7 ms·

Effective propaganda is one of the US's strongest competitive advantages - extensive and well funded national security apparatus, think tanks with global reach,

Effective propaganda is one of the US's strongest competitive advantages - extensive and well funded national security apparatus, think tanks with global reach, compliant media publishers with global reach and big tech platforms used throughout the world, which can amplify and dampen messages, based on whether they suit US foreign policy objectives. We should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not 'investigate' it.

dirtyid 4y ago
Celebrate in private, but pretend to investigate and be concerned about values in public like the drone program. Narratives like this is part of the propaganda.
halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
The US has overall amazing projection generally, be it propaganda, military, culture, etc. I find it funny, looking back a couple years ago, that people were outright dismissing American hegemony but it looks alive and well today imo.
- andy_ppp 4y ago
  The issue I have is things could be substantially worse than US hegemony - for example there could be a lot more wars/nuclear proliferation if the US failed.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    It's the worst hegemony...except for all of the others. It doesn't have to be perfect.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      Says the hegemon. The victims of which there are plenty might have something resembling "fuck you" instead.
      - SyzygistSix 4y ago
        The US has indeed done a lot of damage abroad. However I can't really see anyone else using a gentler approach. Far more the opposite.
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    Are you sure? Where do you think the current path of the US is taking its citizens and the rest of the world? Wars are awful and a nuclear war would especially be so, but taking the slow road to an authoritarian state controlled by unknown forces hidden from view has the potential to be much worse. Think of your ideological worldview, now think of those who are the opposite. What happens if that group ends up in control without you even noticing it happening until it becomes a capital offense to point it out?
    - thfuran 4y ago
      It can't possibly be the case that we're currently headed to a secret takeover by a cabal exactly ideologically opposed to every reader.
      - feet 4y ago
        It's a thought experiment to try and point out the negative aspects of the current situation that could resonate with any reader
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      Realism predicts more war in a multipolar world.
      - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
        War isn't the only evil in the world.
        hackerlight 4y ago
        Other types of evil are also worse in a multipolar world.
  - troops_h8r 4y ago
    This is much easier to say if you're not living in any of its victim states, or under the boots of any of the vicious autocrats the US props up. Also, it's not like nuclear proliferation is solved. It's still breathing down our necks, we just don't talk about it anymore
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - asdff 4y ago
    Wouldn't there be no nuclear proliferation if the U.S. failed? Who designs weapons systems for NATO? The entire nuclear arms race wouldn't have happened if the U.S. didn't use the strategic bombing of citizens as a foreign policy platform 80 years ago.
- spamizbad 4y ago
  The US capitalized on the whole "US has declining global influence" meme* and used it to lay the groundwork for even more global influence. A real "Heads we win; tails you lose" sort of operation. *This is probably true in some areas but the opposite in others - our influence simply shifted.
  - okdood64 4y ago
    Interesting, elaborate?
    - pram 4y ago
      Seems to me shifting the narrative to an emerging 'multi-polar' world from the 'uni-polar' US hegemony might solidify alliances more than they otherwise would have been. Kinda like during the cold war you were on one team or another, no trying to play multiple sides.
      - erikerikson 4y ago
        Shifting to a multi-polar that in essence agrees to the best possible outcome, even as we explore it, seems perfectly within the interests of all. Such an alliance can be more stable and productive while guarding against misuse of the single point of control.
        spamizbad 4y ago
        Not sure I agree with that in practice, but maybe my understanding of history is flawed. Was the humanity better off during the Bi-polar era of the Cold War, with continuously escalating nuclear threats and proxy wars vs 1991-2010? What about the multi-polar world of 1919-1938?
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > a multi-polar that in essence agrees to the best possible outcome, even as we explore it, seems perfectly within the interests of all Multi-polarity is generally code for regional hegemony. That's great if you're the regional hegemon. Not so much if you're the hegemon's neighbor. America is a maritime power. These (think: Carthage, Venice, Portugal, the Dutch and Britain; counterfactual: Japan) have historically relied on trade, and trading outposts, to project power. As such, they're a natural friend of small countries resisting regional hegemony.
- adampk 4y ago
  Isn't China dictating Hollywood's scripts a challenge to this projection? Hollywood is the main exporter of American culture and values and that seems to have been compromised quite effectively in this last decade.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    > main exporter of American culture "foot-in-the-door" American culture maybe. I'd say it's a different projection of our culture at home.
