Disinformation Evolved in 2020(brookings.edu)
brookings.edu
Disinformation Evolved in 2020
https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-disinformation-evolved-in-2020/
92 comments
Well I think we can agree that the type of targeted, sophisticated, funded misinformation campaigns that we're seeing, are always bad. Meanwhile I think we can also agree that moderation is a necessary feature of any community. But it sounds like you're trying to put moderation and misinformation campaigns in the same category?
> But it sounds like you're trying to put moderation and misinformation campaigns in the same category?
Moderation is necessary and great for a healthy online community. Abuse of moderation is a tool used by misinformation campaigns. The parent comment clarified the difference with abuse being when moderators take down legitimate, non-hostile comments because they disagree with the point being made.
I think right now we're seeing more cases of moderation abuse on various forums because the consequences are so unpredictable. YouTube videos, tweets, Facebook posts get flagged at really inconsistent rates.. there was an excellent post highlighting this a few months ago in regards to Twitter[1]. This is a mark of tyranny, where you have vague rules that are selectively enforced so your populus doesn't know the limits of what's ok and they censor themselves. In this case it's Twitter/Facebook/YouTube being the tyrants, but they're acting this way because they themselves are afraid of what laws might hit them from our unpredictable government.
[1] https://inteoryx.com/htmls/TwitterOffensive.html
Moderation is necessary and great for a healthy online community. Abuse of moderation is a tool used by misinformation campaigns. The parent comment clarified the difference with abuse being when moderators take down legitimate, non-hostile comments because they disagree with the point being made.
I think right now we're seeing more cases of moderation abuse on various forums because the consequences are so unpredictable. YouTube videos, tweets, Facebook posts get flagged at really inconsistent rates.. there was an excellent post highlighting this a few months ago in regards to Twitter[1]. This is a mark of tyranny, where you have vague rules that are selectively enforced so your populus doesn't know the limits of what's ok and they censor themselves. In this case it's Twitter/Facebook/YouTube being the tyrants, but they're acting this way because they themselves are afraid of what laws might hit them from our unpredictable government.
[1] https://inteoryx.com/htmls/TwitterOffensive.html
Creating an alternate reality of lies is a more direct path to tyranny. Particularly when that alternate reality causes people to distrust election outcomes and public health guidelines.
If a webmaster of a free website takes down an opinion they don't agree with, or don't want associated with their site, I'm fine with that. People have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean others have to archive that speech in a database and serve it, out of pocket, in perpetuity.
If a webmaster of a free website takes down an opinion they don't agree with, or don't want associated with their site, I'm fine with that. People have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean others have to archive that speech in a database and serve it, out of pocket, in perpetuity.
> Creating an alternate reality of lies is a more direct path to tyranny.
Who has had greater success at this than the media? The two great narratives that undermined faith in the Democratic process in the past four years are A) Democrats claiming that there was evidence that Trump had colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 election[0], and was therefor not a legitimate president[1][2], and B) Trump claiming that the 2020 presidential election was rigged by Democrats, and therefor Biden was not a legitimate president.
Trump's lie was immediately panned as utter bullshit. Since, media have trumpeted the claim as evidence of insidious, anti-Democratic sentiment among all Republicans--in other words, the Anti-democratic claims made by Republicans were used a bludgeon against Republicans.
But the former claim (which was no less damaging to the legitimacy of our institutions) was, in the absence of any corroborating evidence whatsoever, was treated as a serious concern. At the time of the release of the Mueller report, half of the country believed the Russia-collusion conspiracy theory[4]. When the Mueller report revealed no evidence of collusion[3], the story was used as a bludgeon against Democrats, right? Of course not. It was memory-holed.
The fact that the media was able to weaponize both of these anti-democratic lies into a narrative that one party is somehow a danger to our institutions is emblematic of why they, the media are, in fact, the greatest threat to our society and our institutions.
[0]https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/schiff-russia-trump-c... [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... [2]https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/politics/john-lewis-donald-tr... [3]https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2... [4]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/des...
Who has had greater success at this than the media? The two great narratives that undermined faith in the Democratic process in the past four years are A) Democrats claiming that there was evidence that Trump had colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 election[0], and was therefor not a legitimate president[1][2], and B) Trump claiming that the 2020 presidential election was rigged by Democrats, and therefor Biden was not a legitimate president.
