5 ms·

Why would that be a bad thing? The Republicans influence FoxNews. The Democrats influence CNN. Why wouldn't China also influence some outlets? It's a free m

by 323 5y ago

Why would that be a bad thing? The Republicans influence FoxNews. The Democrats influence CNN. Why wouldn't China also influence some outlets? It's a free market, you don't like a media source, you are free to use one suitable to your bias.

cscurmudgeon 5y ago
The Republicans and Democrats are the same as US gov. > It's a free market It is not a free market. The US govt. can't influence popular media inside China.
andreilys 5y ago
It's more akin to a CNN guest not disclosing the fact that they're on the CCP payroll and will have their opinion influenced as a result.
uniqueuid 5y ago
It's not a free market for manipulation. There are laws and rules designed to safeguard open and free exchange of information and opinions, and covert influence is regularly forbidden. The big difference is that domestic influence is much easier to (eventually) unveil (see Watergate, Snowden, panama papers etc.). Foreign influence is harder to detect if it comes from a country that executes its whistleblowers and disappears its critics.
- 323 5y ago
  > It's not a free market for manipulation. Advertising, lobbying, PR, think tanks, ... are all legal. They are all in the market for manipulation.
  - uniqueuid 5y ago
    Right, these are legal and regulated forms of manipulation. Covert manipulation is mostly sanctioned through platform TOS and laws.
    - 323 5y ago
      You confuse "legal and regulated" with "transparent to the public". When Ford pays money to product place one of it's cars in a movie, that might be declared and invoiced in some contract, but you as a film watcher will never know it (unless they make a point of announcing it). So please explain how movie product placement is not covert. The same with PR, think tanks, and a lot of advertising.
      - uniqueuid 5y ago
        I am not confusing these terms. As usual, they represent a spectrum of desirability, harm, regulation and sanctions. Complete transparency to the public is of course an utopian goal. The key here is that political influence is handled very differently from commercial influence. Regulation of un-branded advertisements vary by country with some being more lenient and others more strict. But political content is frequently held to higher standards, and should be.
        323 5y ago
        Commercial content can be political content these days. Product placing a Ford truck and guns versus a Tesla car and rainbow t-shirts.
  - thomasahle 5y ago
    Advertised content is supposed to be marked as such; not guise as organic content and upvoted by lots of bots disguising as real users.
    - 323 5y ago
      Product placement is not marked. That's the whole idea before product placement, not marking it so that it appears "organic". When a think tank expert comes on TV and talks in favor of (or against) building an oil pipeline, they will briefly announce that "X is from the Open House think tank", but not mention "a know oil company defender".
mdasen 5y ago
When watching FoxNews or CNN, we know that someone is making editorial decisions. When looking at something popular on Twitter, we assume that the number of likes is "real" and not made-up. This is akin to FoxNews or CNN presenting a poll where they just made up fake data. This is akin to FoxNews or CNN interviewing someone and saying that they're "an independent voter" when they're actually a paid spokesperson for a political party. If comments and votes/likes/etc. come in without someone saying that they're paid-for views, it's very different. China can certainly influence media outlets in ways that one would consider fair. They can push CNN to have a Chinese Government Spokesperson interviewed. They would say a pro-China message, but viewers would be aware that they're a paid spokesperson. In the US, the FTC requires that paid promotion be disclosed because there's a difference between someone pushing a product because they're getting paid for it and someone talking about something they like. Similarly, there's a certain moral duty to disclose when you're being paid to push certain views/agendas. Likewise, we all hate fake reviews on products. This process is basically getting lots of fake social media accounts to give you "fake reviews" along with the impression of many people (who are actually fake) validating those fake reviews as real. We see it here on HN. People writing from mostly anonymous accounts will say things like, "full disclosure, I work at X, but not on anything related to Y." The reason why is that we feel we should be honest. We're (hopefully) not pushing agendas on here for money. We're just saying things that we think. I think China should be able to tweet things from government-labeled accounts to try and influence people. But what the article describes is basically a fake review problem. Shady companies hire people with fake accounts to post positive reviews. There's a reason people hate that.

