4 ms·

I'm surprised they're not disclosing the US ones.

mc32 6y ago
Do you mean the ones promoting this or that cause and who are normally aligned with one or the other major parties or significant pols?
ASalazarMX 6y ago
Or the Mexican ones, who even tag themselves with the #RedAMLO hashtag.
colordrops 6y ago
Yes, the greater context is that there are many entities exhibiting this sort of behavior online, not just countries and not just those three countries.
nullc 6y ago
AFAIK twitter doesn't even ban US state operated psy-ops, not even ones targeting US citizens. They should require all parties posting on behalf of a state or as part of a contract for a state identify themselves...
- not_a_moth 6y ago
  Given the revolving door at Twitter, or other mainstream media outlets for that matter, this isn't surprising.
threeseed 6y ago
I can't imagine US being all that significant. Biden, Trump and various members of both camps command more than enough attention through their own Twitter accounts. Likewise pushing political agendas is largely superfluous given you can just lobby politicians directly without needed public support.
- guug 6y ago
  You're not considering foreign operations. If included, I bet the US would be at the forefront.
  - killjoywashere 6y ago
    If the US is conducting psy-ops on social media against adversaries, wouldn't they use media companies popular in that country? And, if that were Twitter, wouldn't the language barrier still make it relatively harder for Twitter (a company staffed predominantly by English-speaking employees) to investigate? Additionally, does it merit discriminating between offensive and defensive psy-ops? Might there, for example, be government-controled bots injecting wholesomememes content into the feeds of depressed government employees? Does Twitter have a different obligation in that context?
    - yorwba 6y ago
      > wouldn't the language barrier still make it relatively harder for Twitter (a company staffed predominantly by English-speaking employees) to investigate That doesn't seem to have stopped them from banning accounts posting in Chinese. > government-controled bots injecting wholesomememes content into the feeds of depressed government employees That would still be "coordinated inauthentic behavior".
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Luckily the censorship game in the US is strong, but not that strong. I read a book about propaganda written by someone who wrote it for the US in WW2, and he was able to explicitly state (a chapter or two in) that he only gave examples of axis propaganda in the book because his side's were classified, but to remember that everyone did the same things. (he did leave for a footnote that for examples of pornographic propaganda one would have to visit archives at an address in Washington DC; guess that'd be the 1950's talking)
- adrr 6y ago
  There’s fake ones like the @antifa_us account that was run by a white nationalist organization. It was promoting violence against white neighborhoods and was amplified by the Trump campaign and conservative media.
metrokoi 6y ago
It's easy and safe to disclose networks of states that have no power over you. The information operations that are not disclosed are the ones you really need to worry about.
bosswipe 6y ago
Whatabout... the US.
KSteffensen 6y ago
Wouldn't disclosing any US sponsored psy-ops be illegal by US law?
- SargeZT 6y ago
  The press is protected by precedent (and the first amendment in general); they can publish any material they want, no matter how classified it is. The person who gets in trouble is the one who broke the laws and gave the material to the press. The government has asked things not to be published in the past, particularly in the aeropspace sector. Sometime the press has complied, sometimes it hasn't. Hell, the organization I used to work for has at least 3 pieces of TS material on their wikipedia page. Years back I brought my concerns to the security manager and they said "the worst thing you can do with classified material is try to remove it, because you're just validating that it's classified and correct."
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    > The press is protected by precedent Is journalism a protected profession? In my country journalists are not, so they have the same rights/obligations as anyone. > The person who gets in trouble is the one who broke the laws and gave the material to the press. What if the information leaked contained evidence of crime? We have still people in prison for that...

mc32 6y ago

Do you mean the ones promoting this or that cause and who are normally aligned with one or the other major parties or significant pols?

ASalazarMX 6y ago

Or the Mexican ones, who even tag themselves with the #RedAMLO hashtag.

colordrops 6y ago

Yes, the greater context is that there are many entities exhibiting this sort of behavior online, not just countries and not just those three countries.

nullc 6y ago

AFAIK twitter doesn't even ban US state operated psy-ops, not even ones targeting US citizens. They should require all parties posting on behalf of a state or as part of a contract for a state identify themselves...

not_a_moth 6y ago
Given the revolving door at Twitter, or other mainstream media outlets for that matter, this isn't surprising.

threeseed 6y ago

I can't imagine US being all that significant. Biden, Trump and various members of both camps command more than enough attention through their own Twitter accounts. Likewise pushing political agendas is largely superfluous given you can just lobby politicians directly without needed public support.

guug 6y ago
You're not considering foreign operations. If included, I bet the US would be at the forefront.
- killjoywashere 6y ago
  If the US is conducting psy-ops on social media against adversaries, wouldn't they use media companies popular in that country? And, if that were Twitter, wouldn't the language barrier still make it relatively harder for Twitter (a company staffed predominantly by English-speaking employees) to investigate? Additionally, does it merit discriminating between offensive and defensive psy-ops? Might there, for example, be government-controled bots injecting wholesomememes content into the feeds of depressed government employees? Does Twitter have a different obligation in that context?
  - yorwba 6y ago
    > wouldn't the language barrier still make it relatively harder for Twitter (a company staffed predominantly by English-speaking employees) to investigate That doesn't seem to have stopped them from banning accounts posting in Chinese. > government-controled bots injecting wholesomememes content into the feeds of depressed government employees That would still be "coordinated inauthentic behavior".
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Luckily the censorship game in the US is strong, but not that strong. I read a book about propaganda written by someone who wrote it for the US in WW2, and he was able to explicitly state (a chapter or two in) that he only gave examples of axis propaganda in the book because his side's were classified, but to remember that everyone did the same things. (he did leave for a footnote that for examples of pornographic propaganda one would have to visit archives at an address in Washington DC; guess that'd be the 1950's talking)
adrr 6y ago
There’s fake ones like the @antifa_us account that was run by a white nationalist organization. It was promoting violence against white neighborhoods and was amplified by the Trump campaign and conservative media.

metrokoi 6y ago

It's easy and safe to disclose networks of states that have no power over you. The information operations that are not disclosed are the ones you really need to worry about.

bosswipe 6y ago

Whatabout... the US.

KSteffensen 6y ago

Wouldn't disclosing any US sponsored psy-ops be illegal by US law?

SargeZT 6y ago
The press is protected by precedent (and the first amendment in general); they can publish any material they want, no matter how classified it is. The person who gets in trouble is the one who broke the laws and gave the material to the press. The government has asked things not to be published in the past, particularly in the aeropspace sector. Sometime the press has complied, sometimes it hasn't. Hell, the organization I used to work for has at least 3 pieces of TS material on their wikipedia page. Years back I brought my concerns to the security manager and they said "the worst thing you can do with classified material is try to remove it, because you're just validating that it's classified and correct."
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  > The press is protected by precedent Is journalism a protected profession? In my country journalists are not, so they have the same rights/obligations as anyone. > The person who gets in trouble is the one who broke the laws and gave the material to the press. What if the information leaked contained evidence of crime? We have still people in prison for that...