  - steele 4y ago
    Complain about this in Mandarin
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Me: "Complain about China dictating Hollywood's scripts, but write the answer in Mandarin Chinese" GPT-3: 我覺得電影腳本被中國人牽制了 (Transition according to Google: "I think the movie script is being held back by the Chinese")
    - polytely 4y ago
      from what I've read it's perfectly fine to complain about stuff on the Chinese net, you start getting in trouble once you attempt to mobilize people
      - fortuna86 4y ago
        "Complain all you like, don't take steps to change or improve your situation." The biggest advocate for the fairness of a prison cell often is the prisoner.
        SyzygistSix 4y ago
        I don't feel like they were saying that was a good situation. Rather pointing it out as an instrument of control.
- concinds 4y ago
  While the U.S.'s core strength has always been propaganda (they got Operation Paperclip Nazis to becom American patriots, got the USSR to abolish itself, and the young Russian Federation to destroy itself with its infamous "shock therapy"), China also has quite strong propaganda, especially in Africa. And in Europe, go back 30 years and people still saw Americans as liberators; now, Europeans see it as a corrupt third-world country where people can't afford healthcare. And while it's true that U.S. cultural "force projection" hasn't weakened; they are being severely squeezed when it comes to trade dominance (https://merchantmachine.co.uk/china-vs-us/ https://merchantmachine.co.uk/china-vs-us/) and monetary dominance (see James Rickards' books). America still has its hegemony, but the notion that it's declining is very much mainstream in academia (https://www.routledge.com/Americas-Allies-and-the-Decline-of-US-Hegemony/Massie-Paquin/p/book/9781032086989 https://www.routledge.com/Americas-Allies-and-the-Decline-of...). Worse, its national security institutions have lost credibility among a significant portion of its electorate (MAGA people), and its military hegemony is now opposed by both populist left (pacifists) and populist right (non-interventionists). They're being squeezed both abroad and at home.
  - kilroy123 4y ago
    All empires eventually decline.
    - fortuna86 4y ago
      What colonies do the US maintain overseas? Or is the word "empire" just slang in this case ?
      - sargerage 4y ago
        Any country hosting US military bases and aligning itself with US foreign policy: Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. Pretty standard definition of an empire.
        jonnybgood 4y ago
        They could kick the US out at anytime. They won't because they want the US to be there. Not the standard definition at all.
jasfi 4y ago
The points for not playing dirty, and making that public, are worth it. Hopefully other countries take note.
- adampk 4y ago
  Have our adversaries historically ever taken note and followed more "enlightened" behavior?
  - weard_beard 4y ago
    Let me ask you, if you heard that in the next town over they started a dog fighting ring would you start one in your town and take your own dog so that he might learn from such "enlightened" behavior? I sleep much better knowing my dog isn't taught such behavior is acceptable. I would hate for him to bite the hand that feeds him because he learned such, "enlightened" behavior is acceptable and condoned by his owner.
    - adampk 4y ago
      So you do not have an example of any of our adversaries changing their behavior because we are acting more "enlightened", but you want to do it anyway because you believe it is good
      - weard_beard 4y ago
        I believe democracies are like caring for an animal. I don’t care if my neighbor beats his dog and ends up getting bit, I’m not a cruel idiot so I’m not going to join him.
- Mezzie 4y ago
  But they are less than the points for playing dirty and not getting caught are. Then you reap both the rewards of the sketchy behavior and the perception of moral behavior. So the logical thing to do is dump resources into keeping yourself from being caught.
- 4y ago
Eumenes 4y ago
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Found the defense contractor/federal employee You seem new here, but what you wrote is pure noise and violates the site guidelines.
  - Eumenes 4y ago
    Meh, defending the use of propaganda by a nation state seems antithetical to the culture of "hackers" ... but agreed, I'll be more thoughtful moving forward.
nyokodo 4y ago
> We should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not 'investigate' it. Ignoring any moral qualms or suspicions, any powerful weapon that isn’t actively overseen will inevitably be abused.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  who watchers the watchers though, this is infinitive regress. Besides, who or what is being abused, and what qualifies as such, as also part of the program
  - nyokodo 4y ago
    > who watchers the watchers though, this is infinitive regress. Infinite regress is only contemplated when you aim for perfect oversight which is impossible. The best we can hope for is 'as good as possible'. We the People, as well as possible, oversee that the appropriate authorities are, independently as possible, overseeing the use of weapons and interventions. It's obviously imperfect just like any other human endeavor but that's why we as citizens should fight for strong whistleblower protections, regular investigations/audits and reasonable timeframes for declassification etc so that we can do our job.
