5 ms·

And all this in the 70s. Now imagine the level of sophistication propagandists have reached with the internet, where merely running ad campaigns on social medi

by imiric 4y ago

And all this in the 70s. Now imagine the level of sophistication propagandists have reached with the internet, where merely running ad campaigns on social media has the power to influence millions and directly control politics on a global scale. Cambridge Analytica was merely the tip of the iceberg. It's scary to think about the magnitude of the operations we don't hear about.

hime_kami 4y ago
The dudes are all about sun and surfs. They got nothing on them
BLKNSLVR 4y ago
It seems increasingly and screamingly obvious that it's not possible to have country-level power without any action to insert ones-self into, and assert ones power upon, the affairs of neighbouring countries in morally questionable and subversive ways. Which is just a longer way of saying: power corrupts. The problem I have with this realisation, is that this kind of behaviour sets a precedent for 'acceptability' for all groups and individuals on lower rungs than government - which is everyone. No wonder governments have trouble legislating against bad corporate behaviour, because they have done, and likely are in the midst of doing, shady shit themselves of a greater scale. I feel I'm exposing a level of my own naivete, but I'm trying to convey the path from government 'bad-ness' to the current level of social and civil mistrust in government and also inward looking perspectives on any and all actions (ie. what's in it for me, fuck y'all) that's encouraged by every exposure of such government-approved actions. You, Government, with all your power, cannot judge me, as a powerless individual member of the proletariat, as guilty and punishable for any crime lesser than that which you yourself has actively participated in and considered acceptable. The wind blows unhindered through your glass house.
- Aerroon 4y ago
  >It seems increasingly and screamingly obvious that it's not possible to have country-level power without any action to insert ones-self into, and assert ones power upon, the affairs of neighbouring countries in morally questionable and subversive ways. Which is just a longer way of saying: power corrupts. I think it can be done if the country is small enough and the government itself is small enough. Even if such states do end up meddling in the affairs of neighbors they won't be able to concentrate as much wealth into these actions as larger countries can.
  - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
    I'm wondering if it's a case of "idle hands are the devil's plaything", which would, as you've said, be easier for a larger country having a larger tax base and more cash-on-hand to spend on questionable pursuits. I'm also permanently intrigued as to whether it's possible to succeed as a government without being evil. The good of the many at the expense of the few means being evil to 'the few'. Hard decisions have to be made, and when they're made they need to be committed too lest inviting insanity from constant second-guessing. Tough gig either way, but the setting of behavioural precedents for "your people" should be of utmost consideration.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- usrn 4y ago
  Hopefully people understand why the libertarian position makes so much sense now.
  - IntrepidWorm 4y ago
    To be clear, there's many different socio-political doctrines that are inherently anti-governmental in nature, and supported by the above. Libertarianism is merely one of them.
pvg 4y ago
Now imagine the level of sophistication propagandists have reached Very little reason to believe they aren't, for the most part, as bunglingly ineffectual as they were then, especially when it comes to efforts tied to intelligence services or people trying to sell a service, like CA.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sofixa 4y ago
  > Very little reason to believe they aren't, for the most part, as bunglingly ineffectual as they were then Really? I thought there was plenty of reason. There has been lots of reporting on Russian troll farms and concentrated Russian efforts for Brexit, Donald Trump. There was also quite good reporting against the propaganda war in the Central African Republic between the French and Russian armies/intelligence services.
  - pvg 4y ago
    The existence of these efforts doesn't say much about their effectiveness, which is marginal at best. Notice how the 'successes' are always in perfect conditions. Decades of Soviet propaganda did next to nothing, yet suddenly, Russian propaganda is the most effective thing imaginable. Or a US-government-sponsored letter writing campaign by the better-off Italian Americans to their Italian relatives is credited with helping influence an election in struggling post-war Italy. There's a huge selection bias for the times there's even a hint of any kind of effect.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
CTDOCodebases 4y ago
Wasn’t it revealed that GCHQ had an active propaganda arm by Snowdens leaks?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jollybean 4y ago
Relating 'Camgridge Analytica' to this situation is a bit hyperbolic. CA 'scandal' was vastly misrepresented by most in the press, it was a bit of a problem, but completely over stated. I worked at a company that received 'special access APIs' from Facebook (something indicated during this scandal) and it was not only benign but the mechanics were misrepresented. That said - it's reasonable to wonder 'What Is Happening Now?' Another question is ... is it rational and/or moral? That's a more difficult question to contemplate for younger people I think, who have less exposure to the mechanics of the world, which are materially relevant. My view on that has evolved so much over time, it's so hard to say.
- imiric 4y ago
  > CA 'scandal' was vastly misrepresented by most in the press, it was a bit of a problem, but completely over stated. CA abused the friend-of-a-friend feature of FB's API to create detailed profiles of millions of voters, which they then used to micro-target them with ads. Advertisers are quite aware of the psychological effect of ads, and their ability to influence decision making, even on a subconscious level. It's pretty clear, then, how this would be useful for pushing propaganda, and swaying voters one way or another. The 2020 leaks[1] show that they've done this in 68 countries. Whether or not they were entirely responsible for election results is debatable, but you can't possibly call this "a bit of a problem" and "completely over stated". This is a very real and dangerous weaponization of social media, and it's not difficult to see how it's a natural progression of propaganda efforts from past decades. It would be naive to think that CA was the only and last firm operating in this business. They're just the ones we happened to hear about. > Another question is ... is it rational and/or moral? How is that even a question? There's nothing moral about getting paid by politicians to manipulate voters into voting for them. It's the modern equivalent of outright buying votes. If you don't see how that undermines democracies[2], then we have completely different worldviews. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-analytica-data-leak-global-election-manipulation https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-an... [2]: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2020/08/kreps-social-media-helping-undermine-democracy https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2020/08/kreps-social-media-...
  - 4y ago
macrolocal 4y ago
For example, feed manipulation is particularly concerning.
derevaunseraun 4y ago
> And all this in the 70s. It was just as bad before this With WWI, how did the european powers manage to convince their civilians to go die in the trenches fighting a meaningless war? Or Vietnam in the US The saying "if everyone jumped off the bridge..." is funny, because people will say it and forget what it means the moment everyone around them starts jumping off the bridge
- smackeyacky 4y ago
  "Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag and smile, smile, smile" "It's a long way to tipperary" Different medium, same outcome. Also a lot of yellow journalism.
- jlangenauer 4y ago
  In most countries, they simply conscripted them. There was no "convincing". Australia is one of the exceptions, although certainly not because the government didn't want conscription.
  - derevaunseraun 4y ago
    > In most countries, they simply conscripted them. There was no "convincing" But who conscripted them and dragged them off to war? Was it the politicians who decided to go to war? The "convincing" isn't necessary once it's reached critical mass
  - rswail 4y ago
    We didn't have conscription in WW1, but we did in WW2 and then "National Service" in the 50s. In the 60s there was a draft that had a "ball draw" every month with the date (a ball numbered from 1-28/30/31) and if you turned 18 on that date of the month, you were drafted. There were exemptions but it still seems a cruel form of gambling in a way.
    - opo 4y ago
      >We didn't have conscription in WW1, ... There was a military draft in WW I: >...By the end of World War I, some two million men volunteered for various branches of the armed services, and some 2.8 million had been drafted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917
ayngg 4y ago
It seems to me that when you have the ability to decide what is shown and how it is shown or framed, it is pretty easy from there to get people to fall into their respective positions and have them propagate and reinforce the narrative themselves. Like how social media relies on user generated content, I wouldn't be surprised if modern propaganda efforts are so successful because they get those that are propagandized to reinforce the narrative and its framing, like people making their own thought prisons. Even opposition nowadays is content in working within the established framework of narratives instead of questioning its validity.

