64 ms·

I might not even be against this practice because if it is truly countering bad ideas, then it could be effective. Bad ideas can spread fast and influence peop

I might not even be against this practice because if it is truly countering bad ideas, then it could be effective. Bad ideas can spread fast and influence people in subtle and profound ways. But obviously they should be countered in organic ways by moderates or skeptics or Neil deGrasse Tysons- in their countries. What I don't understand is how the US military can say, oh this is illegal (and thus unethical) to do in the US to Americans, but foreigners are exempt, so let's create a world of false personas and disinformation for them. The only argument for using tactics like this and others, like spying on people, is in a time of temporary war. We Americans are a nation built on the acknowledgement of natural rights and to deny that all humans have these rights against any oppressive government, is absurd and wrong. Endless ambiguous and 'total war' is more dangerous than radicals posting on a message board or even the threat of terrorism. The existential risk to human freedom is far greater when we have an infinite budget military mandated with doing unjust and immoral things forevermore with no sense of what made America great or what will eventually make the whole world great; natural rights and secular governments.

joe_the_user 10y ago
Ah, if the US military could distinguish the world's good ideas from the world's bad ideas, we could just discard all that messy democratic discussion and debate and just get our ideas from them. But somehow, that sound like a, uh, bad idea. Thing is that the methods of propaganda tend to lean on psychological manipulation more than rational arguments - it's effective and the military is generally tasked with persuading people of whatever idea their superiors want to forward and there might not be any rational argument in favor it. One can consults psy-ops manuals and such for confirmation.
brbsix 10y ago
illegal != unethical. To play devil's advocate, doesn't a state possess a greater obligation to it's own people than to those outside of it? You (perhaps naïvely) expect your government to protect you from foreign threats. You don't expect (and probably don't want) your government to protect everyone, everywhere.
- summerdown2 10y ago
  Although I expect my government to have a greater obligation to its own people than those outside it, I also would prefer (sadly not expect) them to take a longer-term view than "what suits the situation at the moment." If putting out worldwide propaganda is expected to have a long-term effect of degredation of public discourse, I would expect my government to take this into account and temper their actions. In fact, whether or not it is known today to have this effect, I'd hope my government would analyse these things and take them into account when making policy.

joe_the_user 10y ago

Ah, if the US military could distinguish the world's good ideas from the world's bad ideas, we could just discard all that messy democratic discussion and debate and just get our ideas from them. But somehow, that sound like a, uh, bad idea. Thing is that the methods of propaganda tend to lean on psychological manipulation more than rational arguments - it's effective and the military is generally tasked with persuading people of whatever idea their superiors want to forward and there might not be any rational argument in favor it. One can consults psy-ops manuals and such for confirmation.

brbsix 10y ago

illegal != unethical. To play devil's advocate, doesn't a state possess a greater obligation to it's own people than to those outside of it? You (perhaps naïvely) expect your government to protect you from foreign threats. You don't expect (and probably don't want) your government to protect everyone, everywhere.

summerdown2 10y ago
Although I expect my government to have a greater obligation to its own people than those outside it, I also would prefer (sadly not expect) them to take a longer-term view than "what suits the situation at the moment." If putting out worldwide propaganda is expected to have a long-term effect of degredation of public discourse, I would expect my government to take this into account and temper their actions. In fact, whether or not it is known today to have this effect, I'd hope my government would analyse these things and take them into account when making policy.