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    >who watchers the watchers though We all should - one of many arguments for complete transparency. Democracy dies behind closed doors. All the claims about the need for government secrecy, "national security", protecting "methods and sources" are trash when compared against the importance of transparency in a society purportedly governed by elected representatives of the people. The so-called "risks" posed by radical and complete government transparency are far less than the actual and tangible harms caused by the ever-growing secrecy afforded and demanded by those holding the levers of power.
banannaise 4y ago
The tools of warfare and colonialism become the tools of suppressing one's own people. Foucault's boomerang. "These tools are good for us when we use them against our enemies" breaks down very fast when your apparatus starts to find "enemies" within its borders, a line we crossed a very long time ago.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  yes, I think actually it is other way round - one must first suppress your own population (via propaganda, ideally), so that they can be recruited to suppress the other.
realce 4y ago
Your conception of Public Relations and mass manipulation is shallow: investigating these programs is part and parcel of the overall psychological manipulation program the US employs. Part of our marketing includes this whole "integrity" aspect that's supposed to give us "moral authority" over other nations.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  4D chess. I am naive!
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    No, just 2D chess. Humor the possibility that spies might have some degree of guile.
paganel 4y ago
Not sure why you're being down-voted, because once you see it is very, very hard to un-see it. For example in my case one of the factors for making me "see it" was the fact that almost all of the anti-corruption campaigns from my EU-member country were connected to a US governmental agency one way or another, be it the State Department or some other entities that are most probably the front for something that Langley is doing. The US ambassador visiting our Justice Ministry [1] a few years ago when almost all of the middle-class electorate was out in the streets protesting against the Government's direct influence on some justice-related stuff was the cherry on cake. I didn't realise it back then, because I was busy protesting against my own government, but in retrospect I started wondering how come it's ok for a foreign entity to control the justice system from my (supposedly sovereign) country. [1] https://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/actualitate/ambasadorul-sua-hans-klemm-in-vizita-la-ministrul-justitiei-tudorel-toader.html https://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/actualitate/ambasadorul-sua-ha...
- hunglee2 4y ago
  Upvote / downvote are almost always emotional on HN ;-)
- michael1999 4y ago
  Influence is not control. I have absolute confidence that Canada's elections are sound. But I have strong suspicions that the USA applies influence to our processes of developing candidates. So do Russia, China, and Europe. How could it be different?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
    - the_jesus_villa 4y ago
  - hoseja 4y ago
    When does it become control? It's become increasingly obvious that with total control of the narrative the people are simply incapable of voting in ways those in control don't want them to, whatever technical soundness of the election process.
michael1999 4y ago
Because US psy-ops against the domestic populate are illegal! And anyone who says you can draw a bright line between domestic and foreign social media activity is a crook.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  It’s been legal for a decade
  - michael1999 4y ago
    Ugh - really? What was the change? I found this, but it looks like a crack, but not a repeal - https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-...
    - michael1999 4y ago
      There's a long way between allowing VoA onto domestic cable and allowing spooks to sock-puppet in domestic politics.
  - maybelsyrup 4y ago
    Legality never stopped them anyway.
throwrqX 4y ago
I like the sarcasm but if you read the report that originally started this review (you can find it in the attached link) you'll find the propaganda in this specific case didn't seem particularly effective. Quoting: > It also reveals a somewhat damning tidbit when talking about the reach and impact of these campaigns; according to the report, “the vast majority of posts and tweets we reviewed received no more than a handful of likes or retweets, and only 19% of the covert assets we identified had more than 1,000 followers.” What’s more, the two accounts with the most followers explicitly said they were tied to the US military. I’ll try not to think about how much all this cost when I’m paying my taxes next year. Had US social media agencies been fully in bed with the feds such a report would have never been produced in the first place. Remember, conspiracists always talk about shadowy organizations or groups of people with near omnipotent power - an idea these agencies themselves would like perpetuated to make it seem resistance is futile. https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/25/23322214/us-government-propaganda-campaign-twitter-facebook https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/25/23322214/us-government-pr...
- the_jesus_villa 4y ago