by imiric 4y ago

hime_kami 4y ago

The dudes are all about sun and surfs. They got nothing on them

BLKNSLVR 4y ago

It seems increasingly and screamingly obvious that it's not possible to have country-level power without any action to insert ones-self into, and assert ones power upon, the affairs of neighbouring countries in morally questionable and subversive ways. Which is just a longer way of saying: power corrupts. The problem I have with this realisation, is that this kind of behaviour sets a precedent for 'acceptability' for all groups and individuals on lower rungs than government - which is everyone. No wonder governments have trouble legislating against bad corporate behaviour, because they have done, and likely are in the midst of doing, shady shit themselves of a greater scale. I feel I'm exposing a level of my own naivete, but I'm trying to convey the path from government 'bad-ness' to the current level of social and civil mistrust in government and also inward looking perspectives on any and all actions (ie. what's in it for me, fuck y'all) that's encouraged by every exposure of such government-approved actions. You, Government, with all your power, cannot judge me, as a powerless individual member of the proletariat, as guilty and punishable for any crime lesser than that which you yourself has actively participated in and considered acceptable. The wind blows unhindered through your glass house.

Aerroon 4y ago
>It seems increasingly and screamingly obvious that it's not possible to have country-level power without any action to insert ones-self into, and assert ones power upon, the affairs of neighbouring countries in morally questionable and subversive ways. Which is just a longer way of saying: power corrupts. I think it can be done if the country is small enough and the government itself is small enough. Even if such states do end up meddling in the affairs of neighbors they won't be able to concentrate as much wealth into these actions as larger countries can.
- BLKNSLVR 4y ago
  I'm wondering if it's a case of "idle hands are the devil's plaything", which would, as you've said, be easier for a larger country having a larger tax base and more cash-on-hand to spend on questionable pursuits. I'm also permanently intrigued as to whether it's possible to succeed as a government without being evil. The good of the many at the expense of the few means being evil to 'the few'. Hard decisions have to be made, and when they're made they need to be committed too lest inviting insanity from constant second-guessing. Tough gig either way, but the setting of behavioural precedents for "your people" should be of utmost consideration.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
usrn 4y ago
Hopefully people understand why the libertarian position makes so much sense now.
- IntrepidWorm 4y ago
  To be clear, there's many different socio-political doctrines that are inherently anti-governmental in nature, and supported by the above. Libertarianism is merely one of them.