Trump's lie was immediately panned as utter bullshit. Since, media have trumpeted the claim as evidence of insidious, anti-Democratic sentiment among all Republicans--in other words, the Anti-democratic claims made by Republicans were used a bludgeon against Republicans.
But the former claim (which was no less damaging to the legitimacy of our institutions) was, in the absence of any corroborating evidence whatsoever, was treated as a serious concern. At the time of the release of the Mueller report, half of the country believed the Russia-collusion conspiracy theory[4]. When the Mueller report revealed no evidence of collusion[3], the story was used as a bludgeon against Democrats, right? Of course not. It was memory-holed.
The fact that the media was able to weaponize both of these anti-democratic lies into a narrative that one party is somehow a danger to our institutions is emblematic of why they, the media are, in fact, the greatest threat to our society and our institutions.
[0]https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/schiff-russia-trump-c... [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... [2]https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/politics/john-lewis-donald-tr... [3]https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2... [4]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/des...
> Who has had greater success at this than the media?
Totally agree that FOX News and other of the right-wing pundits have helped create an alternate reality where election results and public health guidelines don't matter. You're talking about The Media as if the Right doesn't have a media apparatus.
> When the Mueller report revealed no evidence of collusion
Reading your link about Mueller and other summaries of the Mueller investigation, I get the feeling that the investigations was not a "nothing burger": the investigation produced 37 indictments, seven guilty pleas or convictions, and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions[0].
> Trump's lie was immediately panned as utter bullshit.
Sure, AG Barr described the Big Lie as bullshit, but Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, Crowder, and Shapiro haven't come anywhere close to that kind of a statement. Their gravy train runs on the Big Lie.
If Republicans don't want to look anti-democratic, then they should have (1) unilaterally disavowed the January 6 Insurrection instead of denying it, or calling these people patriots, and they should (2) make voting as easy as buying a gun, since they're both rights protected by the Constitution.
[0](https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigati...)
Totally agree that FOX News and other of the right-wing pundits have helped create an alternate reality where election results and public health guidelines don't matter. You're talking about The Media as if the Right doesn't have a media apparatus.
> When the Mueller report revealed no evidence of collusion
Reading your link about Mueller and other summaries of the Mueller investigation, I get the feeling that the investigations was not a "nothing burger": the investigation produced 37 indictments, seven guilty pleas or convictions, and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions[0].
> Trump's lie was immediately panned as utter bullshit.
Sure, AG Barr described the Big Lie as bullshit, but Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, Crowder, and Shapiro haven't come anywhere close to that kind of a statement. Their gravy train runs on the Big Lie.
If Republicans don't want to look anti-democratic, then they should have (1) unilaterally disavowed the January 6 Insurrection instead of denying it, or calling these people patriots, and they should (2) make voting as easy as buying a gun, since they're both rights protected by the Constitution.
[0](https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigati...)
You're taking a contrary tone, but I think we're in agreement here.
When it comes to Trump's lie about the 2020 election, the tone of the media in general was dismissive and highly skeptical due to a lack of evidence. The right-wing media was, of course, more credulous and willing to entertain the possibility of widespread election fraud... for a few months.
When it comes to collusion conspiracy theory in the 2016 election, the media in general was highly credulous and willing to entertain the possibility--even in the absence of evidence. The media in general pushed this conspiracy theory for four years, while of course the left wing media was more credulous and willing to entertain the conspiracy theory.
You're right that Mueller investigation resulted in a large number of charges, but none were related to the question of collusion. The media isn't forgiven for convincing half the country that Trump was a Russian puppet just because Paul Manafort laundered some money (unrelated to the Trump campaign), or because some Russians were running a troll farm (unrelated to the Trump campaign). Why even bring it up in a conversation about the collusion conspiracy theory, if not to muddy the waters?
When it comes to Trump's lie about the 2020 election, the tone of the media in general was dismissive and highly skeptical due to a lack of evidence. The right-wing media was, of course, more credulous and willing to entertain the possibility of widespread election fraud... for a few months.
When it comes to collusion conspiracy theory in the 2016 election, the media in general was highly credulous and willing to entertain the possibility--even in the absence of evidence. The media in general pushed this conspiracy theory for four years, while of course the left wing media was more credulous and willing to entertain the conspiracy theory.
You're right that Mueller investigation resulted in a large number of charges, but none were related to the question of collusion. The media isn't forgiven for convincing half the country that Trump was a Russian puppet just because Paul Manafort laundered some money (unrelated to the Trump campaign), or because some Russians were running a troll farm (unrelated to the Trump campaign). Why even bring it up in a conversation about the collusion conspiracy theory, if not to muddy the waters?