  >an idea these agencies themselves would like perpetuated to make it seem resistance is futile. Quite the opposite - the conspiratorial reaction is that these agencies want to be mistaken for bumbling bureaucracies, so they let reports of small-level stuff get out. That way we underestimate the real degree of their control and believe that if they ever tried to manipulate us, they would get caught anyway, and besides, they're just making unsuccessful tweets, right? Or even deeper, that these organizations are meant to distract us from much more powerful entities who they don't even realize they are controlled by. I don't believe any of this, but the conspiracy theorists deserve more credit for creativity that you are giving them!
- pessimizer 4y ago
  That's because it's meant to disrupt conversations, not be liked. None of it is liked, you just have to wade through mountains of it to follow a conversation. The content is shitty US propaganda that maybe 5% of people agree with without reservations. None of those people are on the threads where they're asking a woman how much she likes Putin's dick. The most damaging thing that they do is inflate the like counts and apparent engagement of government thinktank employees and unaware nationalists drunk on the dopamine hits of botted upvotes. I'm absolutely certain that the removal of downvotes from social platforms in general was a long term government project. edit: does anyone believe that this behavior can't be easily detected algorithmically? I don't know about other platforms, but Twitter is obviously a government partner, not a victim.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Ligma123 4y ago
goodpoint 4y ago
> We should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not 'investigate' it. You were doing well until this last sentence. No, propaganda and psychological manipulation is completely incompatible with a democratic society.
- eastbound 4y ago
  Is it? What leads you to believe that democracy is a stable state? My take: Democracy is not the natural state, therefore requires a lot of psyops to remain in place. It’s not democratic, but well, can you speak up about it? No. Or if you can, will you? Probably not worth it. You’re “happy enough”. My converging evidence: France’s 1789 democracy was set up by gillotining the very person who would have gotten all the majority votes (He was organizing a referendum and the parliament couldn’t let this happen); The EU wasn’t born as a democracy and we only ask people’s opinions when it’s trending up; etc. there are so many examples that actually-democratic systems are an unstable mess and superficially-democratic systems are the norm. The idea is that people believe they live in democracy, and psyops the only way to reach this state. True democracy might be a naive dream.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"True democracy might be a naive dream." If the democracy leads to a tyranny of a majority it does not deserve to be a dream either. To me what has the most value is the recognition and protection of the individual rights.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      While the subject is serious, I want to offer a quote from Pratchett: “Vimes had once discussed the Ephebian idea of ‘democracy’ with Carrot, and had been rather interested in the idea that everyone had a vote until he found out that while he, Vimes, would have a vote, there was no way in the rules that anyone could prevent Nobby Nobbs from having one as well. Vimes could see the flaw there straight away.”
  - goodpoint 4y ago
TheBlight 4y ago
The problem is when it's used on its own population.
- the_optimist 4y ago
  It has been. Nakashima (author) is effectively a stenographer for the intelligence agencies. She does not have authority, she’s merely a writer.
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>Effective propaganda is one of the US's strongest competitive advantages - extensive and well funded national security apparatus, think tanks with global reach, compliant media publishers with global reach and big tech platforms used throughout the world, which can amplify and dampen messages, based on whether they suit US foreign policy objectives. We should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not 'investigate' it. Government propaganda is anathema to a free and democratic society. Our government is purportedly granted its authority by the consent of the masses. Having this consent influenced (or completely manufactured by government propaganda) nullifies the whole idea of democracy. The absurd contention that propaganda being spread by US military and government operatives on Facebook and social media is only targeted at (much less only influences) "foreigners" is patently absurd. Millions of Americans (myself included) vehemently oppose our currently stated "US foreign policy objectives" devised by the CIA, the Pentagon and the various government-funded "think tanks" that set policy and direct these propaganda efforts. "Full spectrum narrative control" has been the wet dream of every dictator, king and authoritarian government since the dawn of time, and it should be something that every thoughtful, decent person recognizes as toxic and incompatible with a free and open society.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> We should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not 'investigate' it. Corruption? Abuse of power?
- hunglee2 4y ago
  corruption is just the terminology the powerful deny to others what they do for themselves. Look at Congressional inside stock trading, look at legalised lobbying, look at campaign donations. All ok under democracy

