3 ms·

Why would we put much credibility into an organization investigating itself? This review is itself probably centralized narrative control. It goes something lik

Why would we put much credibility into an organization investigating itself? This review is itself probably centralized narrative control. It goes something like this: Through social media monitoring, the Pentagon sees an uptick in people questioning the narrative and seeing the Pentagon behind pysops campaigns. So they commission a study and review that finds a couple supposedly rogue persons in their ranks which they scapegoat and nominally punish. The main apparatus is preserved in the shadows and more resilient after they have probed and fortified all its weaknesses.

tablespoon 4y ago
> Why would we put much credibility into an organization investigating itself? That's kind of a bizarre question, and I think you're misunderstanding what this is. This sounds like it's a story on the organization's internally-focused management, not some kind of external accountability thing meant to convince you of anything.
- kornhole 4y ago
  It is kind of hard to tell what the real goals are after reading different reports of the review. It does seem to be an internal only review and not something that will enlighten the public much. It shouldn't be any surprise that the Pentagon and its branches do what they do to push their narrative, but they screw up when they are too obvious. That seems to be what they are trying to address.
halJordan 4y ago
You can ask that question about any org. Ultimately people do lie, but the fact is that the world does these self-investigations all the time and the world hasnt stopped. The dod in particular has very strong boundaries and rules to follow, which people honest to God, believe in; as well as actually independent minders. So if you're fine with Twitter self-reporting bot numbers when it's obviously a conflict of interest to do so, you should be fine with the DoD investigating one of its combatant commands.

tablespoon 4y ago

> Why would we put much credibility into an organization investigating itself? That's kind of a bizarre question, and I think you're misunderstanding what this is. This sounds like it's a story on the organization's internally-focused management, not some kind of external accountability thing meant to convince you of anything.

kornhole 4y ago
It is kind of hard to tell what the real goals are after reading different reports of the review. It does seem to be an internal only review and not something that will enlighten the public much. It shouldn't be any surprise that the Pentagon and its branches do what they do to push their narrative, but they screw up when they are too obvious. That seems to be what they are trying to address.

halJordan 4y ago

You can ask that question about any org. Ultimately people do lie, but the fact is that the world does these self-investigations all the time and the world hasnt stopped. The dod in particular has very strong boundaries and rules to follow, which people honest to God, believe in; as well as actually independent minders. So if you're fine with Twitter self-reporting bot numbers when it's obviously a conflict of interest to do so, you should be fine with the DoD investigating one of its combatant commands.