4 ms·

That's a very selective interpretation on events. ISIS propaganda spread like wildfire through Twitter. The administration did nothing and the media barely ma

by evv555 5y ago

That's a very selective interpretation on events. ISIS propaganda spread like wildfire through Twitter. The administration did nothing and the media barely made a peep about the root cause until the horses had already left the barn. None of these "concerned" stakeholders gave a shit about the socially corrosive nature of social media and they still don't beyond their own interests.

rchaud 5y ago
Where's your proof that the administration did nothing? Shutting down terrorism content is about the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. I have never seen ISIS propaganda. Plenty of "Fauci went to school with Bill Gates and was CEO of Moderna" memes, though.
- evv555 5y ago
  >Where's your proof that the administration did nothing? Shutting down terrorism content is about the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. Before they were terrorists they were "insurgents" of the "Arab Spring". Something that the administration and Twitter/SM were more than willing to lean into before they lost control of the situation. >I have never seen ISIS propaganda. Plenty of "Fauci went to school with Bill Gates and was CEO of Moderna" memes, though. That's more a function of your age and filter bubble not whether there was ISIS propaganda which is well documented.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    What remains undocumented however is your claim that no action was taken.
    - evv555 5y ago
      This is a very strange approach to discourse. What action do you think was taken and where's the documentation? The administration was openly showing support for the Arab Spring mobs and even built up a military coalition in its support. Lack of knowledge on current events isn't the same as taking a skeptical stance.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        I mean, this isn't really true: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1370/close-parts-internet-where-isis/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpomete... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-plans-shake-up-in-propaganda-war-against-the-islamic-state/2016/01/08/d482255c-b585-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/technology-once-used-to-combat-isis-propaganda-is-enlisted-by-democratic-group-to-counter-trumps-coronavirus-messaging/2020/05/01/6bed5f70-8a5b-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/technology-once-used... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07/hillary-clinton-wants-tech-companies-to-help-disrupt-isis-what-does-that-even-mean/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07... ... Social media companies actually had a hugely successful anti-ISIS recruiting and propoganda campaign. This was something that everyone wanted a bit of credit for, but was ultimately totally uncontroversial because terrorists bad and no one complains when companies deplatform them.
        evv555 5y ago
        Your assertion is orthogonal to the original thread. When the "Arab Spring" started all the talking heads were going on about free speech, Democratic values, the positive role social media is playing, and beating the war drums. It's only after the situation had started threatening geopolitical interests did the tune change. >Social media companies actually had a hugely successful anti-ISIS recruiting and propoganda campaign. I question if that's the case. That's like closing the barn doors after the horses have already left. The networks were already in place. The damage already done. Aggregators like r/syriancivilwar had no shortage of atrocities to share most of which directly from social media.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        I'm having a hard time seeing your point. It seems like you're saying that because [entities] only started to do online counterinsurgency once ISIS was somewhat established, those entities didn't actually try to shutdown extremist content. And well that's silly for two reasons. The first is that the social media landscape was very different 10 years (yeah really!) ago when the Arab Spring started, the companies didn't have "stop terrorism" on their radar. The second is well until 2013 or 2014, ISIS wasn't really a thing (of note). So no one cared. For better or worse, denoting something as a terrorist organization matters. Countering terrorist propoganda sounds a lot better than countering propoganda put out by arab spring protestors agitating for more democratic governments. And actually a third is that a lot of the initial arab spring was explicitly about pro-democratic and non-muslim or more secular governments. So this whole complaint doesn't make a lot of sense. Like yes, people were in favor of the use of social media for democratic organizing. I'm just very confused, what point are you trying to convey.
- throwawayjeje 5y ago
  occasionally I like to view the internet through a translating service. It's fascinating how different the world becomes outside Western European languages. Try it.

by evv555 5y ago

rchaud 5y ago

Where's your proof that the administration did nothing? Shutting down terrorism content is about the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. I have never seen ISIS propaganda. Plenty of "Fauci went to school with Bill Gates and was CEO of Moderna" memes, though.

evv555 5y ago
>Where's your proof that the administration did nothing? Shutting down terrorism content is about the easiest political slam dunk imaginable. Before they were terrorists they were "insurgents" of the "Arab Spring". Something that the administration and Twitter/SM were more than willing to lean into before they lost control of the situation. >I have never seen ISIS propaganda. Plenty of "Fauci went to school with Bill Gates and was CEO of Moderna" memes, though. That's more a function of your age and filter bubble not whether there was ISIS propaganda which is well documented.
- rchaud 5y ago
  What remains undocumented however is your claim that no action was taken.
  - evv555 5y ago
    This is a very strange approach to discourse. What action do you think was taken and where's the documentation? The administration was openly showing support for the Arab Spring mobs and even built up a military coalition in its support. Lack of knowledge on current events isn't the same as taking a skeptical stance.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      I mean, this isn't really true: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1370/close-parts-internet-where-isis/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpomete... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-plans-shake-up-in-propaganda-war-against-the-islamic-state/2016/01/08/d482255c-b585-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/technology-once-used-to-combat-isis-propaganda-is-enlisted-by-democratic-group-to-counter-trumps-coronavirus-messaging/2020/05/01/6bed5f70-8a5b-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/technology-once-used... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07/hillary-clinton-wants-tech-companies-to-help-disrupt-isis-what-does-that-even-mean/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/07... ... Social media companies actually had a hugely successful anti-ISIS recruiting and propoganda campaign. This was something that everyone wanted a bit of credit for, but was ultimately totally uncontroversial because terrorists bad and no one complains when companies deplatform them.
      - evv555 5y ago
        Your assertion is orthogonal to the original thread. When the "Arab Spring" started all the talking heads were going on about free speech, Democratic values, the positive role social media is playing, and beating the war drums. It's only after the situation had started threatening geopolitical interests did the tune change. >Social media companies actually had a hugely successful anti-ISIS recruiting and propoganda campaign. I question if that's the case. That's like closing the barn doors after the horses have already left. The networks were already in place. The damage already done. Aggregators like r/syriancivilwar had no shortage of atrocities to share most of which directly from social media.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        I'm having a hard time seeing your point. It seems like you're saying that because [entities] only started to do online counterinsurgency once ISIS was somewhat established, those entities didn't actually try to shutdown extremist content. And well that's silly for two reasons. The first is that the social media landscape was very different 10 years (yeah really!) ago when the Arab Spring started, the companies didn't have "stop terrorism" on their radar. The second is well until 2013 or 2014, ISIS wasn't really a thing (of note). So no one cared. For better or worse, denoting something as a terrorist organization matters. Countering terrorist propoganda sounds a lot better than countering propoganda put out by arab spring protestors agitating for more democratic governments. And actually a third is that a lot of the initial arab spring was explicitly about pro-democratic and non-muslim or more secular governments. So this whole complaint doesn't make a lot of sense. Like yes, people were in favor of the use of social media for democratic organizing. I'm just very confused, what point are you trying to convey.
throwawayjeje 5y ago
occasionally I like to view the internet through a translating service. It's fascinating how different the world becomes outside Western European languages. Try it.