> Sadly this is a potential path to tyranny
... indeed, giving the point to those who seek to do away with any kind of moderation / solution ...
... indeed, giving the point to those who seek to do away with any kind of moderation / solution ...
Moderation isn't an overreaction or path to tyranny, it's the opposite. Called the Paradox of tolerance [0]. If stuff isn't moderated, only the extremely intolerant views will remain.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
> If stuff isn't moderated, only the extremely intolerant views will remain.
That's actually the claim here and it's not one you support. Mein Kampf, an extremist work, has existed for 80 some years now and can be bought in most bookstores, yet we don't seem to all be goose-stepping or have any less non-extremist content for it.
Reddit right now is having an interesting problem where by simply subscribing or commenting in a subreddit, others will ban you. That doesn't seem to be "moderation" but instead we're attacking peoples freedom of expression.
The Paradox of Tolerance is against intolerant behavior - one of which is suppressing expression.
That's actually the claim here and it's not one you support. Mein Kampf, an extremist work, has existed for 80 some years now and can be bought in most bookstores, yet we don't seem to all be goose-stepping or have any less non-extremist content for it.
Reddit right now is having an interesting problem where by simply subscribing or commenting in a subreddit, others will ban you. That doesn't seem to be "moderation" but instead we're attacking peoples freedom of expression.
The Paradox of Tolerance is against intolerant behavior - one of which is suppressing expression.
It's really ironic that you used Main Kampf to justify your position. Mein Kampf hasn't taken over our society (though there are still plenty of people who read it), but it was an important part of the way that the Nazi's took over Germany in the 1930s.
And continues to inspire and radicalize people. It's only that the world has come through the other end of that insanity and the body count is high enough, that Mein Kampf stands, to most people, as a tombstone monument to complete insanity.
Do we need to let every kind of complete insanity run its course and generate a body count?
Do we need to let every kind of complete insanity run its course and generate a body count?
As I remember the book didn't start to sell very well until the Nazis took over in 1933, at which point it was a little too late to stop them.
The book did (as I recall) describe Hitlers plans in some detail, so had more people read it, maybe they would have done something.
The book did (as I recall) describe Hitlers plans in some detail, so had more people read it, maybe they would have done something.
I'm going to reply the exact same way I did to another comment: Mein Kampf sold 240,000 copies before he became chancellor, so it seems like it was already an important part of the conversation. I'm not advocating for censorship, but obviously the argument that Mein Kampf is available therefore we should stop trying to limit violent speech is not a good one.
Without context, sellling a 1/4 million books to a population of some 62 million is not impressive. I couldn't find out how many books were sold in the late 20s in Germany, but it is hardly a bestseller if less than 1/2 of a percent have read the book.
Anyway my argument was sorta the opposite: the book did manifestly not sell well enough that it became how most people got converted to Nazism, and if more people had read the book they might have realized that Hitler was doing exactly what he wrote in his book and stopped him at an earlier point.
Anyway my argument was sorta the opposite: the book did manifestly not sell well enough that it became how most people got converted to Nazism, and if more people had read the book they might have realized that Hitler was doing exactly what he wrote in his book and stopped him at an earlier point.
The New York Times Bestseller list covers a population much larger than that. Yet:
"""To make the list, it is estimated that novels sell from 1,000 to 10,000 copies per week, depending on competition. Median sales fluctuate between 4,000 and 8,000 in fiction, and 2,000–6,000 in nonfiction. The majority of New York Times bestselling books sell from 10,000 to 100,000 copies in their first year.""" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Best_Seller...
"""To make the list, it is estimated that novels sell from 1,000 to 10,000 copies per week, depending on competition. Median sales fluctuate between 4,000 and 8,000 in fiction, and 2,000–6,000 in nonfiction. The majority of New York Times bestselling books sell from 10,000 to 100,000 copies in their first year.""" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Best_Seller...
The Nazi's didn't need a book to take over Germany in the 1930s. Their use of radio, and controlling all theater was much more important to their campaign.
They controlled who was allowed to express themselves and how. They limited everything to their message, even suppressing branches of science that didn't support their views.
That we as a liberal society can tolerate illiberal views is important. You should read things like Mein Kampf and the Unabombers manifesto - not because they are good but because you should know your enemy and how they think.