dirtyid 4y ago

Celebrate in private, but pretend to investigate and be concerned about values in public like the drone program. Narratives like this is part of the propaganda.

halfmatthalfcat 4y ago

The US has overall amazing projection generally, be it propaganda, military, culture, etc. I find it funny, looking back a couple years ago, that people were outright dismissing American hegemony but it looks alive and well today imo.

andy_ppp 4y ago
The issue I have is things could be substantially worse than US hegemony - for example there could be a lot more wars/nuclear proliferation if the US failed.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  It's the worst hegemony...except for all of the others. It doesn't have to be perfect.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    Says the hegemon. The victims of which there are plenty might have something resembling "fuck you" instead.
    - SyzygistSix 4y ago
      The US has indeed done a lot of damage abroad. However I can't really see anyone else using a gentler approach. Far more the opposite.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  Are you sure? Where do you think the current path of the US is taking its citizens and the rest of the world? Wars are awful and a nuclear war would especially be so, but taking the slow road to an authoritarian state controlled by unknown forces hidden from view has the potential to be much worse. Think of your ideological worldview, now think of those who are the opposite. What happens if that group ends up in control without you even noticing it happening until it becomes a capital offense to point it out?
  - thfuran 4y ago
    It can't possibly be the case that we're currently headed to a secret takeover by a cabal exactly ideologically opposed to every reader.
    - feet 4y ago
      It's a thought experiment to try and point out the negative aspects of the current situation that could resonate with any reader
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Realism predicts more war in a multipolar world.
    - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
      War isn't the only evil in the world.
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        Other types of evil are also worse in a multipolar world.
- troops_h8r 4y ago
  This is much easier to say if you're not living in any of its victim states, or under the boots of any of the vicious autocrats the US props up. Also, it's not like nuclear proliferation is solved. It's still breathing down our necks, we just don't talk about it anymore
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- asdff 4y ago
  Wouldn't there be no nuclear proliferation if the U.S. failed? Who designs weapons systems for NATO? The entire nuclear arms race wouldn't have happened if the U.S. didn't use the strategic bombing of citizens as a foreign policy platform 80 years ago.
spamizbad 4y ago
The US capitalized on the whole "US has declining global influence" meme* and used it to lay the groundwork for even more global influence. A real "Heads we win; tails you lose" sort of operation. *This is probably true in some areas but the opposite in others - our influence simply shifted.
- okdood64 4y ago
  Interesting, elaborate?
  - pram 4y ago
    Seems to me shifting the narrative to an emerging 'multi-polar' world from the 'uni-polar' US hegemony might solidify alliances more than they otherwise would have been. Kinda like during the cold war you were on one team or another, no trying to play multiple sides.
    - erikerikson 4y ago
      Shifting to a multi-polar that in essence agrees to the best possible outcome, even as we explore it, seems perfectly within the interests of all. Such an alliance can be more stable and productive while guarding against misuse of the single point of control.
      - spamizbad 4y ago
        Not sure I agree with that in practice, but maybe my understanding of history is flawed. Was the humanity better off during the Bi-polar era of the Cold War, with continuously escalating nuclear threats and proxy wars vs 1991-2010? What about the multi-polar world of 1919-1938?
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > a multi-polar that in essence agrees to the best possible outcome, even as we explore it, seems perfectly within the interests of all Multi-polarity is generally code for regional hegemony. That's great if you're the regional hegemon. Not so much if you're the hegemon's neighbor. America is a maritime power. These (think: Carthage, Venice, Portugal, the Dutch and Britain; counterfactual: Japan) have historically relied on trade, and trading outposts, to project power. As such, they're a natural friend of small countries resisting regional hegemony.
adampk 4y ago
Isn't China dictating Hollywood's scripts a challenge to this projection? Hollywood is the main exporter of American culture and values and that seems to have been compromised quite effectively in this last decade.
- peteradio 4y ago
  > main exporter of American culture "foot-in-the-door" American culture maybe. I'd say it's a different projection of our culture at home.
- steele 4y ago
  Complain about this in Mandarin
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Me: "Complain about China dictating Hollywood's scripts, but write the answer in Mandarin Chinese" GPT-3: 我覺得電影腳本被中國人牽制了 (Transition according to Google: "I think the movie script is being held back by the Chinese")
  - polytely 4y ago
    from what I've read it's perfectly fine to complain about stuff on the Chinese net, you start getting in trouble once you attempt to mobilize people
    - fortuna86 4y ago
      "Complain all you like, don't take steps to change or improve your situation." The biggest advocate for the fairness of a prison cell often is the prisoner.
      - SyzygistSix 4y ago
        I don't feel like they were saying that was a good situation. Rather pointing it out as an instrument of control.
concinds 4y ago
While the U.S.'s core strength has always been propaganda (they got Operation Paperclip Nazis to becom American patriots, got the USSR to abolish itself, and the young Russian Federation to destroy itself with its infamous "shock therapy"), China also has quite strong propaganda, especially in Africa. And in Europe, go back 30 years and people still saw Americans as liberators; now, Europeans see it as a corrupt third-world country where people can't afford healthcare. And while it's true that U.S. cultural "force projection" hasn't weakened; they are being severely squeezed when it comes to trade dominance (https://merchantmachine.co.uk/china-vs-us/ https://merchantmachine.co.uk/china-vs-us/) and monetary dominance (see James Rickards' books). America still has its hegemony, but the notion that it's declining is very much mainstream in academia (https://www.routledge.com/Americas-Allies-and-the-Decline-of-US-Hegemony/Massie-Paquin/p/book/9781032086989 https://www.routledge.com/Americas-Allies-and-the-Decline-of...). Worse, its national security institutions have lost credibility among a significant portion of its electorate (MAGA people), and its military hegemony is now opposed by both populist left (pacifists) and populist right (non-interventionists). They're being squeezed both abroad and at home.
- kilroy123 4y ago
  All empires eventually decline.
  - fortuna86 4y ago
    What colonies do the US maintain overseas? Or is the word "empire" just slang in this case ?
    - sargerage 4y ago
      Any country hosting US military bases and aligning itself with US foreign policy: Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. Pretty standard definition of an empire.
      - jonnybgood 4y ago
        They could kick the US out at anytime. They won't because they want the US to be there. Not the standard definition at all.

