Today or some other state propaganda outlets of foreign countries (just in case of NYT it is not overt and directly funded by government).
> (like, is there some bizarro mirror world /r/the_donald in Russian with posts pushing some kind of US agenda?)
Probably nothing like that at all. Remember, the Russian ads everyone is going on about were basically clones of the ones domestic groups had created related to various social issues (BLM, gun violence, etc.). So really US propaganda in other parts of the world would just be cloning and amplifying social commentary...
Probably nothing like that at all. Remember, the Russian ads everyone is going on about were basically clones of the ones domestic groups had created related to various social issues (BLM, gun violence, etc.). So really US propaganda in other parts of the world would just be cloning and amplifying social commentary...
Here in Brazil there are hundreds of american NGOs organizing groups and events about libertarianism, free market, capitalism, neoliberalism and most of them if not all support selling national companies and resources to foreign (aka american) companies.
Lookup Operation Earnest Voice.
It's the US version of China's "50 Cent Army" and Russia's "Troll Farm."
It's the US version of China's "50 Cent Army" and Russia's "Troll Farm."
A number of countries run these types of programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_Internet_propa...
All promote their own propaganda and many also attack their rivals via sock puppets. As far as I know the only country using trolls to push general unrest is Russia.
All promote their own propaganda and many also attack their rivals via sock puppets. As far as I know the only country using trolls to push general unrest is Russia.
Yes, they have a history or doing it at home, too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
House of Cards?
Brazil faced a coup d'etat with the same script of the series, at the same time it was aired. I'm skeptical so I don't believe in coincidences.
You think that's coincidence? Remember "The Lone Gunmen" [1] - spinoff X-files series aired in 2001 where planes (flown by wire) nearly hit the WTC.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Gunmen_(TV_series)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Gunmen_(TV_series)
[deleted]
There was no coup.
And really. People joked about it being equal to House of Cards. But the real facts were way too outrageous to get into a fictional script.
And really. People joked about it being equal to House of Cards. But the real facts were way too outrageous to get into a fictional script.
This is what we call Propaganda, my friend.
Do you honestly the Brazilian Justice and Congress joined forces to do a coup and used a US TV series to manipulate the people into supporting them?
Really?
Really?
Do you genuinely believe that what I said is about a plot between a TV Series and the corrupt congress and brazilian justice? Really?
I bet you are these kinds that think Brazil was been "left-wing" brainwashed and the federal universities are all bolivarian. But a TV Series is just a TV Series.
I bet you are these kinds that think Brazil was been "left-wing" brainwashed and the federal universities are all bolivarian. But a TV Series is just a TV Series.
I don’t understand why the media obsess that much about who spreads which propaganda where.
If people uncritically eat up whatever they are fed by their newsfeeds, then we are hopeless. If, however, people can consume news critically, then propaganda may merely be annoying, hardly harmful.
If people uncritically eat up whatever they are fed by their newsfeeds, then we are hopeless. If, however, people can consume news critically, then propaganda may merely be annoying, hardly harmful.
>I don’t understand why the media obsess that much about who spreads which propaganda where.
Maybe because they're part of the problem?
Maybe because they're part of the problem?
At Quora there is a very strong presence of commentators who only focus on answering geopolitical questions about China. It is an area of inordinate size (quantity of questions + answers) compared to other topics of interest.
Oh, and this is an ad that ran in the U.S. airwaves.
https://youtu.be/OTSQozWP-rM
https://youtu.be/OTSQozWP-rM
I think they probably banned Facebook about 20 milliseconds after they realized it could be used as a weapon like this.
They banned Facebook in 2009 because the 2008 Olympics were over and they no longer had to pretend to be opening up to the rest of the world (they used Uighur separatism discussion as an excuse). They’ll probably ban it before the 2022 Olympics to redo that show for face purposes only to reban it again afterwards.
CNN spreads propaganda to U.S. On Facebook, CNN earns awards as fairness and freedom fighters.
lol this is like some propaganda inception
* China fabricates propaganda on Facebook, but bans it at home.
* Germany manufactures and exports firearms, but tightly regulates them at home.
* The US manufactures and exports cigarettes and pharmaceuticals, but tightly regulates them at home.
* Israel markets binary option trading scams to the rest of the world, but bans them at home.
* Russia produces malware, but only punishes anyone who unleashes it at home.
There's a lot to be said about the credibility of products and services that governments won't let their own people have access to but freely sell to the rest of the world.