They controlled who was allowed to express themselves and how. They limited everything to their message, even suppressing branches of science that didn't support their views.
That we as a liberal society can tolerate illiberal views is important. You should read things like Mein Kampf and the Unabombers manifesto - not because they are good but because you should know your enemy and how they think.
Mein Kampf sold 240,000 copies before he became chancellor, so it seems like it was already an important part of the conversation. I'm not advocating for censorship, but obviously the argument that Mein Kampf is available therefore we should stop trying to limit violent speech is not a good one.
"Fire & Fury" sold 2.3 million copies. Did it play a role in Trump not being re-elected?
Strawmanning an argument is poor form.
Mein Kampf has existed and been available, and hasn't actually really caused any harm. That doesn't make it a better book but the hallmark of liberal society is that we can tolerate dissent while an authoritarian one can not.
Strawmanning an argument is poor form.
Mein Kampf has existed and been available, and hasn't actually really caused any harm. That doesn't make it a better book but the hallmark of liberal society is that we can tolerate dissent while an authoritarian one can not.
Unless moderators themselves are extremely intolerant already. Moderation isn't black or white - the "what", "how" and "why" of moderating matters.
People seem to forget that Paradox of tolerance is recursive - being overeager with it makes you the enemy you're supposed to fight.
People seem to forget that Paradox of tolerance is recursive - being overeager with it makes you the enemy you're supposed to fight.
...and if stuff is moderated, only the stuff they moderators are ok with will remain.
Which means that other communities ran by other moderators can be created. (This breaks down probably if the moderator is like, an ISP, AWS, etc.)
Another interesting way this breaks down in practice is when communities interact.
You can observe this today on the Fediverse. A common pattern is a small group pressuring moderators of some community to ban select people, under threat of the whole community being banned by many other communities. They make good on this threat by playing all the other communities against each other, threatening each one with being banned, unless they ban the original target community.
You can observe this today on the Fediverse. A common pattern is a small group pressuring moderators of some community to ban select people, under threat of the whole community being banned by many other communities. They make good on this threat by playing all the other communities against each other, threatening each one with being banned, unless they ban the original target community.
[flagged]
Could you please stop creating accounts to post flamewar comments to HN? That's not what this site is for.
I suppose I should add: No, we don't care about your views on China. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't burn itself to a screaming crisp, and also (if we're allowed a stretch target) that doesn't suck.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I suppose I should add: No, we don't care about your views on China. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't burn itself to a screaming crisp, and also (if we're allowed a stretch target) that doesn't suck.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Which isn't perfect but a far better outcome than the above.
"Don't worry everyone I'll be a great arbiter of information"
- Adolf Hitler when he took over the press probably
- Adolf Hitler when he took over the press probably
This is a distortion of the paradox of tolerance, it doesn't endorse censorship. The existence of extremely intolerant views doesn't magically make it impossible to voice normal views. For example, Reddit pre-Pao had plenty of extreme subreddits that existed on the page, and never resulted in a exodus of non-extreme views.
The paradox of tolerance only comes into play when views start getting translated into actions. Let the Nazis march down Skokie. Action should only be taken against them if they start acting on their views. Removal only happens in the interest of self-preservation. The paradox of tolerance is not an endorsement of censorship.
The paradox of tolerance only comes into play when views start getting translated into actions. Let the Nazis march down Skokie. Action should only be taken against them if they start acting on their views. Removal only happens in the interest of self-preservation. The paradox of tolerance is not an endorsement of censorship.
Let’s call moderation what it actually is: censorship. And censorship is very much the path to tyranny, especially when done in collusion with governments.
1. Limited and transparent moderation occurs everywhere in society, and isn't remotely the same thing censorship.
2. No private tech company makes their content moderation "in collusion with governments". Not in the US at least.
2. No private tech company makes their content moderation "in collusion with governments". Not in the US at least.
Re: #2
https://mobile.twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/14157273544632...
Sorry, thought stuff like this was more well known. They’ve been colluding for quite a while but now it’s so brazenly open the White House press secretary is mentioning it in press conferences.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/14157273544632...
Sorry, thought stuff like this was more well known. They’ve been colluding for quite a while but now it’s so brazenly open the White House press secretary is mentioning it in press conferences.
That was a suggestion Facebook can (and has) ignore. If you are implying that was some kind of legally binding edict, you would be wrong.
I agree it was out of bounds to make a comment like that from the WH, but lets be clear what it was and wasn't. It wasn't political, it was public health. And it wasn't an order, it was a request.