by 323 5y ago

cscurmudgeon 5y ago

The Republicans and Democrats are the same as US gov. > It's a free market It is not a free market. The US govt. can't influence popular media inside China.

andreilys 5y ago

It's more akin to a CNN guest not disclosing the fact that they're on the CCP payroll and will have their opinion influenced as a result.

uniqueuid 5y ago

It's not a free market for manipulation. There are laws and rules designed to safeguard open and free exchange of information and opinions, and covert influence is regularly forbidden. The big difference is that domestic influence is much easier to (eventually) unveil (see Watergate, Snowden, panama papers etc.). Foreign influence is harder to detect if it comes from a country that executes its whistleblowers and disappears its critics.

323 5y ago
> It's not a free market for manipulation. Advertising, lobbying, PR, think tanks, ... are all legal. They are all in the market for manipulation.
- uniqueuid 5y ago
  Right, these are legal and regulated forms of manipulation. Covert manipulation is mostly sanctioned through platform TOS and laws.
  - 323 5y ago
    You confuse "legal and regulated" with "transparent to the public". When Ford pays money to product place one of it's cars in a movie, that might be declared and invoiced in some contract, but you as a film watcher will never know it (unless they make a point of announcing it). So please explain how movie product placement is not covert. The same with PR, think tanks, and a lot of advertising.
    - uniqueuid 5y ago
      I am not confusing these terms. As usual, they represent a spectrum of desirability, harm, regulation and sanctions. Complete transparency to the public is of course an utopian goal. The key here is that political influence is handled very differently from commercial influence. Regulation of un-branded advertisements vary by country with some being more lenient and others more strict. But political content is frequently held to higher standards, and should be.
      - 323 5y ago
        Commercial content can be political content these days. Product placing a Ford truck and guns versus a Tesla car and rainbow t-shirts.
- thomasahle 5y ago
  Advertised content is supposed to be marked as such; not guise as organic content and upvoted by lots of bots disguising as real users.
  - 323 5y ago
    Product placement is not marked. That's the whole idea before product placement, not marking it so that it appears "organic". When a think tank expert comes on TV and talks in favor of (or against) building an oil pipeline, they will briefly announce that "X is from the Open House think tank", but not mention "a know oil company defender".

mdasen 5y ago

When watching FoxNews or CNN, we know that someone is making editorial decisions. When looking at something popular on Twitter, we assume that the number of likes is "real" and not made-up. This is akin to FoxNews or CNN presenting a poll where they just made up fake data. This is akin to FoxNews or CNN interviewing someone and saying that they're "an independent voter" when they're actually a paid spokesperson for a political party. If comments and votes/likes/etc. come in without someone saying that they're paid-for views, it's very different. China can certainly influence media outlets in ways that one would consider fair. They can push CNN to have a Chinese Government Spokesperson interviewed. They would say a pro-China message, but viewers would be aware that they're a paid spokesperson. In the US, the FTC requires that paid promotion be disclosed because there's a difference between someone pushing a product because they're getting paid for it and someone talking about something they like. Similarly, there's a certain moral duty to disclose when you're being paid to push certain views/agendas. Likewise, we all hate fake reviews on products. This process is basically getting lots of fake social media accounts to give you "fake reviews" along with the impression of many people (who are actually fake) validating those fake reviews as real. We see it here on HN. People writing from mostly anonymous accounts will say things like, "full disclosure, I work at X, but not on anything related to Y." The reason why is that we feel we should be honest. We're (hopefully) not pushing agendas on here for money. We're just saying things that we think. I think China should be able to tweet things from government-labeled accounts to try and influence people. But what the article describes is basically a fake review problem. Shady companies hire people with fake accounts to post positive reviews. There's a reason people hate that.