[HN Gopher] Pentagon opens sweeping review of clandestine psycho... ___________________________________________________________________ Pentagon opens sweeping review of clandestine psychological operations Author : haasted Score : 177 points Date : 2022-09-19 13:08 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com) | neilv wrote: | When I was a kid in the 1980s, we heard about Soviet government | propaganda to its citizens, including via Pravda. We were also | taught how great the US is, by contrast, that it doesn't do those | things. | | Later, I thought I'd learned (maybe misheard?) that US could | engage in propaganda or psyops, but that there were strict rules | not to do it against US citizens. | | That seems like good guidance, and I'd welcome an honest review | that checks whether we're living up to standards that have been | an inspiring part of our national character in the past, and | leads to any corrective action. | | Maybe US collective leadership realizes a way here that we can | build upon our ancestors' great ideals, and follow through | further, not drop the ball. | nimbius wrote: | propaganda can seem innocent enough at first, but its most | insidious trait is that it eventually poisons and undermines | even the most essential functions of your government not only | during a crisis but through even its most mundane operational | capabilities. institutions once intended to act and think | critically and challenge orthodoxy in the service of | advancement of the nation now become an artifice for furthering | a dead ideology or deleterious policy. Whatever good you | thought US propaganda could do to bolster things like | patriotism or civic duty, it does exponentially more damage by | crippling the basic ability to challenge paradigms or | uncomfortable situations and decisions that if avoided may very | well plunge your state into ruin. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | One of my history teachers in high school had a large stack | of 'Soviet Life' magazines that he said we could read if we | wanted whenever we were done with our work but he warned they | were propaganda. I was surprised by what I read because I was | expecting it to be stories about the evils of capitalism and | the mighty strength of communism but instead it was mostly | 'slice of life' stories about average people in the various | Soviet republics. Took me a while to figure out that was the | propaganda. Part of that was due to my preconceived notions | of what propaganda would look like because I had been primed | by popular media in the US to expect it to be "you capitalist | pigs" rants instead of one that pushed the narrative that the | Soviets were peacefully trying to go about their lives | without bothering anyone. I often wonder if that's why our | teach made them available to us so we'd figure that out on | our own. | hindsightbias wrote: | I remember those. RT US was largely coverage of domestic | policy/events and very little about Russia. You could watch | the same topic coverage from the BBC, CBC, DW, Al Jazeera | English or even Democracy Now and not see much, if any, | difference. | | But of course everyone who had never actually watched an | episode would screech propaganda while embracing other | state-funded channels. The Beeb saying "America border | policy bad" is ok, but Russia... totally different. | zoomablemind wrote: | Indeed. Propaganda, just as disinformation, in the long run | results in mistrust and cynicism. I guess, this may hamper | critical thinking and eventually can polarize the society by | overweighting the groups on the extremes of the spectrum and | padding the middle with the cynics. | angrycontrarian wrote: | > Propaganda, just as disinformation, in the long run | results in mistrust and cynicism. | | The notion that facts which are unapproved by the | government are disinformation, _is_ the propaganda. | unity1001 wrote: | > Later, I thought I'd learned (maybe misheard?) that US could | engage in propaganda or psyops, but that there were strict | rules not to do it against US citizens. | | That law was repealed in 2010. Since then its all out | propaganda. | tablespoon wrote: | > That law was repealed in 2010. Since then its all out | propaganda. | | Cite? I'm aware there was some kind of awkward law that meant | to block domestic access to VOA-type stuff (IIRC, because it | was feared the VOA or State Department was infiltrated by | Communists or something like that) that got repealed, but | that's a far cry from "since then its all out propaganda." | | I mean, I don't think I've even seen a single VOA article in | our local newspaper. | black6 wrote: | The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 opened the door | for materials produced by the US Department of State and | the Broadcast Board of Governors to be spread within the | borders of the US. | tablespoon wrote: | > The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 opened the | door for materials produced by the US Department of State | and the Broadcast Board of Governors to be spread within | the borders of the US. | | What's been the actual effect of that? It's been 10 | years, and I can't recall seeing a VOA story reposted in | a local outlet or radio stations switching to a VOA-based | format. | ImHereToVote wrote: | "What's been the actual effect of that?" | | What is the mainstream medias opinion on Julian Assange? | unity1001 wrote: | Isn't the mainstream media selling that very | propaganda... | walterbell wrote: | _> What 's been the actual effect of that?_ | | One example mentioned in the article and visualized on TV | shows--teams of software-assisted humans each acting | under multiple online personas, e.g. on social media or | discussion forums. The more problematic elements often | intersect with private contractors and commercial | activity, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29838001 | somenameforme wrote: | It's rather more broad. The text from the bill itself, | "The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors | are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise | made available for public diplomacy information programs | to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of | information intended for foreign audiences abroad about | the United States, its people, and its policies, through | press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the | Internet, and other information media, including social | media, and through information centers, instructors, and | other direct or indirect means of communication." | | I don't understand the implications of that, because I | don't know the details of the law beforehand. But | something that's clear is that it opens the door to some | very nasty stuff - especially if there is no obligation | for source/identity disclosure. | IncandescentGas wrote: | Not that that law mattered before it was repealed. Here's a | nytimes articles from 2005. | | > To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second | segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government | produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by | the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety | was actually a public relations professional working under a | false name for the Transportation Security Administration. | | > This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that | a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration | policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from | the government. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/under-bush-a- | new... | pessimizer wrote: | It's bizarre that Armstrong Williams was the only person to | pay a price for a massive government manipulation program, | but it's typical. Judith Miller got to take responsibility | for the entire Iraq war. | takoid wrote: | Additional context: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch | ive/2013/07/america... | behaveEc0n00 wrote: | They privatized it by passing technical propaganda research to | universities who modeled it into behavioral economics, | marketing, advertising. | | Social media is built with such research in mind. | | Society will never stop trying to wrap a big fuzzy one size | fits all blanket around everyone's thoughts. We intentionally | manipulate biology that religion stumbled upon. | | A philosophy of "oh well there is this separation of powers | written down on paper" does not stop graft, nepotism. Tribalism | is innate to human biology; words on paper don't just shut our | bodies innate traits off. Thinking a law prevents intentional | propagandizing is quaint and naive. They just call the same | behavior and motivated "behavioral economics" and viola; it may | have all the mechanics of propaganda, but trust us, it's not | propaganda. | [deleted] | itronitron wrote: | As long as the DOD employs military recruiters they are | engaging in psychological operations. | Lutger wrote: | I don't really understand why not doing it to US citizens makes | it ok. I can imagine one would find it permissible to use such | techniques against your enemies, but this is very clearly also | about your allies. | | To the US, American lives are all that really matter? I mean, | there's also the policy that torture is ok but not against | Americans and not on US territory, hence the secret CIA torture | spaces during the Gulf War and guantonomo bay (simplifying a | bit here). Isn't that obviously wrong? | | How can one maintain that their country is the greatest with | such dubious ethics? I mean specifically using the argument | 'doing objectionable things only to non US citizens' as part of | the case for America's greatness seems...odd at best. I feel | like I'm missing something here. A cultural gap maybe. Or is | American superiority deemed so self evident that it legitimates | itself in a circular justification? | | I don't want to sound combative, though I probably do, but | really I want to understand how this works for Americans. | Implicated wrote: | We (Americans) don't all feel this way. Personally, I feel | the same way you do when I read things like this. I'm puzzled | how it's ok for anyone that wasn't assigned an American | citizenship in the birth lottery. | neilv wrote: | I think different Americans have different awareness and | thinking about those questions. | | I'd started to address that in my message, then awkwardly | edited it out (see last sentence) before posting. | | It's easy to persuade that we should be honorable towards | ourselves. | | Outside of ourselves are much more complicated and | contentious geopolitical questions, I don't know the answers, | and I thought negative reactions to raising that would defeat | the smaller point. | zmgsabst wrote: | > How can one maintain that their country is the greatest | with such dubious ethics? | | Compared to who? | | > I mean specifically using the argument 'doing objectionable | things only to non US citizens' as part of the case for | America's greatness seems...odd at best. | | That is a rule of law (for their citizens) better than much | of the world. | flerchin wrote: | As a democracy we don't want our institutions to be shaping | the opinions which are used to elect them. Shaping the | opinions of foreigners has no such compunction. | CSMastermind wrote: | > I don't really understand why not doing it to US citizens | makes it ok. I can imagine one would find it permissible to | use such techniques against your enemies, but this is very | clearly also about your allies. | | Because of conflict of interest. | | When you're persuading people outside of the US of something | you're presumably doing it in (at least nominally) the US' | best interest because as a citizen of the US your personal | interests are also aligned with those of the nation (at least | at the scale these operations work at). | | Turned internally there's all sorts of messy conflicts like | political parties using the tools to gain power, agencies | using the tools to gain funding, etc. | vmoore wrote: | This is a bit too late. PSYOP campaigns have plagued Twitter & | Facebook from the beginning. Twitter cracked down multiple times | on fake accounts, but the operators change their modus operandi | each time. It's basically whack-a-mole against the troll farm | operators. Requiring phone numbers might slow them down, but then | they just acquire a bunch of SIMs and continue registering. The | only way to stop this is verifying people's passports and their | account has to be held in their legal name. Just like a bank. It | might be over the top, but it's the only way to drastically | reduce the amount of propaganda, spam, astroturfing, disinfo, and | artificially inflated metrics of Twitter & Facebook. | kmeisthax wrote: | Part of the problem is that Twitter and Facebook deliberately | traded away effective moderation in the pursuit of scale. They | are not just bad at moderation, they explicitly oppose it. | | Remember how Twitter gave Trump exemption from their own rules | from 2017 thru 2021? They called it the World Leaders Policy, | as in, "these world leaders provide so much value to our | platform that we are going to give them a pass on our rules in | the name of free speech". If I remember correctly, this even | extended to DMCA 512 takedowns, which is an absolutely stupid | level of risk to take on to protect a handful of users. | | The Mudge disclosure also revealed that several Twitter admins | - as in, people with control over all the servers and databases | - are actually foreign agents of India or China's current | governments. This is absolutely ludicrous levels of risk to | take on for any company, but social media is so addicted to | scale that this was deemed acceptable. | | So even if Twitter were to enforce identity verification on | everyone, they would still let the trolls through. Because the | whole org is compromised and their incentives are to compromise | themselves at every step. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > This is absolutely ludicrous levels of risk to take on | | You have it all wrong. Pissing off world leaders is taking on | serious level of risk. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Isn't all lobbying and advertising psy-ops? | nerpderp82 wrote: | One of the major qualities of psyops is to not have those lines | of control be known. Gaslighting is not lobbying. | mensetmanusman wrote: | That brings to mind Instagram influencers, many who do not | explicitly call out they are being paid to influence by | certain organizations (in the fashion or luxury market area). | | This also brings to mind the movies like 'the avengers' which | gets lots of military support to drive recruiting. | ouid wrote: | >"There are some who think we shouldn't do anything clandestine | in that space. Ceding an entire domain to an adversary would be | unwise. But we need stronger policy guardrails." | | I don't think this point is entirely without merit. We shouldn't | opt to lose this battle on ideological grounds. Blaming the US | govt for conducting psyops is somewhat analogous to blaming | Robert Oppenheimer for the strong nuclear force, with the caveat | that the laws of physics in this situation are somewhat actively | controlled by the companies that host these "social media | platforms". | hunglee2 wrote: | Effective propaganda is one of the US's strongest competitive | advantages - extensive and well funded national security | apparatus, think tanks with global reach, compliant media | publishers with global reach and big tech platforms used | throughout the world, which can amplify and dampen messages, | based on whether they suit US foreign policy objectives. We | should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not | 'investigate' it. | banannaise wrote: | The tools of warfare and colonialism become the tools of | suppressing one's own people. Foucault's boomerang. | | "These tools are good for us when we use them against our | enemies" breaks down