3 ms·

The actual report that triggered this investigation is interesting: https://public-assets.graphika.com/reports/graphika_stanford_internet_observatory_report_un

The actual report that triggered this investigation is interesting: https://public-assets.graphika.com/reports/graphika_stanford_internet_observatory_report_unheard_voice.pdf https://public-assets.graphika.com/reports/graphika_stanford... The first thing to note is that it's relatively benign in terms of propaganda. > Assets in the group heavily promoted narratives supportive of the U.S. on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and Telegram. These posts primarily focused on U.S. support for Central Asian countries and their people, presenting Washington as a reliable economic partner that would curb the region’s dependence on Russia. Other posts argued that the U.S. was the main guarantor of Central Asia’s sovereignty against Russia, frequently citing the war in Ukraine as evidence of the Kremlin’s “imperial” ambitions. Interestingly, the assets also promoted U.S. humanitarian efforts, mentioning the United States Agency for International Development 94 times on Twitter and 384 times on Facebook in the respective datasets. It's funny that they felt the need to do this in a "clandestine" way at all since almost certainly these are messages the US would happily say outloud as official statements. The second thing to note is how ham-handedly they did this: > The sham media outlet Intergazeta repeatedly copied news material with and without credit from reputable Western and pro-Western sources in Russian, such as Meduza.io and the BBC Russian Service. ... Typically, these sections were literal “word-to-word” translations into Russian, as opposed to more-advanced semantic translations, resulting in non-native sounding language.

dundarious 4y ago
It’s always minor and no big deal when it’s agreeable, but is disinformation, interference, and Big Brother style propaganda when it presents any kind of challenge, or comes from an official enemy, no matter how trivial in extent. The fact that such things are done domestically and covertly is the issue. And it’s pure speculation on my part, but there is cause to suspect this is but one facet of a much larger program. https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-inside-militarys-secret-undercover-army-1591881 https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-inside-militarys-secret-u... > The largest undercover force the world has ever known is the one created by the Pentagon over the past decade. Some 60,000 people now belong to this secret army, many working under masked identities and in low profile, all part of a broad program called "signature reduction." The force, more than ten times the size of the clandestine elements of the CIA, carries out domestic and foreign assignments, both in military uniforms and under civilian cover, in real life and online, sometimes hiding in private businesses and consultancies, some of them household name companies. ... > The newest and fastest growing group is the clandestine army that never leaves their keyboards. These are the cutting-edge cyber fighters and intelligence collectors who assume false personas online, employing "nonattribution" and "misattribution" techniques to hide the who and the where of their online presence while they search for high-value targets and collect what is called "publicly accessible information"—or even engage in campaigns to influence and manipulate social media. I’m not paranoid about such programs being everywhere and doing all things, but do consider them a totally undemocratic roadblock to proper civil society.
- verall 4y ago
  That article reads like someone discovering spooks exist in real life for the first time.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > The fact that such things are done domestically and covertly is the issue. Can you have fake social media accounts to spread propaganda online without doing it covertly? Is any nation transparent about doing that? I'd rather they didn't do it at all, but I expect everyone does and will because it's effective (when it's not obvious at least) and easy.
  - dundarious 4y ago
    Having fake accounts purporting to be real people is what’s covert, so I think we agree. I also agree that states tend towards such action, but there should at least be an antagonistic relationship with the security state apparatus. Instead, both parties (with minor blips over incredibly personal matters) love the FBI, CIA, etc.
eyelidlessness 4y ago
The content of the propaganda isn’t why they’d be inclined to mask their involvement in disseminating it. You’d find similar content, with some value adjustments for the audience, from literally any regime in any political system. The reason they didn’t want to be attributed was because the value of the propaganda effort is making it seem (or become) organic. There are values expressed in Navy ads I find appealing, but I also recognize those ads are targeting potential recruits. I’m more likely to take expression of those values seriously when they’re expressed by unaffiliated human people. Or even my friend who is a naval officer but isn’t particularly inclined to shill for them. I’m certainly not going to take them seriously from a military-sponsored astroturf campaign.

dundarious 4y ago

It’s always minor and no big deal when it’s agreeable, but is disinformation, interference, and Big Brother style propaganda when it presents any kind of challenge, or comes from an official enemy, no matter how trivial in extent. The fact that such things are done domestically and covertly is the issue. And it’s pure speculation on my part, but there is cause to suspect this is but one facet of a much larger program. https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-inside-militarys-secret-undercover-army-1591881 https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-inside-militarys-secret-u... > The largest undercover force the world has ever known is the one created by the Pentagon over the past decade. Some 60,000 people now belong to this secret army, many working under masked identities and in low profile, all part of a broad program called "signature reduction." The force, more than ten times the size of the clandestine elements of the CIA, carries out domestic and foreign assignments, both in military uniforms and under civilian cover, in real life and online, sometimes hiding in private businesses and consultancies, some of them household name companies. ... > The newest and fastest growing group is the clandestine army that never leaves their keyboards. These are the cutting-edge cyber fighters and intelligence collectors who assume false personas online, employing "nonattribution" and "misattribution" techniques to hide the who and the where of their online presence while they search for high-value targets and collect what is called "publicly accessible information"—or even engage in campaigns to influence and manipulate social media. I’m not paranoid about such programs being everywhere and doing all things, but do consider them a totally undemocratic roadblock to proper civil society.

verall 4y ago
That article reads like someone discovering spooks exist in real life for the first time.
autoexec 4y ago
> The fact that such things are done domestically and covertly is the issue. Can you have fake social media accounts to spread propaganda online without doing it covertly? Is any nation transparent about doing that? I'd rather they didn't do it at all, but I expect everyone does and will because it's effective (when it's not obvious at least) and easy.
- dundarious 4y ago
  Having fake accounts purporting to be real people is what’s covert, so I think we agree. I also agree that states tend towards such action, but there should at least be an antagonistic relationship with the security state apparatus. Instead, both parties (with minor blips over incredibly personal matters) love the FBI, CIA, etc.

eyelidlessness 4y ago

The content of the propaganda isn’t why they’d be inclined to mask their involvement in disseminating it. You’d find similar content, with some value adjustments for the audience, from literally any regime in any political system. The reason they didn’t want to be attributed was because the value of the propaganda effort is making it seem (or become) organic. There are values expressed in Navy ads I find appealing, but I also recognize those ads are targeting potential recruits. I’m more likely to take expression of those values seriously when they’re expressed by unaffiliated human people. Or even my friend who is a naval officer but isn’t particularly inclined to shill for them. I’m certainly not going to take them seriously from a military-sponsored astroturf campaign.