4 ms·

Radio Free Asia (unsure of legitimacy of this site) has stated China used TikTok data out of the Houston consulate (remember it was shut down by the State Depar

Radio Free Asia (unsure of legitimacy of this site) has stated China used TikTok data out of the Houston consulate (remember it was shut down by the State Department out of the blue and neighbors were filming the consulate burning documents in the courtyard) to manipulate the BLM protest narrative: https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3876672/posts https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3876672/posts “The purpose was to “weaponize” big data technology. It delivered relevant materials precisely to those people who were most likely to participate in the protests, while other people could not even find those videos.” From the article there’s mention of fake IDs. That made me think of this news item: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/shipments-of-nearly-20000-fake-drivers-licenses-seized-at-chicago-airport https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/shipments-of-nearly-20000-f... Something is afoot and TikTok needs to not be here anymore.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Radio Free Asia has been founded by the CIA, and is generally considered to be a propaganda rag. Would not use it as a source, and if you can only find RFA as a source and not much else it's probably outright false.
- president 6y ago
  Something can be propaganda but still remain factual. Agree that framing and bias can still be present but you can't just dismiss it as false without overwhelming proof otherwise you're just making a bad faith argument.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    You can't prove a negative. If the only source for something was TASS or the CGTN and you couldn't find any other source, it would be treated as false until proof of the contrary. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something to provide a credible source. The CIA is not a good source for things that conflict with US interests.
    - singlow 6y ago
      Any evidence that the CIA is involved with the modern RFA, which is a different organization than the one with the same name that the CIA ran in the 50s?
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Right. So RFA was created by the CIA. In 1971 the directorship was transferred to the BIB. In 1994 the directorship was transferred once again to the USIA. In 1999, the directorship was transferred to the AGM. All four of these organizations are under the direct control of the US State Department. Seems to me that this is just shuffling around to obfuscate who owns what. It still uses the same tactics, is directed by the same people, and operates under the same name, it's just a game of shell companies. However, I never claimed it was still directly controlled by the CIA. It's still controlled by the State Department, and is indeed founded by the CIA, as there is continuity between the CIA and the modern RFA. By the standard that you are requesting, that is to prove that the CIA is still directly connected to RFA right this present minute, it's not realistic to provide such proof. However, there is proof that the RFA is still commanded by the same people as under the CIA, and that is sufficient.
    - president 6y ago
      You literally made a claim without providing any evidence. Just because the CIA created something doesn't mean it's false. Do you hear yourself? And I'm the one being downvoted...unbelievable.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        I didn't. I claimed that RFA is an unreliable source on topics that directly have to do with the interests of US foreign policy because it was founded by the CIA expressly as propaganda and is under the control of the State Department. I'm willing to accept that the information might be true, which is why I'm asking for a reliable source. If some information is only reported by a source that is very interested and was created for propaganda, it is likely false.
- singlow 6y ago
  Wasn't that a different organization that operated in the 50s? The modern RFA started in the 90s and gets federal funding but is not associated with the CIA. They probably should have used a new name, but is there any other reason you think they are a CIA rag?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Right, so it went from direct CIA command to command by another independent unaccountable US State Department agency in order to further the exact same goal, because of optics. There is no difference between the two. It went from one three-letter agency to another three-letter agency, and it's goals and methods did not change. When US intelligence has credible proof of something and want to be trusted, they go to reputable media or outright publishes it.
    - swordsmith 6y ago
      Not if the "reputable media" are pressured/threatened by CCP
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Sure. So now the only source we're going to trust is the US State Department. Which, by the way, has quite the history in threatening journalists too. Also, many news sources are already banned in China and have nothing to lose.
nxc18 6y ago
Trump administration has been actively corrupting radio free Asia: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/879873926/trumps-new-foreign-broadcasting-ceo-fires-news-chiefs-raising-fears-of-meddling https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/879873926/trumps-new-foreign-... It was legitimate a few years ago, but nowadays I don’t trust it.

sudosysgen 6y ago

Radio Free Asia has been founded by the CIA, and is generally considered to be a propaganda rag. Would not use it as a source, and if you can only find RFA as a source and not much else it's probably outright false.

president 6y ago
Something can be propaganda but still remain factual. Agree that framing and bias can still be present but you can't just dismiss it as false without overwhelming proof otherwise you're just making a bad faith argument.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  You can't prove a negative. If the only source for something was TASS or the CGTN and you couldn't find any other source, it would be treated as false until proof of the contrary. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something to provide a credible source. The CIA is not a good source for things that conflict with US interests.
  - singlow 6y ago
    Any evidence that the CIA is involved with the modern RFA, which is a different organization than the one with the same name that the CIA ran in the 50s?
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Right. So RFA was created by the CIA. In 1971 the directorship was transferred to the BIB. In 1994 the directorship was transferred once again to the USIA. In 1999, the directorship was transferred to the AGM. All four of these organizations are under the direct control of the US State Department. Seems to me that this is just shuffling around to obfuscate who owns what. It still uses the same tactics, is directed by the same people, and operates under the same name, it's just a game of shell companies. However, I never claimed it was still directly controlled by the CIA. It's still controlled by the State Department, and is indeed founded by the CIA, as there is continuity between the CIA and the modern RFA. By the standard that you are requesting, that is to prove that the CIA is still directly connected to RFA right this present minute, it's not realistic to provide such proof. However, there is proof that the RFA is still commanded by the same people as under the CIA, and that is sufficient.
  - president 6y ago
    You literally made a claim without providing any evidence. Just because the CIA created something doesn't mean it's false. Do you hear yourself? And I'm the one being downvoted...unbelievable.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      I didn't. I claimed that RFA is an unreliable source on topics that directly have to do with the interests of US foreign policy because it was founded by the CIA expressly as propaganda and is under the control of the State Department. I'm willing to accept that the information might be true, which is why I'm asking for a reliable source. If some information is only reported by a source that is very interested and was created for propaganda, it is likely false.
singlow 6y ago
Wasn't that a different organization that operated in the 50s? The modern RFA started in the 90s and gets federal funding but is not associated with the CIA. They probably should have used a new name, but is there any other reason you think they are a CIA rag?
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Right, so it went from direct CIA command to command by another independent unaccountable US State Department agency in order to further the exact same goal, because of optics. There is no difference between the two. It went from one three-letter agency to another three-letter agency, and it's goals and methods did not change. When US intelligence has credible proof of something and want to be trusted, they go to reputable media or outright publishes it.
  - swordsmith 6y ago
    Not if the "reputable media" are pressured/threatened by CCP
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Sure. So now the only source we're going to trust is the US State Department. Which, by the way, has quite the history in threatening journalists too. Also, many news sources are already banned in China and have nothing to lose.

nxc18 6y ago

Trump administration has been actively corrupting radio free Asia: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/879873926/trumps-new-foreign-broadcasting-ceo-fires-news-chiefs-raising-fears-of-meddling https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/879873926/trumps-new-foreign-... It was legitimate a few years ago, but nowadays I don’t trust it.