very fast when your apparatus starts to | find "enemies" within its borders, a line we crossed a very | long time ago. | hunglee2 wrote: | yes, I think actually it is other way round - one must first | suppress your own population (via propaganda, ideally), so | that they can be recruited to suppress the other. | Eumenes wrote: | tablespoon wrote: | > Found the defense contractor/federal employee | | You seem new here, but what you wrote is pure noise and | violates the site guidelines. | Eumenes wrote: | Meh, defending the use of propaganda by a nation state | seems antithetical to the culture of "hackers" ... but | agreed, I'll be more thoughtful moving forward. | michael1999 wrote: | Because US psy-ops against the domestic populate are illegal! | And anyone who says you can draw a bright line between domestic | and foreign social media activity is a crook. | wahnfrieden wrote: | It's been legal for a decade | michael1999 wrote: | Ugh - really? What was the change? I found this, but it | looks like a crack, but not a repeal - | https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals- | propaganda-... | michael1999 wrote: | There's a long way between allowing VoA onto domestic | cable and allowing spooks to sock-puppet in domestic | politics. | maybelsyrup wrote: | Legality never stopped them anyway. | StanislavPetrov wrote: | >Effective propaganda is one of the US's strongest competitive | advantages - extensive and well funded national security | apparatus, think tanks with global reach, compliant media | publishers with global reach and big tech platforms used | throughout the world, which can amplify and dampen messages, | based on whether they suit US foreign policy objectives. We | should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not | 'investigate' it. | | Government propaganda is anathema to a free and democratic | society. Our government is purportedly granted its authority by | the consent of the masses. Having this consent influenced (or | completely manufactured by government propaganda) nullifies the | whole idea of democracy. The absurd contention that propaganda | being spread by US military and government operatives on | Facebook and social media is only targeted at (much less only | influences) "foreigners" is patently absurd. Millions of | Americans (myself included) vehemently oppose our currently | stated "US foreign policy objectives" devised by the CIA, the | Pentagon and the various government-funded "think tanks" that | set policy and direct these propaganda efforts. "Full spectrum | narrative control" has been the wet dream of every dictator, | king and authoritarian government since the dawn of time, and | it should be something that every thoughtful, decent person | recognizes as toxic and incompatible with a free and open | society. | realce wrote: | Your conception of Public Relations and mass manipulation is | shallow: investigating these programs is part and parcel of the | overall psychological manipulation program the US employs. Part | of our marketing includes this whole "integrity" aspect that's | supposed to give us "moral authority" over other nations. | hunglee2 wrote: | 4D chess. I am naive! | pessimizer wrote: | No, just 2D chess. Humor the possibility that spies might | have some degree of guile. | Ligma123 wrote: | Very cool, Mr CIA operative. | [deleted] | nyokodo wrote: | > We should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not | 'investigate' it. | | Ignoring any moral qualms or suspicions, any powerful weapon | that isn't actively overseen will inevitably be abused. | hunglee2 wrote: | who watchers the watchers though, this is infinitive regress. | Besides, who or what is being abused, and what qualifies as | such, as also part of the program | nyokodo wrote: | > who watchers the watchers though, this is infinitive | regress. | | Infinite regress is only contemplated when you aim for | perfect oversight which is impossible. The best we can hope | for is 'as good as possible'. We the People, as well as | possible, oversee that the appropriate authorities are, | independently as possible, overseeing the use of weapons | and interventions. It's obviously imperfect just like any | other human endeavor but that's why we as citizens should | fight for strong whistleblower protections, regular | investigations/audits and reasonable timeframes for | declassification etc so that we can do our job. | StanislavPetrov wrote: | >who watchers the watchers though | | We all should - one of many arguments for complete | transparency. Democracy dies behind closed doors. All the | claims about the need for government secrecy, "national | security", protecting "methods and sources" are trash when | compared against the importance of transparency in a | society purportedly governed by elected representatives of | the people. The so-called "risks" posed by radical and | complete government transparency are far less than the | actual and tangible harms caused by the ever-growing | secrecy afforded and demanded by those holding the levers | of power. | paganel wrote: | Not sure why you're being down-voted, because once you see it | is very, very hard to un-see it. For example in my case one of | the factors for making me "see it" was the fact that almost all | of the anti-corruption campaigns from my EU-member country were | connected to a US governmental agency one way or another, be it | the State Department or some other entities that are most | probably the front for something that Langley is doing. | | The US ambassador visiting our Justice Ministry [1] a few years | ago when almost all of the middle-class electorate was out in | the streets protesting against the Government's direct | influence on some justice-related stuff was the cherry on cake. | I didn't realise it back then, because I was busy protesting | against my own government, but in retrospect I started | wondering how come it's ok for a foreign entity to control the | justice system from my (supposedly sovereign) country. | | [1] https://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/actualitate/ambasadorul-sua- | ha... | michael1999 wrote: | Influence is not control. I have absolute confidence that | Canada's elections are sound. But I have strong suspicions | that the USA applies influence to our processes of developing | candidates. So do Russia, China, and Europe. How could it be | different? | [deleted] | the_jesus_villa wrote: | googlryas wrote: | So what's the deal here? | | Is there a corruption problem in Romania, and the US is | trying to help overturn it? | | Is there no corruption problem in Romania, and the US is | doing some power play to try to get the people in power out? | tarakat wrote: | There's a corruption problem, and the US will use it as an | excuse to target politicians unfriendly to their interests, | and divert scrutiny away from those that play ball with | Washington. | paganel wrote: | Exactly this. | | Plus the few cases when US companies (or they local | subsidiaries, more exactly) do get tangled up in a | corruption thingie for one reason or another the | companies themselves get out of it as nothing had | happened. | | Here's an article about a former CEO of Oracle Romania | [1] recognising that he took 500,000+ euros as bribes, | but because he reached a deal with the prosecutors he | received a suspended sentence (so no actual prison time). | | And, the most famous, the Microsoft scandal [2], which | has its own dedicated wikipedia page, but where, again, | the company itself got away without anyone working for | them actually being prosecuted. I'll give it to the | American authorities on this one, though, that scandal | was most probably put into motion at the very beginning | thanks to the work of the FBI [3] (so, obviously, as the | result of domestic US investigations), the FBI which had | also found irregularities with MS's work in China and | Italy. | | [1] https://www.mediafax.ro/social/fostul-ceo-oracle- | romania-aco... | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_licensing_cor | ruption... | | [3] https://fcpaprofessor.com/microsoft-business-in- | romania-the-... | [deleted] | hunglee2 wrote: | Upvote / downvote are almost always emotional on HN ;-) | halfmatthalfcat wrote: | The US has overall amazing projection generally, be it | propaganda, military, culture, etc. I find it funny, looking | back a couple years ago, that people were outright dismissing | American hegemony but it looks alive and well today imo. | concinds wrote: | While the U.S.'s core strength has always been propaganda | (they got Operation Paperclip Nazis to becom American | patriots, got the USSR to abolish itself, and the young | Russian Federation to destroy itself with its infamous "shock | therapy"), China also has quite strong propaganda, especially | in Africa. And in Europe, go back 30 years and people still | saw Americans as liberators; now, Europeans see it as a | corrupt third-world country where people can't afford | healthcare. | | And while it's true that U.S. cultural "force projection" | hasn't weakened; they are being _severely_ squeezed when it | comes to trade dominance | (https://merchantmachine.co.uk/china-vs-us/) and monetary | dominance (see James Rickards' books). | | America still has its hegemony, but the notion that it's | declining is very much mainstream in academia | (https://www.routledge.com/Americas-Allies-and-the-Decline- | of...). Worse, its national security institutions have lost | credibility among a significant portion of its electorate | (MAGA people), and its military hegemony is now opposed by | both populist left (pacifists) and populist right (non- | interventionists). They're being squeezed both abroad and at | home. | kilroy123 wrote: | All empires eventually decline. | andy_ppp wrote: | The issue I have is things could be substantially worse than | US hegemony - for example there could be a lot more | wars/nuclear proliferation if the US failed. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | It's the worst hegemony...except for all of the others. It | doesn't have to be perfect. | FpUser wrote: | Says the hegemon. The victims of which there are plenty | might have something resembling "fuck you" instead. | troops_h8r wrote: | This is much easier to say if you're not living in any of | its victim states, or under the boots of any of the vicious | autocrats the US props up. | | Also, it's not like nuclear proliferation is solved. It's | still breathing down our necks, we just don't talk about it | anymore | [deleted] | Mountain_Skies wrote: | Are you sure? Where do you think the current path of the US | is taking its citizens and the rest of the world? Wars are | awful and a nuclear war would especially be so, but taking | the slow road to an authoritarian state controlled by | unknown forces hidden from view has the potential to be | much worse. Think of your ideological worldview, now think | of those who are the opposite. What happens if that group | ends up in control without you even noticing it happening | until it becomes a capital offense to point it out? | thfuran wrote: | It can't possibly be the case that we're currently headed | to a secret takeover by a cabal exactly ideologically | opposed to every reader. | feet wrote: | It's a thought experiment to try and point out the | negative aspects of the current situation that could | resonate with any reader | hackerlight wrote: | Realism predicts more war in a multipolar world. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | War isn't the only evil in the world. | spamizbad wrote: | The US capitalized on the whole "US has declining global | influence" meme* and used it to lay the groundwork for even | more global influence. A real "Heads we win; tails you lose" | sort of operation. | | *This is probably true in some areas but the opposite in | others - our influence simply shifted. | okdood64 wrote: | Interesting, elaborate? | pram wrote: | Seems to me shifting the narrative to an emerging 'multi- | polar' world from the 'uni-polar' US hegemony might | solidify alliances more than they otherwise would have | been. Kinda like during the cold war you were on one team | or another, no trying to play multiple sides. | yamtaddle wrote: | > Kinda like during the cold war you were on one team or | another, no trying to play multiple sides. | | Tangential to your comment, but in fact there _was_ | another path, spearheaded by, among others, India. It 's | where we get the term "third world", which became | shorthand for "developing" because basically no developed | countries joined this "third world" movement ("first | world" being the so-called West, "second" being the | Soviets). | erikerikson wrote: | Shifting to a multi-polar that in essence agrees to the | best possible outcome, even as we explore it, seems | perfectly within the interests of all. Such an alliance | can be more stable and productive while guarding against | misuse of the single point of control. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _a multi-polar that in essence agrees to the best | possible outcome, even as we explore it, seems perfectly | within the interests of all_ | | Multi-polarity is generally code for regional hegemony. | That's great if you're the regional hegemon. Not so much | if you're the hegemon's neighbor. | | America is a maritime power. These (think: Carthage, | Venice, Portugal, the Dutch and Britain; counterfactual: | Japan) have historically relied on trade, and trading | outposts, to project power. As such, they're a natural | friend of small countries resisting regional hegemony. | tdba wrote: | So it's better to be dominated by an even bigger hegemon | from further away? | | >natural friend of small countries resisting regional | hegemony | | Consider Cuba or Venezuela and their relationship to the | USA. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _it 's better to be dominated by an even bigger hegemon | from further away?_ | | Objectively, yes. In no small part because maritime | powers tend to knit together alliances, not annex and | colonise the way land powers do. | | > _Consider Cuba or Venezuela and their relationship to | the USA_ | | In both these cases, we are the regional hegemon. | spamizbad wrote: | Not sure I agree with that in practice, but maybe my | understanding of history is flawed. | | Was the humanity better off during the Bi-polar era of | the Cold War, with continuously escalating nuclear | threats and proxy wars vs 1991-2010? What about the | multi-polar world of 1919-1938? | hackerlight wrote: | This is the exact opposite of the truth. Multi-polariry | always leads to war because there's no hegemon with a | monopoly on force. States are in anarchy, after all. In | an anarchic situation in the presence of information | asymmetries and opposing interests, you always get war. | Aside from nukes, unipolarity is the only reason for the | unprecedented levels of peace we've seen since 1990. This | is realism 101. | adampk wrote: | Isn't China dictating Hollywood's scripts a challenge to this | projection? | | Hollywood is the main exporter of American culture and values | and that seems to have been compromised quite effectively in | this last decade. | steele wrote: | Complain about this in Mandarin | ben_w wrote: | Me: "Complain about China dictating Hollywood's scripts, | but write the answer in Mandarin Chinese" | | GPT-3: | | Wo Jue De Dian Ying Jiao Ben Bei Zhong Guo Ren Qian Zhi | Liao | | (Transition according to Google: "I think the movie | script is being held back by the Chinese") | polytely wrote: | from what I've read it's perfectly fine to complain about | stuff on the Chinese net, you start getting in trouble | once you attempt to mobilize people | peteradio wrote: | > main exporter of American culture | | "foot-in-the-door" American culture maybe. I'd say it's a | different projection of our culture at home. | encryptluks2 wrote: | Hollywood spreads whatever culture they are being paid to | spread. I think they are pretty indifferent