I agree it was out of bounds to make a comment like that from the WH, but lets be clear what it was and wasn't. It wasn't political, it was public health. And it wasn't an order, it was a request.
This generation has not experienced anything remotely like censorship. Telling nutters to go elsewhere is absolutely nothing like the draconian measures of last century.
For all their belly-aching, there is literally no insane idea that you can't put out there with essentially zero repercussions.
For all their belly-aching, there is literally no insane idea that you can't put out there with essentially zero repercussions.
This response is simply goal post shifting. Censorship is censorship.
Using a recent example: YouTube removes a video of medical Doctors promoting studies of a COVID treatment, one that could save lives. There’s science to back it up, however it’s not science promoted by the medical majority. Thus, it is censored. As a result, people don’t have access to a potentially life saving treatment and will die - this is censorship.
Are there worse examples of this concept happening over the past century? Yes, of course. But censorship leading to the deaths of millions is certainly bad.
Using a recent example: YouTube removes a video of medical Doctors promoting studies of a COVID treatment, one that could save lives. There’s science to back it up, however it’s not science promoted by the medical majority. Thus, it is censored. As a result, people don’t have access to a potentially life saving treatment and will die - this is censorship.
Are there worse examples of this concept happening over the past century? Yes, of course. But censorship leading to the deaths of millions is certainly bad.
> This response is simply goal post shifting. Censorship is censorship.
No. Deplatforming is not the same as censorship. Don't equate them.
If Stanford University throws you off campus for holding up a "Stanford sucks" sign, this is deplatforming. Put it on your own lawn. Nobody has the obligation to host your content.
And no, it's not "effectively censorship" either. Censorship is actively seeking out and removing information from all platforms, everywhere, burning books, etc.
> But censorship leading to the deaths of millions is certainly bad.
What the actual F, no one is being censored leading to millions of deaths. If anything, deplatforming has saved millions of dying of COVID due to actual disinformation about fake cures (Hydroxychloroquine, injecting bleach) and pseudo-scientific FUD about vaccines.
Have a miracle cure for COVID? By all means, share. You'll be both wealthy and a hero. But nope, it's goddamn charlatans all day long with this shit.
No. Deplatforming is not the same as censorship. Don't equate them.
If Stanford University throws you off campus for holding up a "Stanford sucks" sign, this is deplatforming. Put it on your own lawn. Nobody has the obligation to host your content.
And no, it's not "effectively censorship" either. Censorship is actively seeking out and removing information from all platforms, everywhere, burning books, etc.
> But censorship leading to the deaths of millions is certainly bad.
What the actual F, no one is being censored leading to millions of deaths. If anything, deplatforming has saved millions of dying of COVID due to actual disinformation about fake cures (Hydroxychloroquine, injecting bleach) and pseudo-scientific FUD about vaccines.
Have a miracle cure for COVID? By all means, share. You'll be both wealthy and a hero. But nope, it's goddamn charlatans all day long with this shit.
Hi again. Deplatforming is censorship. Your example is censorship. I’ll leave the definition here for others and maybe you too if you want to learn what it actually means.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/896/censorship
I think the need to redefine words like censorship is to make one seem good and necessary and one seem bad and deplorable. So “deplatforming” is now the good censorship and censorship remains the bad. Again see the link to clarify what exactly constitutes censorship. It doesn’t matter if you get it or not.
>Have a miracle cure for COVID?
Nope, just a suppressed treatment which could save lives. If the medical establishment actually cared about health it would be bending over backwards to study it instead of actively suppressing it. All I can do is post the science, here are 60 studies with more than half peer reviewed:
https://ivmmeta.com/
Calling medical doctors and researchers who risk their careers to publish studies backing up potential treatments are not charlatans, they’re heroes.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/896/censorship
I think the need to redefine words like censorship is to make one seem good and necessary and one seem bad and deplorable. So “deplatforming” is now the good censorship and censorship remains the bad. Again see the link to clarify what exactly constitutes censorship. It doesn’t matter if you get it or not.
>Have a miracle cure for COVID?
Nope, just a suppressed treatment which could save lives. If the medical establishment actually cared about health it would be bending over backwards to study it instead of actively suppressing it. All I can do is post the science, here are 60 studies with more than half peer reviewed:
https://ivmmeta.com/
Calling medical doctors and researchers who risk their careers to publish studies backing up potential treatments are not charlatans, they’re heroes.
