5 ms·

Not the first time I've heard someone argue that state-sponsored agitprop is free speech, while suppressing it on a private platform is somehow dystopian. Igno

Not the first time I've heard someone argue that state-sponsored agitprop is free speech, while suppressing it on a private platform is somehow dystopian. Ignorance is strength?

mastazi 7y ago
> state-sponsored agitprop as defined by the board of Twitter, Inc.? I stand by my "ignorance" then.
vkou 7y ago
State-sponsored agitprop bad, private, corporate-sponsored agitprop good. Am I understanding the implications of your post correctly?
- WhatIsDukkha 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism I think is pretty directly relevant to your "question"? So unless we deal with the problem of Coca Cola being on twitter we can't deal with state sponsored bots? Your question seems insincere and merely aimed at morally confusing the issue to no useful purpose.
  - vkou 7y ago
    How on Earth is pointing out the hypocrisy of censoring paid propaganda by a state actor, but not by a corporate actor whataboutism? This is an incredibly relevant issue. And we're not even trying to 'deal with the problem of Coca Cola being on Twitter'. The whole raison d'etre for Twitter's existence is dissemination of paid propaganda by corporate actors. It's what keeps the lights on at Twitter! Ads, promoted tweets, and other forms of paid speech.
    - WhatIsDukkha 7y ago
      If the difference between a State and a Corporation is that muddled in your mind it's your issue not the rest of ours. It's a critical part of being a discerning person to be able to BOTH say how things are similar and how they differ. You seem to have no test for discerning how Coca Cola and the Russian government differ.
      - vkou 7y ago
        For someone who doesn't live in Russia, the difference is academic, and they are far more similar, than they are different. Actually, now that I think about it - one key difference is that shitty sugary drinks have killed more Americans then the Russian government did. Another is that corporations buying candidates, by virtue of sponsoring their political campaigns have done more to undermine, subvert, and corrupt democracy than the Kremlin could ever dream of. You say the Russians have improperly 'influenced' elections? China astroturfs their global image? Please contrast that to to both the effort expended by, and the rewards gained by the fossil fuel industry, in 'influencing' elections, and astroturfing its global image. Everyone's getting their knickers in a twist because some Trump staffer had some meetings with the Russian government - yet half the politicans in Washington are regurgitating talking points straight from a corporate press release. But I suppose propaganda from the former is kosher, because they have a clear profit motive for it, eh?
        cameronbrown 7y ago
        > Actually, now that I think about it - one key difference is that shitty sugary drinks have killed more Americans then the Russian government did. The difference is agency. The people that chose to drink those drinks were able to make that decision, not helpless to some corporation. You don't get to choose not to be assassinated by a Russian agent.
        vkou 7y ago
        That's a load of crock. By that same argument, since you have the agency to think for yourself and vote however you want, foreign propaganda should have zero impact on our elections. I also don't have any choice in whether or not I personally get to deal with the negative social impacts of overconsumption of sugary drinks, overextraction of fossil fuels, or politicians bought by the healthcare cartels. I have to live with all of it.
cameronbrown 7y ago
Prove that it's state sponsored. The point is, we can't. Not without Twitter sharing their data and methodologies. I've heard too many horror stories about being axed from the internet by a faceless corporation to accept their judgement blindly.
human20190310 7y ago
I think part of the problem is that Twitter is rooted in American assumptions about propaganda that don't apply globally. America isn't propaganda-free, of course, but there's enough competing/conflicting propaganda that things kind-of balance out. (Or at least historically they did; increased silo-ing is reducing exposure to conflicting opinions even here). Opening the platform to countries like Saudi Arabia and China brings fully-functional propaganda operations into the global mix, for which there is no existing competition. Nobody really knows what to do about it.
excursionist 7y ago
Do these 'state-sponsored' accounts have a footer '- sponsored by X' in their posts? How are you determining what is state-sponsored?

Not the first time I've heard someone argue that state-sponsored agitprop is free speech, while suppressing it on a private platform is somehow dystopian. Ignorance is strength?

mastazi 7y ago

> state-sponsored agitprop as defined by the board of Twitter, Inc.? I stand by my "ignorance" then.

vkou 7y ago

State-sponsored agitprop bad, private, corporate-sponsored agitprop good. Am I understanding the implications of your post correctly?

WhatIsDukkha 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism I think is pretty directly relevant to your "question"? So unless we deal with the problem of Coca Cola being on twitter we can't deal with state sponsored bots? Your question seems insincere and merely aimed at morally confusing the issue to no useful purpose.
- vkou 7y ago
  How on Earth is pointing out the hypocrisy of censoring paid propaganda by a state actor, but not by a corporate actor whataboutism? This is an incredibly relevant issue. And we're not even trying to 'deal with the problem of Coca Cola being on Twitter'. The whole raison d'etre for Twitter's existence is dissemination of paid propaganda by corporate actors. It's what keeps the lights on at Twitter! Ads, promoted tweets, and other forms of paid speech.
  - WhatIsDukkha 7y ago
    If the difference between a State and a Corporation is that muddled in your mind it's your issue not the rest of ours. It's a critical part of being a discerning person to be able to BOTH say how things are similar and how they differ. You seem to have no test for discerning how Coca Cola and the Russian government differ.
    - vkou 7y ago
      For someone who doesn't live in Russia, the difference is academic, and they are far more similar, than they are different. Actually, now that I think about it - one key difference is that shitty sugary drinks have killed more Americans then the Russian government did. Another is that corporations buying candidates, by virtue of sponsoring their political campaigns have done more to undermine, subvert, and corrupt democracy than the Kremlin could ever dream of. You say the Russians have improperly 'influenced' elections? China astroturfs their global image? Please contrast that to to both the effort expended by, and the rewards gained by the fossil fuel industry, in 'influencing' elections, and astroturfing its global image. Everyone's getting their knickers in a twist because some Trump staffer had some meetings with the Russian government - yet half the politicans in Washington are regurgitating talking points straight from a corporate press release. But I suppose propaganda from the former is kosher, because they have a clear profit motive for it, eh?
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        > Actually, now that I think about it - one key difference is that shitty sugary drinks have killed more Americans then the Russian government did. The difference is agency. The people that chose to drink those drinks were able to make that decision, not helpless to some corporation. You don't get to choose not to be assassinated by a Russian agent.
        vkou 7y ago
        That's a load of crock. By that same argument, since you have the agency to think for yourself and vote however you want, foreign propaganda should have zero impact on our elections. I also don't have any choice in whether or not I personally get to deal with the negative social impacts of overconsumption of sugary drinks, overextraction of fossil fuels, or politicians bought by the healthcare cartels. I have to live with all of it.

cameronbrown 7y ago

Prove that it's state sponsored. The point is, we can't. Not without Twitter sharing their data and methodologies. I've heard too many horror stories about being axed from the internet by a faceless corporation to accept their judgement blindly.

human20190310 7y ago

I think part of the problem is that Twitter is rooted in American assumptions about propaganda that don't apply globally. America isn't propaganda-free, of course, but there's enough competing/conflicting propaganda that things kind-of balance out. (Or at least historically they did; increased silo-ing is reducing exposure to conflicting opinions even here). Opening the platform to countries like Saudi Arabia and China brings fully-functional propaganda operations into the global mix, for which there is no existing competition. Nobody really knows what to do about it.

excursionist 7y ago

Do these 'state-sponsored' accounts have a footer '- sponsored by X' in their posts? How are you determining what is state-sponsored?