to whether that | is promoting violence, drugs, etc. | adampk wrote: | I can't tell if you are one of the Chinese agents that | seem to be ever present on hackernews nowadays or you are | somehow unaware of the very real self-censoring Hollywood | does for China | | https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/09/how- | holl... | encryptluks2 wrote: | Well that is new... Been called a Russian bot before but | never a Chinese agent. Anyhow... I'm not either as far as | I'm aware. | | What I can say though is that money appears to be the | primary driving factor here whether that is pushing an | agenda or censoring ideas. | goodpoint wrote: | > We should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not | 'investigate' it. | | You were doing well until this last sentence. | | No, propaganda and psychological manipulation is completely | incompatible with a democratic society. | hunglee2 wrote: | democratic societies require ideological control. We are | seeing today how unfettered communication is leading to | polarisation and consequent 'crisis of democracy'. Good job | we are reasserting control over information flows - banning | Trump etc - in order to reduce confusion, improve | indoctrination and promote stability. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | I disagree strongly, but I believe this comment should be | in full view so that people can appreciate it is not a rare | sentiment. I have encountered it within my social circle | quite often. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | Those in favor of such a system for some reason are 100% | convinced that it will be people like them who get to | decide what's acceptable thought and what thoughts | deserve punishment. The reality is much more likely that | such a beast will take on a mind of its own and all of | us, regardless of ideology, will end up suffering greatly | under it. | chasd00 wrote: | > in order to reduce confusion, improve indoctrination and | promote stability | | one social credit has been deposited in your account | palmetieri2000 wrote: | The low education of many Americans is the reason Trump | was/is effective, not because he has a capacity to | communicate... | eastbound wrote: | Is it? What leads you to believe that democracy is a stable | state? | | My take: Democracy is not the natural state, therefore | requires a lot of psyops to remain in place. It's not | democratic, but well, can you speak up about it? No. Or if | you can, will you? Probably not worth it. You're "happy | enough". | | My converging evidence: France's 1789 democracy was set up by | gillotining the very person who would have gotten all the | majority votes (He was organizing a referendum and the | parliament couldn't let this happen); The EU wasn't born as a | democracy and we only ask people's opinions when it's | trending up; etc. there are so many examples that actually- | democratic systems are an unstable mess and superficially- | democratic systems are the norm. | | The idea is that people believe they live in democracy, and | psyops the only way to reach this state. True democracy might | be a naive dream. | FpUser wrote: | >"True democracy might be a naive dream." | | If the democracy leads to a tyranny of a majority it does | not deserve to be a dream either. To me what has the most | value is the recognition and protection of the individual | rights. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | While the subject is serious, I want to offer a quote | from Pratchett: | | "Vimes had once discussed the Ephebian idea of | 'democracy' with Carrot, and had been rather interested | in the idea that everyone had a vote until he found out | that while he, Vimes, would have a vote, there was no way | in the rules that anyone could prevent Nobby Nobbs from | having one as well. Vimes could see the flaw there | straight away." | goodpoint wrote: | Is this 4chan now? Between this and the other 2 idiotic | replies I can't tell the difference. | jasfi wrote: | The points for not playing dirty, and making that public, are | worth it. Hopefully other countries take note. | jasfi wrote: | Disclaimer: I'm not an American. | adampk wrote: | Have our adversaries historically ever taken note and | followed more "enlightened" behavior? | weard_beard wrote: | Let me ask you, if you heard that in the next town over | they started a dog fighting ring would you start one in | your town and take your own dog so that he might learn from | such "enlightened" behavior? | | I sleep much better knowing my dog isn't taught such | behavior is acceptable. I would hate for him to bite the | hand that feeds him because he learned such, "enlightened" | behavior is acceptable and condoned by his owner. | adampk wrote: | So you do not have an example of any of our adversaries | changing their behavior because we are acting more | "enlightened", but you want to do it anyway because you | believe it is good | Mezzie wrote: | But they are less than the points for playing dirty and _not | getting caught_ are. Then you reap both the rewards of the | sketchy behavior _and_ the perception of moral behavior. | | So the logical thing to do is dump resources into keeping | yourself from being caught. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > We should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not | 'investigate' it. | | Corruption? Abuse of power? | throwrqX wrote: | I like the sarcasm but if you read the report that originally | started this review (you can find it in the attached link) | you'll find the propaganda in this specific case didn't seem | particularly effective. Quoting: | | > It also reveals a somewhat damning tidbit when talking about | the reach and impact of these campaigns; according to the | report, "the vast majority of posts and tweets we reviewed | received no more than a handful of likes or retweets, and only | 19% of the covert assets we identified had more than 1,000 | followers." What's more, the two accounts with the most | followers explicitly said they were tied to the US military. | I'll try not to think about how much all this cost when I'm | paying my taxes next year. | | Had US social media agencies been fully in bed with the feds | such a report would have never been produced in the first | place. Remember, conspiracists always talk about shadowy | organizations or groups of people with near omnipotent power - | an idea these agencies themselves would like perpetuated to | make it seem resistance is futile. | | https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/25/23322214/us-government-pr... | the_jesus_villa wrote: | >an idea these agencies themselves would like perpetuated to | make it seem resistance is futile. | | Quite the opposite - the conspiratorial reaction is that | these agencies _want_ to be mistaken for bumbling | bureaucracies, so they let reports of small-level stuff get | out. That way we underestimate the real degree of their | control and believe that if they ever tried to manipulate us, | they would get caught anyway, and besides, they 're just | making unsuccessful tweets, right? | | Or even deeper, that these organizations are meant to | distract us from much more powerful entities who they don't | even realize they are controlled by. | | I don't believe any of this, but the conspiracy theorists | deserve more credit for creativity that you are giving them! | pessimizer wrote: | That's because it's meant to disrupt conversations, not be | liked. None of it is liked, you just have to wade through | mountains of it to follow a conversation. The content is | shitty US propaganda that maybe 5% of people agree with | without reservations. None of those people are on the threads | where they're asking a woman how much she likes Putin's dick. | | The most damaging thing that they do is inflate the like | counts and apparent engagement of government thinktank | employees and unaware nationalists drunk on the dopamine hits | of botted upvotes. I'm absolutely certain that the removal