> https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/896/censorship
> Censorship occurs when individuals or groups try to prevent[1] others from saying, printing, or depicting words and images.
In the example I gave, Stanford is not showing up to your house to take signs off your lawn. So according to your very definition, they aren't "trying to prevent you from saying, printing, or depicting words and images," they are literally just kicking you off their lawn. You just repeatedly state these things are equivalent, when they are not, as I explained multiple times, and then you post a link to information that has not censored. Frankly I don't even want to argue about whether said link has been deplatformed or not, because it's not censored, and it's just me and you at this point, with zero progress.
[1] prevent, v.
> Censorship occurs when individuals or groups try to prevent[1] others from saying, printing, or depicting words and images.
In the example I gave, Stanford is not showing up to your house to take signs off your lawn. So according to your very definition, they aren't "trying to prevent you from saying, printing, or depicting words and images," they are literally just kicking you off their lawn. You just repeatedly state these things are equivalent, when they are not, as I explained multiple times, and then you post a link to information that has not censored. Frankly I don't even want to argue about whether said link has been deplatformed or not, because it's not censored, and it's just me and you at this point, with zero progress.
[1] prevent, v.
1. keep (something) from happening or arising.
2. make (someone or something) unable to do something."if not the government-enforced kind, then the kind that comes from those who control the flow of information"
When they work together cooperatively, there is no distinction. https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for...
When they work together cooperatively, there is no distinction. https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for...
"In 2019, and again in 2020, Facebook removed covert social media influence operations that targeted Libya and were linked to the Russian businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin. The campaigns—the first exposed in October 2019, the second in December 2020—shared several tactics: Both created Facebook pages masquerading as independent media outlets and posted political cartoons. But by December 2020, the operatives linked to Prigozhin had updated their toolkit: This time, one media outlet involved in the operation had an on-the-ground presence, with branded merchandise and a daily podcast."
If it's funded by a non-governmental source, isn't it kind of an independent media outlet by definition?
I guess you raise a good point ...
... were it not that this outlet was very "dependent" on their "handlers" or des-informers ...
... were it not that this outlet was very "dependent" on their "handlers" or des-informers ...
Sure, but it seems like "poses as independent and is funded by a billionaire" describes a huge number of publications that are not going to get shut down. It feels like there must be some other criterion. In this case most likely that the publications intent goes against US foreign policy interests?
> "poses as independent and is funded by a billionaire" describes a huge number of publications
... good point.-
> most likely that the publications intent goes against US foreign policy interests?
That could be a start ...
(At an US scope, at least ...)
... good point.-
> most likely that the publications intent goes against US foreign policy interests?
That could be a start ...
(At an US scope, at least ...)
Outcomes are weird and unpredictable though. This is not exactly Kermit Roosevelt Jr we are talking about.
Why is it that the KGB is not interested in surfacing facts about simar American or European disinformation operations, which surely also are happening? I mean why don't we hear about those?
I would bet, in autocratic, tyrannical countries which have history of disinforming and controlling info access if their citizens; those citizens are much more resistant to disinformation. They are cynical and question what they are told.
The USA population is extremely nieave and trusting.
Freedom of press and of speech have lot to do with it as well. It's hard to disinform populace who's information sources are controlled by your adversary
The USA population is extremely nieave and trusting.
