3 ms·

> 1 week before an American election? 80 million Americans start being bombarded with "Why you should vote how the CCP wants you to vote" videos. That is a nati

> 1 week before an American election? 80 million Americans start being bombarded with "Why you should vote how the CCP wants you to vote" videos. That is a national security threat. Of course, it wouldn't be that dumb and obvious. If they were smart, they'd pick compelling organic content that aligns with their agenda, and amplify that for susceptible audiences (e.g. if they want to hurt Biden, they might take best videos criticizing him for allowing more oil drilling, and then un-organically push that content to users with environmentalist leanings).

lamontcg 4y ago
Okay lets make sure China can't do this through tiktok. Then lets make sure that domestic political groups can't do this through facebook, instagram and reddit.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Okay lets make sure China can't do this through tiktok. > Then lets make sure that domestic political groups can't do this through facebook, instagram and reddit. Except that in one case, it's a foreign actor interfering with the domestic political process, and in the other it's a domestic actor arguably exercising their first amendment rights.
  - guelo 4y ago
    Rupert Murdoch got around this kind of distinction by getting an American citizenship.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Money isn't speech. International corporations aren't domestic. Corporations aren't people. Boosting propoganda, censoring, and surveilling whilst acting as a utility and forcing people to sign up to participate in society is neither free nor speech. Meta and google don't just abuse americans
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    There's no useful distinction there. They are manipulating the population and arguably infringing on rights that all free individuals should have (had the bill of rights not been written before mass media and the internet).
  - dafoex 4y ago
    Facebook is foreign to me, and my country has no first amendment, we only allow their constant spying because we are part of the five eyes and it is beneficial for us to let the yanks do whatever the hell they want to us.
  - TomSwirly 4y ago
    Where in the Constitution does it say that the First Amendment only apply to citizens living in the country? It does not. Within the US, China or its representatives have exactly the same First Amendment rights as anyone else. The First Amendment is broken, unfortunately, and the result is that a fire hose of paid, anonymous lies drowns out hard-won truths. Don't get me wrong - the Framers were brilliant men, but two hundred years have gone by.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > Where in the Constitution does it say that the First Amendment only apply to citizens living in the country? It does not. Within the US, China or its representatives have exactly the same First Amendment rights as anyone else. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If it protected foreign subversion as a constitutional right, it would be such a pact, therefore it doesn't.
godelski 4y ago
> If they were smart, they'd pick compelling organic content that aligns with their agenda, and amplify that for susceptible audiences You're over thinking it. All you need to do is put your thumb on the scale. Creating chaos/division is far easier and often more effective than directed influence. Honestly I think that's why propaganda is so effective. People think of it as "Uncle Sam needs you to join the war effort" (which is propaganda) but it is more commonly "all politicians are corrupt". Which may even be true or mostly true. But the effect of such a claim is a distrust in your entire society. That's pretty effective propaganda and gets people to fight instead of working collectively.
- K0SM0S 4y ago
  Exactly. The way you get people to eventually adopt a whole new paradigm is by nudging them one tiny bit at a time, seek to change like 1% of their world view — whatever the lowest hanging fruit you can find. Rinse and repeat, slowly as culture changes. Over many years, decades. One generation later, the then-normalized world view can be diametrically opposed to what it had been for centuries, in many regards, even core aspects. Such socio-cultural phenomena rarely last beyond 3-ish generations in history, though. More like 25 years. Usually the whole thing collapses under its own contradictions (not without friction, sometimes violent). But beyond a certain time under the spell, and/or if experienced too young, most people don't come back (not fully, not really). To this day you may hear old US politicians still believe old US propaganda (now all but officially acknowledged as such) that they simply can't shake off their world view. It's one of those things that, when pushed too far for too long, society only moves on once most people who lived under that era have passed away, and new unaffected generations take over.

lamontcg 4y ago

Okay lets make sure China can't do this through tiktok. Then lets make sure that domestic political groups can't do this through facebook, instagram and reddit.

tablespoon 4y ago
> Okay lets make sure China can't do this through tiktok. > Then lets make sure that domestic political groups can't do this through facebook, instagram and reddit. Except that in one case, it's a foreign actor interfering with the domestic political process, and in the other it's a domestic actor arguably exercising their first amendment rights.
- guelo 4y ago
  Rupert Murdoch got around this kind of distinction by getting an American citizenship.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Money isn't speech. International corporations aren't domestic. Corporations aren't people. Boosting propoganda, censoring, and surveilling whilst acting as a utility and forcing people to sign up to participate in society is neither free nor speech. Meta and google don't just abuse americans
- lamontcg 4y ago
  There's no useful distinction there. They are manipulating the population and arguably infringing on rights that all free individuals should have (had the bill of rights not been written before mass media and the internet).
- dafoex 4y ago
  Facebook is foreign to me, and my country has no first amendment, we only allow their constant spying because we are part of the five eyes and it is beneficial for us to let the yanks do whatever the hell they want to us.
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  Where in the Constitution does it say that the First Amendment only apply to citizens living in the country? It does not. Within the US, China or its representatives have exactly the same First Amendment rights as anyone else. The First Amendment is broken, unfortunately, and the result is that a fire hose of paid, anonymous lies drowns out hard-won truths. Don't get me wrong - the Framers were brilliant men, but two hundred years have gone by.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Where in the Constitution does it say that the First Amendment only apply to citizens living in the country? It does not. Within the US, China or its representatives have exactly the same First Amendment rights as anyone else. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If it protected foreign subversion as a constitutional right, it would be such a pact, therefore it doesn't.

godelski 4y ago

> If they were smart, they'd pick compelling organic content that aligns with their agenda, and amplify that for susceptible audiences You're over thinking it. All you need to do is put your thumb on the scale. Creating chaos/division is far easier and often more effective than directed influence. Honestly I think that's why propaganda is so effective. People think of it as "Uncle Sam needs you to join the war effort" (which is propaganda) but it is more commonly "all politicians are corrupt". Which may even be true or mostly true. But the effect of such a claim is a distrust in your entire society. That's pretty effective propaganda and gets people to fight instead of working collectively.

K0SM0S 4y ago
Exactly. The way you get people to eventually adopt a whole new paradigm is by nudging them one tiny bit at a time, seek to change like 1% of their world view — whatever the lowest hanging fruit you can find. Rinse and repeat, slowly as culture changes. Over many years, decades. One generation later, the then-normalized world view can be diametrically opposed to what it had been for centuries, in many regards, even core aspects. Such socio-cultural phenomena rarely last beyond 3-ish generations in history, though. More like 25 years. Usually the whole thing collapses under its own contradictions (not without friction, sometimes violent). But beyond a certain time under the spell, and/or if experienced too young, most people don't come back (not fully, not really). To this day you may hear old US politicians still believe old US propaganda (now all but officially acknowledged as such) that they simply can't shake off their world view. It's one of those things that, when pushed too far for too long, society only moves on once most people who lived under that era have passed away, and new unaffected generations take over.