of | downvotes from social platforms in general was a long term | government project. | | edit: does anyone believe that this behavior can't be easily | detected algorithmically? I don't know about other platforms, | but Twitter is obviously a government partner, not a victim. | TheBlight wrote: | The problem is when it's used on its own population. | the_optimist wrote: | It has been. Nakashima (author) is effectively a stenographer | for the intelligence agencies. She does not have authority, | she's merely a writer. | bookofjoe wrote: | https://archive.ph/qFnls | encryptluks2 wrote: | A sweeping review?!?! Americans have been targeted and impacted | by government-funded propaganda. They have been caught up in the | fake drama and emotionally manipulated in ways that may impact | them for the rest of their lives. It is time that they do a truth | and reconciliation and start talking about money available to | victims. | kornhole wrote: | Why would we put much credibility into an organization | investigating itself? This review is itself probably centralized | narrative control. It goes something like this: Through social | media monitoring, the Pentagon sees an uptick in people | questioning the narrative and seeing the Pentagon behind pysops | campaigns. So they commission a study and review that finds a | couple supposedly rogue persons in their ranks which they | scapegoat and nominally punish. The main apparatus is preserved | in the shadows and more resilient after they have probed and | fortified all its weaknesses. | halJordan wrote: | You can ask that question about any org. Ultimately people do | lie, but the fact is that the world does these self- | investigations all the time and the world hasnt stopped. The | dod in particular has very strong boundaries and rules to | follow, which people honest to God, believe in; as well as | actually independent minders. So if you're fine with Twitter | self-reporting bot numbers when it's obviously a conflict of | interest to do so, you should be fine with the DoD | investigating one of its combatant commands. | tablespoon wrote: | > Why would we put much credibility into an organization | investigating itself? | | That's kind of a bizarre question, and I think you're | misunderstanding what this is. This sounds like it's a story on | the organization's internally-focused management, not some kind | of external accountability thing meant to convince you of | anything. | kornhole wrote: | It is kind of hard to tell what the real goals are after | reading different reports of the review. It does seem to be | an internal only review and not something that will enlighten | the public much. It shouldn't be any surprise that the | Pentagon and its branches do what they do to push their | narrative, but they screw up when they are too obvious. That | seems to be what they are trying to address. | unethical_ban wrote: | Here is a good quote from a State Dept. diplomat: | | >One diplomat put it this way: "Generally speaking, we shouldn't | be employing the same kind of tactics that our adversaries are | using because the bottom line is we have the moral high ground. | We are a society that is built on a certain set of values. We | promote those values around the world and when we use tactics | like those, it just undermines our argument about who we are." | | This is my position as well. Going forward in a world where more | and more of what we hear and even see can be fake, trust will | become more important. Trust is hard to build and easy to break. | | I understand the need to reach out to hesitant populations, and | the desire to advance our national interests through persuasion | and propaganda. However, actual lying, fake accounts, and | disinformation that is deployed in a blanket fashion will be a | long-term detriment to our government's credibility. | | In shorter form: Bias and "targeted messaging" is one thing. | Literally fake people and lies are another. | | We should act better than our adversaries, because we are better. | mistrial9 wrote: | US citizen here - I believe that "we" is not possible, due to | structural associations, misaligned incentives and tension | between social forces. "We" America is not one thing.. the | dollar and the vote and Bill of Rights are unifying, but not | completely. Meanwhile, there are intelligent actors in every | language group, despite no-dollar, no-vote and no-Bill of | Rights. | | A system of systems has to have flexibility to evolve; calling | one team uniform as "better" is just more of the same | stefantalpalaru wrote: | [deleted] | greenhearth wrote: | The U.S. has been doing this with VOA for almost a century. This | is basically the same tactics, but in a new information space. | The main point is marketing and propagation of ideology to render | it competitive. The vehicles and the methods are incidental, and | depend on info consumption preferences, really. | BrainVirus wrote: | If you believe that Pentagon influence operations on social media | are limited to creating fake accounts that spout propaganda and | get deleted by social media on discovery, I have a bridge to sell | you. Reminder: WaPo is owned by Bezos who makes billions on | defense contracts. | kmeisthax wrote: | >Significantly, they found that the pretend personas -- employing | tactics used by countries such as Russia and China -- did not | gain much traction, and that overt accounts actually attracted | more followers. | | Because America is fundamentally not peddling the same kind of | narrative that Russia or China does. | | What America wants is freedom[0]. Russia is run by ethnofascists | and China is run by near-textbook tankies. These ideologies are | pariahs, and honest propaganda of this bent cannot survive | contact with the background radiation of politics. In other | words, when America is overt, people complain that we aren't | living up to our own standards. When Russia or China is overt, | people laugh at them and ignore them. | | So, instead, they have to co-opt other concerns and lie about | what their ideological opponents are doing. Hence shit like "the | CDC created COVID" or "NATO is creating supersoldiers in Ukranian | labs[1]". The job is not to prove that China or Russia is right, | but to distract from what they are doing. The more they can piss | off Americans against their own government, the better. | | Americans do not need to do this, because... who is their target | audience, here? Hardline Iranian theocrats or the Taliban aren't | going to be distracted by covert propaganda. Neither will | Russians who think Ukraine is run by the corpse of Adolf Hitler | or Chinese who think America created COVID in a lab. People who | _aren 't_ shitheaded will either respond well to American overt | propaganda, or at least point out how America falls short of | their own ideals. You don't need to lie to them. | | Since America's interests are not furthered by covert propaganda, | we should abandon it, since the only interest such propaganda | could serve would be fifth-columning the country. | | [0] As defined through a liberal lens; i.e. we accept and embrace | private capital accumulation and business ownership. Other non- | shitheaded definitions of freedom are free to reject this. | | [1] Which is literally just the premise of Captain America with | extra steps. Every time someone claims this we should reply, "Is | this the new MCU movie"? | cpursley wrote: | > Russia is run by ethnofascists | | Regarding the "ethno" part, do you see evidence of this? Russia | is quite diverse in terms of ethnic/cultural groups. The | richest woman there is ethnically Korean, for just one example. | And other groups like Jewish, Armenian, Tartar, Chechen etc | play important roles in government, biz and cultural life | there. | | - https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/334417-how-many-ethnic-groups | | - https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Minority_cultures_of_Russia#:. | ... | jevgeni wrote: | Russia is