Freedom of press and of speech have lot to do with it as well. It's hard to disinform populace who's information sources are controlled by your adversary
That’s a really good point: like having a degree of immunity through prolonged exposure! Though couldn’t all that disinformation also mean that they eventually are bludgeoned into believing in whatever version of ‘reality’ has been constantly presented/ represented (or that they just simply ‘switch off’)? …reminds me of the idea of the ‘Overton Window’:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
That’s an interesting question. I’m sure as you say that there probably are such operations (…do you have articles/information you can find to link to?), but perhaps they are disguised differently, more effectively countered or perhaps subtler/different in nature? I would guess: firstly the KGB doesn’t exist any more, its successor (for the Russian Federation) is the ‘FSB’, but I would imagine that there’s a lot of crossover between the two in terms of tactics/specialities? (…esp. given the president started his career in the KGB…). Agencies on all ‘sides’ always have used various disinformation campaigns historically at one time or another (ideas of P.R./public relations initially concretized by Edward Bernays?:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays ). You could cite that the CIA would sometimes fund ‘soft power’ media like artists/films/music etc. that perhaps ‘worked’ in different ways, whilst KGB famously planted eg. fake news articles/plants to journalists etc.? The USSR seemed to excel at finding weak points in political/civic culture/society and exploiting those pressure points? Maybe the countering of these types of tactics is part of the idea behind isolating Russia’s internet, as China has more or less effectively done - also this could be an exportable commodity to authoritarian regimes - you can see the attraction perhaps to eg. customers of NSO group …counter to the old quote from Bill Clinton about ‘nailing jello to a wall’. The Russian Federations’ political model differs, perhaps in degree at least, to eg. the U.S.’s in that although a ‘representative democracy’, there is maybe a higher degree of integration, even if that is through networks of money/power/influence/intimidation etc. between the state and media and a higher acceptance of suppression of counter-narratives? The USA/Europe’s strength is partly built on freedom of information/ travel/ diversity/ flow of goods/services I would argue, but that can also be (rather cleverly) used against them in a kind of low-level assymetric ‘warfare’. A lot of ordinary people on both sides have neither the time nor will (and maybe effective education?) to try and separate facts from fiction basically and so these types of ops succeed... So: a difference in operational ‘philosophy’ and a historical/cultural background of different areas of ‘success’ to draw on maybe?
> American or European disinformation operations, which surely also are happening?
Are they? (I would tend to believe they indeed are, by the way ...)
Are they? (I would tend to believe they indeed are, by the way ...)
It's called TV and movies, which the rest of the world eats up. People in and out of America need to wake up and realize that Hollywood is mostly psychological warfare.
I'm sure there are other more covert disinformation campaigns, but we can't ignore the elephant in the room.
I'm sure there are other more covert disinformation campaigns, but we can't ignore the elephant in the room.
How does this square with Hollywood's bending towards China? Or, the fact that Hollywood is fully independent from the US government?
It doesn't. Hollywood is private and profit-seeking. They will soon start paying more attention to the demands of the Chinese government than they ever did to the US government. Because that's where the future growth in revenue is.
Great question ...
(In fact, I've been waiting for the entrance into the worldwide "mainstream" of big Chinese productions ...
... ostensibly showcasing different values / agendas ...)
(In fact, I've been waiting for the entrance into the worldwide "mainstream" of big Chinese productions ...
... ostensibly showcasing different values / agendas ...)
It's not like the US government pursued, investigated, or ran smear campaigns against people in the entertainment industry, right?
Content as psy-ops. That's a thought ...
Is this a new concept to you? Cool!
offers you red pill
Here’s a good starter article: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/op...
offers you red pill
Here’s a good starter article: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/op...
hesitantly takes the pill ... :)
... interesting article, appreciated - though it speaks more of how CIA and the like operate to have themselves be portrayed favourably ...
... that's more good PR than psy-ops!
... interesting article, appreciated - though it speaks more of how CIA and the like operate to have themselves be portrayed favourably ...
... that's more good PR than psy-ops!
You're not up on your conspiracy theories I see: https://thegreatwork208716197.wordpress.com/2020/03/09/%E2%9...
I always appreciate a pointer ... :)
(The link is actually interesting, in a convoluted way ...)
(The link is actually interesting, in a convoluted way ...)
No. Europeans / US seek to convince people of their ideology which is called propaganda (democracy, human rights, climate change, etc.) They don't launch offensive operations with the sole goal of destroying the ability to have a conversation around the above (disinformation) and convince people there is no truth.
The fact people think everyone behaves the same way is, in a large way, a big victory for authoritarian govs trying to convince people this is the case.
After all, if everyone is guilty, no one is.
The fact people think everyone behaves the same way is, in a large way, a big victory for authoritarian govs trying to convince people this is the case.
After all, if everyone is guilty, no one is.
> They don't launch offensive operations with the sole goal of destroying the ability to have a conversation around the above
Maybe not the US government itself, but American corporations and various political and corporate interest groups do literally this all the time.
Maybe not the US government itself, but American corporations and various political and corporate interest groups do literally this all the time.
Yes, but it's not coming from the government. Key distinction.
Should there be stronger laws about dodgy private PR firms running disinfo and smear campaigns? Yes. Should platforms be held more responsible for not allowing their networks to be so easily gamed? Yes. But that is a separate matter.
Should there be stronger laws about dodgy private PR firms running disinfo and smear campaigns? Yes. Should platforms be held more responsible for not allowing their networks to be so easily gamed? Yes. But that is a separate matter.
And, also, as stated below, use "content" / culture to project and persuade as per their values ...