jasfi 4y ago

The points for not playing dirty, and making that public, are worth it. Hopefully other countries take note.

adampk 4y ago
Have our adversaries historically ever taken note and followed more "enlightened" behavior?
- weard_beard 4y ago
  Let me ask you, if you heard that in the next town over they started a dog fighting ring would you start one in your town and take your own dog so that he might learn from such "enlightened" behavior? I sleep much better knowing my dog isn't taught such behavior is acceptable. I would hate for him to bite the hand that feeds him because he learned such, "enlightened" behavior is acceptable and condoned by his owner.
  - adampk 4y ago
    So you do not have an example of any of our adversaries changing their behavior because we are acting more "enlightened", but you want to do it anyway because you believe it is good
    - weard_beard 4y ago
      I believe democracies are like caring for an animal. I don’t care if my neighbor beats his dog and ends up getting bit, I’m not a cruel idiot so I’m not going to join him.
Mezzie 4y ago
But they are less than the points for playing dirty and not getting caught are. Then you reap both the rewards of the sketchy behavior and the perception of moral behavior. So the logical thing to do is dump resources into keeping yourself from being caught.
4y ago

Eumenes 4y ago

tablespoon 4y ago
> Found the defense contractor/federal employee You seem new here, but what you wrote is pure noise and violates the site guidelines.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  Meh, defending the use of propaganda by a nation state seems antithetical to the culture of "hackers" ... but agreed, I'll be more thoughtful moving forward.

nyokodo 4y ago

> We should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not 'investigate' it. Ignoring any moral qualms or suspicions, any powerful weapon that isn’t actively overseen will inevitably be abused.