fascist by assimilation (in contrast to the Third | Reich which was fascist by exclusion). As in, you either call | yourself russian or get marginalized. It's so pervasive that | people stopped noticing it. There are 200 ethnicities, yet | all the federal websites are only in russian and maybe | english. | | This is why Putin has this fetish for "Ukraine is not a | country / we are the same people" narrative. | spoiler wrote: | Isn't Putin saying that parts of Ukraine which voted in a | referendum that they'd like to join Russia should stop | being bullied by Azov neo-nazies[1][2], and that's one of | the reasons why this whole kerfuffle in Ukraine started | (the other two being Ukraine's new interest in NATO, and | claims of research US military facilities near the Ukraine- | Russia border, or plans for one[2]). | | Also, if someone's genuinely interested in my "sources" I'm | willing to put in the work and post them, but didn't want | to waste time in case people can't be bothered to be | critical and click the links, and I also don't have a horse | in this race, but the whole "America best, everyone bad" | mentality literally reeks of indoctrination and lack of | critical thinking that indoctrination and gaslighting | cause, and it's worrying that it's happening in America of | all places (which I admired for human rights and freedom of | expression and thought, at least until recently). For | reference, some were older BBC and CNN articles, a few | YouTube videos, and a Quora thread which duplicates some of | these. | | [1]: Which the US military is supplying weapons to, | apparently | | [2] Maybe I fell victim to not appropriately fact checking | some propaganda though, but I'm also not sure how to fact | check something like this, and... The truth of the matter | is that the US has done much worse in the past. | | Aside: This whole "everything is a propaganda machine" is | so frustrating, and I hate that there's literally nothing | you can trust these days. I honestly can't even tell if I'm | "paranoid" to think so. It just so very saddening, and | despite some people's best efforts, it seems human nature | is truly disappointing everywhere we turn. | jevgeni wrote: | You can fact check it by going to the website of the | people you are calling neonazis (Azov) and find a neonazi | agenda. | | It was never really about NATO [1] for the russians, but | as Putin said in his initial speech at the beginning of | the invasion to "find a final solution to the Ukrainian | question). | | If you want to see the origin of russian ethno-fascism, | try to find an early 2000s russian action film called | "Brother 2" (Brat 2). It was immensely popular in russia | at the time and is the most racist thing I've ever seen. | | 1 - https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive- | war-beg... | foverzar wrote: | > You can fact check it by going to the website of the | people you are calling neonazis (Azov) and find a neonazi | agenda. | | Why would one be that willfully superficial to look only | at a recently crafted public image, instead of... I | dunno... The recent history of the organisation? | | At the very least being lazy as we are, we could just | take a quick look at their recent logo from a few years | ago, according to Wikipedia featuring "...a combination | of a mirrored Wolfsangel and Black Sun, two symbols | associated with the Wehrmacht and SS, over a small | Tryzub". | | Somehow I doubt that this was all a total accident made | up by evil Russians. I also remember internet openly | talking about the rise of nazism in Ukraine before it | became a taboo topic. And you could too, by simply | telling your search engine to look for documents before | 2022, when everyone went full post-truth. | | > russian ethno-fascism | | Ukrainians and Russians are mostly ethnically slavs, ugh. | | > If you want to see the origin of russian ethno-fascism, | try to find an early 2000s russian action film called | "Brother 2" (Brat 2) | | Oh please, it's like claiming that Duke Nukem is a | represantative origin of women's rights in the US. | jevgeni wrote: | Since it's a political organization with stated political | goals, it might make sense to look at those goals. Not to | mention that even with those goals they didn't manage to | break into parliament, i.e. reach 2% of the votes (if we | are talking about "the rise of nazism in Ukraine", btw). | Right now you're going "symbol scary!". By that logic | German AfD, the French Front Nationale, or UKIP are | totally above board in that respect... | | > Ukrainians and Russians are mostly ethnically slavs, | ugh. | | Thanks for your racial theories... | | > Oh please, it's like claiming that Duke Nukem is a | represantative origin of women's rights in the US. | | It was indicative of the culture though. This is why | today you won't see a popular game with such rhetoric as | Duke Nukem anymore. But Russians still don't realize Brat | 2 is racist. | spoiler wrote: | I'm aware of their failed legitimate attempts to | establish a presence in the government. I'm not trying to | saying Ukraine is turning to nazism or fascism (I also | don't know that much about their politics). But I imagine | that 2% of military-minded, [semi-]trained and armed | people is enough to wreck havoc on civilian regions. | jevgeni wrote: | Do you assume AfD electorate in Germany is also "military | minded, semi-trained and armed"? | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > you either call yourself russian or get marginalized. | It's so pervasive that people stopped noticing it. | | There is massive racism in Russian society, the various | awareness movements that happened in the West never | happened in Russia. One could compare the way USA has | treated native people, and many issues would be similar. | | Additionally, some of the ehnicities have beef with each- | other that sometimes sparks into armed conflict. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Prigorodny_conflict | gdy wrote: | "you either call yourself russian or get marginalized" | | Marginalized for not calling themselves Russian? | Marginalized how? | | "yet all the federal websites are only in russian and maybe | english" | | That's true, but only 3% of Russian citizens are Tatar | language speakers and there are even fewer speakers for | other languages. | | Maybe you'll tell me where I can find Spanish version of | the Congress website? | jevgeni wrote: | So at which percentage of the population should you start | to respect the culture of minorities? | | I'll make it even easier. Go to any LOCAL government | website in Russia where there is a concentration of these | ethnic minorities and find me a version in their | language. | | Good examples of treatment of minorities are Finland with | their treatment of the Swedish minorities there. | cpursley wrote: | Yeah, sure: | | - Komi Republic (Komi - a Finnish/Uralic language): | https://gov.rkomi.ru/kv/kontakty-pravitelstva-respubliki- | kom... | | - Tartarstan (Tartar language): https://tatarstan.ru/tat/ | | - Adygheya Republic (Adyghe aka West Circassian): | http://www.adygheya.ru/ady/ | | That's just a handful that I'm personally familiar with. | It's easier to search in Cyrillic. | jevgeni wrote: | Cool! Let's validate. Let's find a useful content page in | russian and see if it works say in Tartar. | | https://tatarstan.ru/documents.htm | | So, a guide through all the relevant administrative | documents you might need. Let's click the "TAT" button to | switch to the Tartar language... Oh wait, what's this? It | doesn't exist? Imagine that. Another Potemkin website. | The most ironic thing is that the "Report of the | Tatarstan Foundation for Citizen's Right Protection" | (PDF) is russian only. | | Regarding your pre-edit statement about seething in anti- | russian hate: if russians don't like it, they can stop | invading, stealing and killing. Maybe that'll help? | cpursley wrote: | So bigotry and hatred is okay against all Russians. Got | it. | | Glad my country