4 ms·
A security company commenting on these matters suggests undue interest in manipulating the infosec community. I would be interested to learn who paid/funded for
by superobserver 9y ago
A security company commenting on these matters suggests undue interest in manipulating the infosec community. I would be interested to learn who paid/funded for this slanted whitepaper. The absence of commentary on left-wing disinfo actors (Media Matters, Correct the Record, Shareblue, etc.) and principally those that operate according to yesterday's mainstream media methods is most telling.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- throwaway-1209 9y ago+1 any article about "fake news" that doesn't mention these multimillion dollar propaganda machines is itself fake news.
- superobserver 9y agoAbsolutely, but the underlying feature of that omission is that it is _clearly_ directed by a particular party at a specific audience.
- nl 9y agoOf course there are plenty of left wing disinformation actors. It's fairly well accepted that the huge 'Bernie Bros' online movement was amplified in the same way the Trump movement was. I don't blame the article for not including it because left wing disinformation has been mostly ineffective and uninteresting though. The most interesting exceptions are the AntiVaxxer movement (sometimes left associated) and the Caexit groups, which is a story worth looking at. Edit: it does include an example of left wing fake news: the false accusation of police burning a tent. It's actually pretty short on right wing examples (although I didn't read all the Chinese cases, so some of them maybe).
- superobserver 9y ago> I don't blame the article for not including it because left wing disinformation has been mostly ineffective and uninteresting though. So ineffective that a Bernie Bro shot a few congressmen? Give me a break. The rest of your commentary is similarly dismissive in a way that suggests an underlying bias unworthy of further comment.
- nl 9y agoSo ineffective that a Bernie Bro shot a few congressmen? Give me a break. When I wrote that I didn't know that connection. It clearly got a lot more interesting. The rest of your commentary is similarly dismissive in a way that suggests an underlying bias unworthy of further comment. No, it's arguing that you are seeing bias where there isn't any.
- tehwebguy 9y ago> A security company commenting on these matters suggests undue interest in manipulating the infosec community. Wait are you saying that it's so ridiculous for a security company to care about entities manipulating public opinion via the internet that it suggests they are trying to do the same thing? Of course this is within their realm. These guys have a solid track record. Not only for what basically became the de facto free Windows anti-virus for a decade plus but for doing research in all kinds of areas and publishing it to their blog: https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/research-and-analysis https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/research-and-an...
- superobserver 9y agoIt's a whitepaper made for the establishment by the establishment. Appeal to reputation is _not an argument_.
- cwkoss 9y agoAnother concerning datapoint: Google Now has recommended Shareblue propoganda articles as "Trending News". Pretty Orwellian.
- superobserver 9y agoGoogle has a long-standing bias that is comparable to other Silicon Valley tech companies. Their Newsstand app is like a certified stream of mainstream propaganda.
- fivestar 9y agoGoogle has abdicated all sense of objectivity, as have all the major SV tech companies. Not even a pretense that their technology is politically objective, but rather aligned with the far left now. It is disturbing, to say the least.