3 ms·

Pushing an agenda is one thing if the person is doing it in good faith, even if I think their ideas are bad or not supported by evidence. In all likelihood ther

Pushing an agenda is one thing if the person is doing it in good faith, even if I think their ideas are bad or not supported by evidence. In all likelihood there are large scale information operations going on with world powers trying to subvert each other's populations. The really sinister thing is that we have paid, bad faith actors whose full time jobs are to spread misinformation and shape narratives online. There is just no way you and I, amateurs commenting sporadically in our free time, have the resources to combat armies of paid trolls. I spent a lot of time thinking about it this weekend and it sounds bleak. Not only do they spread misinformation, the presence of bad faith actors in social spaces causes a breakdown in trust between all participants, leading to less dialogue and more polarization. Why bother debating me if I might be a paid agent from Belarus? Why bother investigating claims from the other side of an issue if there's a good chance it is paid propaganda? Meanwhile leaving yourself vulnerable to propaganda on your own side that increases group identity and groupthink. Even worse, bad actors can start trends or spread falsehoods that end up motivating and encouraging good faith actors. There are plenty of people who have been caught up in an information operation, unwittingly propagating and defending someone else's manufactured data. That's scary. Authoritarian regimes have much less to fear from this. If we disrupt public opinion in China, who cares? They don't really need public consent to do anything. Manipulating the public in democracies will lead to poor decisions and bad governance, giving authoritarian countries ample opportunities to seize more power on the world stage. We can't even fight back effectively.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
stcredzero 10y ago
There is just no way you and I, amateurs commenting sporadically in our free time, have the resources to combat armies of paid trolls. I think that there are armies of amateurs with tons of free time. However, these are largely manipulated by armies of paid trolls. What's worse, is that the manipulation involves the normalization of non-thinking conformism, social coercion, and hate-filled groupthink. This applies to both sides of the political spectrum.
vkou 10y ago
"Authoritarian regimes have much less to fear from this. If we disrupt public opinion in China, who cares? They don't really need public consent to do anything." Every government, authoritarian, or not, continues to exist because they have the implicit consent of their subjects. Even in extremely repressive regimes, you'd be surprised at how many people support their leaders. My grandfather remembers people crying upon hearing the news of Stalin's death - and he has strong reasons to doubt that all of them were crocodile tears. Read Solzhenitzin - even in labour camps, there were people who continued to endorse the state. Them ending up in a camp? That was all just a misunderstanding, that will soon be cleared up, if they make enough appeals to the right people. The GULAG had no shortage of temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
MaysonL 10y ago
The really sinister thing is that we have paid, bad faith actors whose full time jobs are to spread misinformation and shape narratives online. There is just no way you and I, amateurs commenting sporadically in our free time, have the resources to combat armies of paid trolls. What's the difference between this and a lot of PR?
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  Secrecy and deception. Advertising and corporate PR are open about their interests, purveyors of payola and positive-reviews-for-freebies are usually recognisable and the people involved often admit it. Outright fabrication of big lies by paid PR/psyops operatives who pretend to be "one of us" is a different kettle of fish, and if it is repeated thousandfold, even people who are normally skeptic might at least perceive it as a plausible mainstream view.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

stcredzero 10y ago

There is just no way you and I, amateurs commenting sporadically in our free time, have the resources to combat armies of paid trolls. I think that there are armies of amateurs with tons of free time. However, these are largely manipulated by armies of paid trolls. What's worse, is that the manipulation involves the normalization of non-thinking conformism, social coercion, and hate-filled groupthink. This applies to both sides of the political spectrum.

vkou 10y ago

"Authoritarian regimes have much less to fear from this. If we disrupt public opinion in China, who cares? They don't really need public consent to do anything." Every government, authoritarian, or not, continues to exist because they have the implicit consent of their subjects. Even in extremely repressive regimes, you'd be surprised at how many people support their leaders. My grandfather remembers people crying upon hearing the news of Stalin's death - and he has strong reasons to doubt that all of them were crocodile tears. Read Solzhenitzin - even in labour camps, there were people who continued to endorse the state. Them ending up in a camp? That was all just a misunderstanding, that will soon be cleared up, if they make enough appeals to the right people. The GULAG had no shortage of temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

MaysonL 10y ago

The really sinister thing is that we have paid, bad faith actors whose full time jobs are to spread misinformation and shape narratives online. There is just no way you and I, amateurs commenting sporadically in our free time, have the resources to combat armies of paid trolls. What's the difference between this and a lot of PR?

MagnumOpus 10y ago
Secrecy and deception. Advertising and corporate PR are open about their interests, purveyors of payola and positive-reviews-for-freebies are usually recognisable and the people involved often admit it. Outright fabrication of big lies by paid PR/psyops operatives who pretend to be "one of us" is a different kettle of fish, and if it is repeated thousandfold, even people who are normally skeptic might at least perceive it as a plausible mainstream view.