4 ms·

That New York Times article is interesting, if it is indeed illegal to target propaganda to American citizens it seems that VOA did so in violation of law and o

That New York Times article is interesting, if it is indeed illegal to target propaganda to American citizens it seems that VOA did so in violation of law and only stopped when caught doing so. That leads me to one of three conclusions: 1: Someone working for VOA felt that it was not illegal for them to do this making Business Insiders interpretation of the law at least plausible if not correct. 2: VOA knowingly used Facebook to target Americans with illegal propaganda. 3: Workers implementing VOA advertising were unable to understand that if you select "United States" as a target in Facebook's geo-targeting tool[0], that advertising indeed will be shown in the US. Three seems the least likely to me personally given the historical context and since being skeptical of news releases is likely good practice anyway I'm not convinced that you shouldn't be. To quote the same article: Weston R. Sager, a lawyer with firm Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell who has written about anti-propaganda laws, said that it was disturbing to see government-funded news agencies targeting Facebook ads at Americans, no matter their content. “I’m concerned that we’re seeing the beginning of government efforts to try to influence public opinion in the United States through the B.B.G. and its affiliate entities,” Mr. Sager said. “It’s one thing to read a tweet by Donald Trump. It’s another to receive a very polished news story from an organization that holds itself out as objective and fact-based.” [0]https://www.facebook.com/business/help/202297959811696 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/202297959811696

tivert 8y ago
> That leads me to one of three conclusions: There's a fourth speculative possibility: 4. The VOA ad-buyer isn't a robot and bent the rules to target ads at the US for testing purposes (e.g. to see with his own account). You could call such an act "propaganda illegally targeted at American citizens by the US government," and while technically true, it'd also be a hyperventilating overreaction. Especially since: > The ads included several human-interest stories about Russia and a graphic about NATO’s popularity. It's also worth noting a fact about the VOA's history. It was meant as an antidote to Soviet propaganda efforts, which featured heavy censorship and deliberately concocted lies [1] [2], by reporting truthfully according to Western journalistic standards. While that might still arguably be classified as propaganda (in its broadest form, an effort to convince someone of something), I'd find it difficult to honestly condemn it. I've read memoirs of dissidents that spoke very highly of it and its reporting, and they wouldn't have done so if it had been merely censoring and lying with a different bias. In my view, the modern desire to keep it out of the US is mainly born out of tradition and an abundance of caution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation#Defections_reveal_covert_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation#Defections_reve... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infektion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infektion > Three seems the least likely to me personally given the historical context and since being skeptical of news releases is likely good practice anyway I'm not convinced that you shouldn't be. I'm appropriately skeptical of news releases, but it's possible to be over-skeptical as well. That over-skeptical state is actually the goal of some forms of propaganda.

tivert 8y ago

> That leads me to one of three conclusions: There's a fourth speculative possibility: 4. The VOA ad-buyer isn't a robot and bent the rules to target ads at the US for testing purposes (e.g. to see with his own account). You could call such an act "propaganda illegally targeted at American citizens by the US government," and while technically true, it'd also be a hyperventilating overreaction. Especially since: > The ads included several human-interest stories about Russia and a graphic about NATO’s popularity. It's also worth noting a fact about the VOA's history. It was meant as an antidote to Soviet propaganda efforts, which featured heavy censorship and deliberately concocted lies [1] [2], by reporting truthfully according to Western journalistic standards. While that might still arguably be classified as propaganda (in its broadest form, an effort to convince someone of something), I'd find it difficult to honestly condemn it. I've read memoirs of dissidents that spoke very highly of it and its reporting, and they wouldn't have done so if it had been merely censoring and lying with a different bias. In my view, the modern desire to keep it out of the US is mainly born out of tradition and an abundance of caution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation#Defections_reveal_covert_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation#Defections_reve... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infektion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infektion > Three seems the least likely to me personally given the historical context and since being skeptical of news releases is likely good practice anyway I'm not convinced that you shouldn't be. I'm appropriately skeptical of news releases, but it's possible to be over-skeptical as well. That over-skeptical state is actually the goal of some forms of propaganda.