hunglee2 4y ago
who watchers the watchers though, this is infinitive regress. Besides, who or what is being abused, and what qualifies as such, as also part of the program
- nyokodo 4y ago
  > who watchers the watchers though, this is infinitive regress. Infinite regress is only contemplated when you aim for perfect oversight which is impossible. The best we can hope for is 'as good as possible'. We the People, as well as possible, oversee that the appropriate authorities are, independently as possible, overseeing the use of weapons and interventions. It's obviously imperfect just like any other human endeavor but that's why we as citizens should fight for strong whistleblower protections, regular investigations/audits and reasonable timeframes for declassification etc so that we can do our job.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >who watchers the watchers though We all should - one of many arguments for complete transparency. Democracy dies behind closed doors. All the claims about the need for government secrecy, "national security", protecting "methods and sources" are trash when compared against the importance of transparency in a society purportedly governed by elected representatives of the people. The so-called "risks" posed by radical and complete government transparency are far less than the actual and tangible harms caused by the ever-growing secrecy afforded and demanded by those holding the levers of power.

banannaise 4y ago

The tools of warfare and colonialism become the tools of suppressing one's own people. Foucault's boomerang. "These tools are good for us when we use them against our enemies" breaks down very fast when your apparatus starts to find "enemies" within its borders, a line we crossed a very long time ago.

hunglee2 4y ago
yes, I think actually it is other way round - one must first suppress your own population (via propaganda, ideally), so that they can be recruited to suppress the other.

realce 4y ago

Your conception of Public Relations and mass manipulation is shallow: investigating these programs is part and parcel of the overall psychological manipulation program the US employs. Part of our marketing includes this whole "integrity" aspect that's supposed to give us "moral authority" over other nations.

hunglee2 4y ago
4D chess. I am naive!
- pessimizer 4y ago
  No, just 2D chess. Humor the possibility that spies might have some degree of guile.

paganel 4y ago

Not sure why you're being down-voted, because once you see it is very, very hard to un-see it. For example in my case one of the factors for making me "see it" was the fact that almost all of the anti-corruption campaigns from my EU-member country were connected to a US governmental agency one way or another, be it the State Department or some other entities that are most probably the front for something that Langley is doing. The US ambassador visiting our Justice Ministry [1] a few years ago when almost all of the middle-class electorate was out in the streets protesting against the Government's direct influence on some justice-related stuff was the cherry on cake. I didn't realise it back then, because I was busy protesting against my own government, but in retrospect I started wondering how come it's ok for a foreign entity to control the justice system from my (supposedly sovereign) country. [1] https://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/actualitate/ambasadorul-sua-hans-klemm-in-vizita-la-ministrul-justitiei-tudorel-toader.html https://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/actualitate/ambasadorul-sua-ha...

hunglee2 4y ago
Upvote / downvote are almost always emotional on HN ;-)
michael1999 4y ago
Influence is not control. I have absolute confidence that Canada's elections are sound. But I have strong suspicions that the USA applies influence to our processes of developing candidates. So do Russia, China, and Europe. How could it be different?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
  - the_jesus_villa 4y ago
- hoseja 4y ago
  When does it become control? It's become increasingly obvious that with total control of the narrative the people are simply incapable of voting in ways those in control don't want them to, whatever technical soundness of the election process.

michael1999 4y ago

Because US psy-ops against the domestic populate are illegal! And anyone who says you can draw a bright line between domestic and foreign social media activity is a crook.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
It’s been legal for a decade
- michael1999 4y ago
  Ugh - really? What was the change? I found this, but it looks like a crack, but not a repeal - https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-...
  - michael1999 4y ago
    There's a long way between allowing VoA onto domestic cable and allowing spooks to sock-puppet in domestic politics.
- maybelsyrup 4y ago
  Legality never stopped them anyway.

throwrqX 4y ago

I like the sarcasm but if you read the report that originally started this review (you can find it in the attached link) you'll find the propaganda in this specific case didn't seem particularly effective. Quoting: > It also reveals a somewhat damning tidbit when talking about the reach and impact of these campaigns; according to the report, “the vast majority of posts and tweets we reviewed received no more than a handful of likes or retweets, and only 19% of the covert assets we identified had more than 1,000 followers.” What’s more, the two accounts with the most followers explicitly said they were tied to the US military. I’ll try not to think about how much all this cost when I’m paying my taxes next year. Had US social media agencies been fully in bed with the feds such a report would have never been produced in the first place. Remember, conspiracists always talk about shadowy organizations or groups of people with near omnipotent power - an idea these agencies themselves would like perpetuated to make it seem resistance is futile. https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/25/23322214/us-government-propaganda-campaign-twitter-facebook https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/25/23322214/us-government-pr...