> ffensive operations with the sole goal of destroying the ability to have a conversation
This here being the differentiating factor here, indeed.-
> ffensive operations with the sole goal of destroying the ability to have a conversation
This here being the differentiating factor here, indeed.-
There's a difference between attacking a rival political position, and attacking the concepts of truth and shared objective reality. Authoritarians want to spread cynicism and nihilism so their populations won't one day stop tolerating their corruption and oppression and demand political agency.
It's literally a life or death conflict for them. If the whole of Russia or China wakes up tomorrow and demands free and fair elections, it's game over.
It's literally a life or death conflict for them. If the whole of Russia or China wakes up tomorrow and demands free and fair elections, it's game over.
> If the whole of Russia or China wakes up tomorrow and demands free and fair elections, it's game over.
I've often seriously wondered about this ...
Would they not just as well be gassed, fired upon, ie. have the full brunt of their respective militaries turned upon them for the sake of "public order" or, as China would have it "Social Harmony"? Would they not just get "harmonized"?
I've often seriously wondered about this ...
Would they not just as well be gassed, fired upon, ie. have the full brunt of their respective militaries turned upon them for the sake of "public order" or, as China would have it "Social Harmony"? Would they not just get "harmonized"?
Realistically it wouldn't be "everyone" it would be perhaps a slight majority of the total population. That way the gov could still mobilize half the population against the other half, respond with violence, and probably still retain power.
But ideas spread quickly. If anything close to 80-90% of a population demands something, that thing is likely to happen.
That's why the fight in the information space is so fierce, that's why the police response in HK was so violent, etc. Authoritarians know the stakes couldn't be hirer, so they fight this battle with everything they got. If a critical mass one day demands freedom their very lives are now at risk.
Keep in mind, the people that ordered the military to fire on Chinese students in Tiananmen square, they are still in power. If the CCP were to fall, I would assume those people wouldn't escape justice. So they will fight like hell to avoid accountability.
But ideas spread quickly. If anything close to 80-90% of a population demands something, that thing is likely to happen.
That's why the fight in the information space is so fierce, that's why the police response in HK was so violent, etc. Authoritarians know the stakes couldn't be hirer, so they fight this battle with everything they got. If a critical mass one day demands freedom their very lives are now at risk.
Keep in mind, the people that ordered the military to fire on Chinese students in Tiananmen square, they are still in power. If the CCP were to fall, I would assume those people wouldn't escape justice. So they will fight like hell to avoid accountability.
> mobilize half the population against the other half,
This, a likely scenario under such circumstances, sounds atrocious ...
This, a likely scenario under such circumstances, sounds atrocious ...
It would be a human tragedy on a scale we've never seen before. This is why an authoritarian government of 1.4 billion people terrifies me. If history is any guide, the state will fall. But if it doesn't happen peacefully, god help us.
> This is why an authoritarian government of 1.4 billion people terrifies me.
Your terror is well-founded, I'm afraid.
(And, they are showing themselves to be increasingly nervous ...
... see the latest crackdown on academia, and student organizations ...)
Your terror is well-founded, I'm afraid.
(And, they are showing themselves to be increasingly nervous ...
... see the latest crackdown on academia, and student organizations ...)
The more weak they know their internal state to be, the more aggressive externally they will become. War or revolution are horrific outcomes, yet one or both seem almost inevitable.
What did not evolve in 2020?
To my knowledge there were no major changes in the abacus industry in 2020.
I think you need to pay more attention. The A1 was released. Hyper fast abacus with very little manual labor required.
nowadays even an abacus will phone home.
To protect you from cheaters, of course. And don't worry that your abacus only has three sticks, there will be new exclusive sticks coming out in a DLC one month after launch. Oh and the beads come in loot boxes. Pre-order the collector's edition and don't miss our season pass!
(In fact the latest AbacOS firmware comes with Microsoft Teams -built in- :)
Truth didnt
Very good point ...
(OK, so this wasn't the most enlightening comment ever on HN, perhaps ...
... but I was attempting to be the understated "one hand clap" to the much better punchline of the parent comment ...)
... but I was attempting to be the understated "one hand clap" to the much better punchline of the parent comment ...)
Let's be real here anything that Facebook or Twitter or Google call "disinformation" is just another way of saying things that hurt their hold on the power of information.
Sadly this is a potential path to tyranny (if not the government-enforced kind, then the kind that comes from those who control the flow of information).