never invaded or killed anyone | recently... | jevgeni wrote: | Any German person I spoke to has a deep feeling of | responsibility for WW2. Even today, even younger | generations. Believe it or not it makes the society | stronger. Russia is far away from that. | | Being liked is a privilege you have to earn. Thinking you | are owed nuanced, friendly treatment is a bit naive after | what russia has done. | marshray wrote: | > only 3% of Russian citizens are Tatar language speakers | and there are even fewer speakers for other languages | | Ever stopped to wonder why that might be the case? | cpursley wrote: | For similar reasons that people in the US no longer speak | German, Dutch or various British Isle dialects (and the | reason after a couple generations, Spanish speaking | immigrants are more fluent in English than Spanish). | mistrial9 wrote: | the world is not that different in some ways than five | hundred years ago.. there are literate people and | illiterate people, on a large scale. The rise and fall of | literate languages is not the same story as the number of | people that speak a language, or what colors are on the | local police car. It is not popular to speak of this in | the USA since there is a "unifying myth" of equality. | What the USA did do brilliantly is use markets and local | jurisdictions to let warring people settle nearby each | other, and thrive. Over time the old ways show up | however. Evolution is not practiced uniformly. | Skgqie1 wrote: | America wants freedom for America above everything else. It's | why they engage in subversive and potentially destabilising | operations abroad (in order to "protect" their own freedom). | | Internally, the situation is not much different (at least from | an outsiders perspective). The elite and wealthy effectively | using their resources to further the gap between themselves and | the lower rungs in the name of profit. | | Externally, the propaganda is aimed at distracting from how | disruptive they are in other countries affairs (most notable in | recent history being the Middle East). Internally, it seems | like it's indoctrination into the belief of the inherent | superiority of capitalism, and the construction of strawmen to | distract from real issues. | jevgeni wrote: | What would be the alternative? Wanting freedom for everyone | in the world at the cost of your own? | spoiler wrote: | Contrary to what you seem to believe, freedom doesn't have | to be a zero sum game | jevgeni wrote: | So why claim that America wants freedom at the expense of | everyone else? | spoiler wrote: | But hasn't the American government constantly meddled in | other countries' affairs and justified it using | freedom/democracy to its own people? | | I don't want to be insensitive, but the whole 9/11 thing | is such hypocrisy. They call it a terrorist attack, but | America has been and is the terrorists to a substantial | portion of the world. Claiming otherwise is just ignorant | jevgeni wrote: | Russia has "filtration camps" right now. China commits | genocide against the Uyghurs. I'd say _that's_ a baseline | for calling someone a terrorist. USA is marginally | better. | UmbertoNoEco wrote: | gdy wrote: | Yeah, because the whole world wants to take away their | freedom. That's the most ridiculous cliche of American | internal propaganda. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > Since America's interests are not furthered by covert | propaganda, we should abandon it, since the only interest such | propaganda could serve would be fifth-columning the country | | This conclusion should be self-evident for any democratic | society, so any reasonable value of free and democratic. | | I have various bones to pick with the rest of the post, chiefly | viewing all of politics as being about abstract notion of | freedom instead of realpolitik | Zealotux wrote: | https://archive.ph/SA49A | lioeters wrote: | Off-topic: The featured photograph for the article I believe uses | a technique called "tilt and shift effect". It makes the | buildings and cars look like miniature toys. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_faking | e40 wrote: | Tilt-shift lens are wonderful things. There are lots of time- | lapsed videos on youtube made with them and they are so cool. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVsDjGwFImc | | is an intro. | FpUser wrote: | I might have some perception irregularities as this "tilt and | shift" never looks like any kind of "miniature" to me. | jacobolus wrote: | A tilt-shift lens can make the focus plane no longer parallel | to the plane of the film. This can help make a narrower range | of focus for a scenes at middle distances than would be | possible with a typical lens. | | A narrow depth of field is more characteristic of photographs | of nearby objects, so people who are used to looking at | photographs end up with the impression that the tilt-shift | photograph is a picture of a much closer (and thus smaller) | scene. | | This is not the only use of tilt-shift lenses. They can e.g. | also be used to keep _more_ of the scene in focus than would | be possible with a typical lens. | daveslash wrote: | I might be way off here, but here's what I always _assumed_. | Anyone correct me if I 'm wrong, this is just what I've | always guessed, but haven't really thought too hard about | it.... | | I think Tilt Shift photography doesn't make the _subject_ | look _like a miniature_ , but rather makes the _photo_ look | like a _photo of a miniature_. When photographing a | miniature, the subject is so close that you have a much | narrower depth of field and you end up with thin slices of | the miniature subject being in focus. I think that this was | probably more common in the days of film than digital | photography. In other words: the photos of miniatures look | like that because of limitations in the photography process, | whereas tilt-shift is emulating those limitations at a macro | scale. | pueblito wrote: | tablespoon wrote: | > I'm with Greenwald on this: all mass media in the US, | including social media, is staffed by and ran entirely for the | benefit of the IC/DoD. This is just Deep State Kabuki | | Do you have any evidence for that? That's an extraordinarily | strong claim, and would need evidence much stronger than | "here's a cherry-picked set of articles I'm interpreting like | tea leaves." | pueblito wrote: | Given your near 10,000 comments in the time since you signed | up literally on the day Russia invaded the Ukraine, I suspect | you have the time to do your own homework. | [deleted] | ginko wrote: | Didn't know Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2021. | actionfromafar wrote: | One year _before_ Russia invaded Ukraine. | tablespoon wrote: | > One year before Russia invaded Ukraine. | | And I also think he misread my karma score as comment | count. | matai_kolila wrote: | One implication of "do your own research" is the forced | assumption that, once the research has been completed, the | person will inevitably arrive at the same conclusion you | did. | | What would you think if someone did "do their research", | but based on that investigation concluded something | fundamentally different from you? | [deleted] | tablespoon wrote: | >> Do you have any evidence for that? That's an | extraordinarily strong claim, and would need evidence much | stronger than "here's a cherry-picked set of articles I'm | interpreting like tea leaves." | | > Given your near 10,000 comments in the time since you | signed up literally on the day Russia invaded the Ukraine, | I suspect you have the time to do your own homework. | | Making a extraordinarily strong claim, then expecting | others to prove it for you, is a pretty strong indication | you do not have evidence for it. | | I won't mention the other glaring errors in your one- | sentence comment, since they've already been called out. | [deleted] | swayvil wrote: | They're investigating themselves? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-19 23:00 UTC)