pvg 4y ago

Now imagine the level of sophistication propagandists have reached Very little reason to believe they aren't, for the most part, as bunglingly ineffectual as they were then, especially when it comes to efforts tied to intelligence services or people trying to sell a service, like CA.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sofixa 4y ago
> Very little reason to believe they aren't, for the most part, as bunglingly ineffectual as they were then Really? I thought there was plenty of reason. There has been lots of reporting on Russian troll farms and concentrated Russian efforts for Brexit, Donald Trump. There was also quite good reporting against the propaganda war in the Central African Republic between the French and Russian armies/intelligence services.
- pvg 4y ago
  The existence of these efforts doesn't say much about their effectiveness, which is marginal at best. Notice how the 'successes' are always in perfect conditions. Decades of Soviet propaganda did next to nothing, yet suddenly, Russian propaganda is the most effective thing imaginable. Or a US-government-sponsored letter writing campaign by the better-off Italian Americans to their Italian relatives is credited with helping influence an election in struggling post-war Italy. There's a huge selection bias for the times there's even a hint of any kind of effect.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

CTDOCodebases 4y ago

Wasn’t it revealed that GCHQ had an active propaganda arm by Snowdens leaks?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jollybean 4y ago

Relating 'Camgridge Analytica' to this situation is a bit hyperbolic. CA 'scandal' was vastly misrepresented by most in the press, it was a bit of a problem, but completely over stated. I worked at a company that received 'special access APIs' from Facebook (something indicated during this scandal) and it was not only benign but the mechanics were misrepresented. That said - it's reasonable to wonder 'What Is Happening Now?' Another question is ... is it rational and/or moral? That's a more difficult question to contemplate for younger people I think, who have less exposure to the mechanics of the world, which are materially relevant. My view on that has evolved so much over time, it's so hard to say.

imiric 4y ago
> CA 'scandal' was vastly misrepresented by most in the press, it was a bit of a problem, but completely over stated. CA abused the friend-of-a-friend feature of FB's API to create detailed profiles of millions of voters, which they then used to micro-target them with ads. Advertisers are quite aware of the psychological effect of ads, and their ability to influence decision making, even on a subconscious level. It's pretty clear, then, how this would be useful for pushing propaganda, and swaying voters one way or another. The 2020 leaks[1] show that they've done this in 68 countries. Whether or not they were entirely responsible for election results is debatable, but you can't possibly call this "a bit of a problem" and "completely over stated". This is a very real and dangerous weaponization of social media, and it's not difficult to see how it's a natural progression of propaganda efforts from past decades. It would be naive to think that CA was the only and last firm operating in this business. They're just the ones we happened to hear about. > Another question is ... is it rational and/or moral? How is that even a question? There's nothing moral about getting paid by politicians to manipulate voters into voting for them. It's the modern equivalent of outright buying votes. If you don't see how that undermines democracies[2], then we have completely different worldviews. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-analytica-data-leak-global-election-manipulation https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-an... [2]: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2020/08/kreps-social-media-helping-undermine-democracy https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2020/08/kreps-social-media-...
- 4y ago

macrolocal 4y ago

For example, feed manipulation is particularly concerning.

derevaunseraun 4y ago

> And all this in the 70s. It was just as bad before this With WWI, how did the european powers manage to convince their civilians to go die in the trenches fighting a meaningless war? Or Vietnam in the US The saying "if everyone jumped off the bridge..." is funny, because people will say it and forget what it means the moment everyone around them starts jumping off the bridge

smackeyacky 4y ago
"Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag and smile, smile, smile" "It's a long way to tipperary" Different medium, same outcome. Also a lot of yellow journalism.
jlangenauer 4y ago
In most countries, they simply conscripted them. There was no "convincing". Australia is one of the exceptions, although certainly not because the government didn't want conscription.
- derevaunseraun 4y ago
  > In most countries, they simply conscripted them. There was no "convincing" But who conscripted them and dragged them off to war? Was it the politicians who decided to go to war? The "convincing" isn't necessary once it's reached critical mass
- rswail 4y ago
  We didn't have conscription in WW1, but we did in WW2 and then "National Service" in the 50s. In the 60s there was a draft that had a "ball draw" every month with the date (a ball numbered from 1-28/30/31) and if you turned 18 on that date of the month, you were drafted. There were exemptions but it still seems a cruel form of gambling in a way.
  - opo 4y ago
    >We didn't have conscription in WW1, ... There was a military draft in WW I: >...By the end of World War I, some two million men volunteered for various branches of the armed services, and some 2.8 million had been drafted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917

ayngg 4y ago

It seems to me that when you have the ability to decide what is shown and how it is shown or framed, it is pretty easy from there to get people to fall into their respective positions and have them propagate and reinforce the narrative themselves. Like how social media relies on user generated content, I wouldn't be surprised if modern propaganda efforts are so successful because they get those that are propagandized to reinforce the narrative and its framing, like people making their own thought prisons. Even opposition nowadays is content in working within the established framework of narratives instead of questioning its validity.