the_jesus_villa 4y ago
>an idea these agencies themselves would like perpetuated to make it seem resistance is futile. Quite the opposite - the conspiratorial reaction is that these agencies want to be mistaken for bumbling bureaucracies, so they let reports of small-level stuff get out. That way we underestimate the real degree of their control and believe that if they ever tried to manipulate us, they would get caught anyway, and besides, they're just making unsuccessful tweets, right? Or even deeper, that these organizations are meant to distract us from much more powerful entities who they don't even realize they are controlled by. I don't believe any of this, but the conspiracy theorists deserve more credit for creativity that you are giving them!
pessimizer 4y ago
That's because it's meant to disrupt conversations, not be liked. None of it is liked, you just have to wade through mountains of it to follow a conversation. The content is shitty US propaganda that maybe 5% of people agree with without reservations. None of those people are on the threads where they're asking a woman how much she likes Putin's dick. The most damaging thing that they do is inflate the like counts and apparent engagement of government thinktank employees and unaware nationalists drunk on the dopamine hits of botted upvotes. I'm absolutely certain that the removal of downvotes from social platforms in general was a long term government project. edit: does anyone believe that this behavior can't be easily detected algorithmically? I don't know about other platforms, but Twitter is obviously a government partner, not a victim.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Ligma123 4y ago

goodpoint 4y ago

> We should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not 'investigate' it. You were doing well until this last sentence. No, propaganda and psychological manipulation is completely incompatible with a democratic society.

eastbound 4y ago
Is it? What leads you to believe that democracy is a stable state? My take: Democracy is not the natural state, therefore requires a lot of psyops to remain in place. It’s not democratic, but well, can you speak up about it? No. Or if you can, will you? Probably not worth it. You’re “happy enough”. My converging evidence: France’s 1789 democracy was set up by gillotining the very person who would have gotten all the majority votes (He was organizing a referendum and the parliament couldn’t let this happen); The EU wasn’t born as a democracy and we only ask people’s opinions when it’s trending up; etc. there are so many examples that actually-democratic systems are an unstable mess and superficially-democratic systems are the norm. The idea is that people believe they live in democracy, and psyops the only way to reach this state. True democracy might be a naive dream.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"True democracy might be a naive dream." If the democracy leads to a tyranny of a majority it does not deserve to be a dream either. To me what has the most value is the recognition and protection of the individual rights.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    While the subject is serious, I want to offer a quote from Pratchett: “Vimes had once discussed the Ephebian idea of ‘democracy’ with Carrot, and had been rather interested in the idea that everyone had a vote until he found out that while he, Vimes, would have a vote, there was no way in the rules that anyone could prevent Nobby Nobbs from having one as well. Vimes could see the flaw there straight away.”
- goodpoint 4y ago

TheBlight 4y ago

The problem is when it's used on its own population.

the_optimist 4y ago
It has been. Nakashima (author) is effectively a stenographer for the intelligence agencies. She does not have authority, she’s merely a writer.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

>Effective propaganda is one of the US's strongest competitive advantages - extensive and well funded national security apparatus, think tanks with global reach, compliant media publishers with global reach and big tech platforms used throughout the world, which can amplify and dampen messages, based on whether they suit US foreign policy objectives. We should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not 'investigate' it. Government propaganda is anathema to a free and democratic society. Our government is purportedly granted its authority by the consent of the masses. Having this consent influenced (or completely manufactured by government propaganda) nullifies the whole idea of democracy. The absurd contention that propaganda being spread by US military and government operatives on Facebook and social media is only targeted at (much less only influences) "foreigners" is patently absurd. Millions of Americans (myself included) vehemently oppose our currently stated "US foreign policy objectives" devised by the CIA, the Pentagon and the various government-funded "think tanks" that set policy and direct these propaganda efforts. "Full spectrum narrative control" has been the wet dream of every dictator, king and authoritarian government since the dawn of time, and it should be something that every thoughtful, decent person recognizes as toxic and incompatible with a free and open society.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> We should celebrate this full spectrum narrative control, not 'investigate' it. Corruption? Abuse of power?

hunglee2 4y ago
corruption is just the terminology the powerful deny to others what they do for themselves. Look at Congressional inside stock trading, look at legalised lobbying, look at campaign donations. All ok under democracy