3 ms·

Maybe "only talking about the title" is an anti-pattern in social media; and maybe HN even explicitly warns about complaining about titles; but, this wording di

Maybe "only talking about the title" is an anti-pattern in social media; and maybe HN even explicitly warns about complaining about titles; but, this wording difference is astounding enough to be interesting in its own right: Washington Post: "Pentagon opens sweeping review of clandestine psychological operations" New York Times: "Pentagon Orders Review of Its Overseas Social Media Campaigns" https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/19/us/politics/pentagon-social-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/19/us/politics/pentagon-soci... Just how flexible are we with language, exactly, that these two headlines can coexist? It's not even as if these two papers' editors have particularly different ideologies or mindsets. They just looked at the same story, separately; selected a framing; turned the language intensity up to 11; and this is the absurd result.

pyinstallwoes 4y ago
Logically it's impossible to have strictly overseas social media campaigns because the material is not bound to a physical region, so there is arguably obvious "collateral damage." How much collateral damage is within the legal limits of law? At what rate and percentage is it considered acceptable? Reminds me of the 2019 U.S Army public document on the need to shift tactics towards cyber space, and it being an unknown territory for all militaries world wide because in the past wars were kenetic, and in the future they are psychic. Including the diffilculty of what strategies of identifying friend and foe and whatever an identity/ego is. It is very much similar to an 'arms race' (in lieu of using technology as a form of narrative control for operational security). Unfortunately game theory optimizes us towards maximum escalation of risk in the hope of equal tension. Fortunately it has worked so far. Interestingly it is the first time in history as we know it that an individual or a small collection of individuals could have significant military power enough to affect billions of people with crafted messages. AI and Human-In-The-Loop systems are both incredibly fascinating and frightening. I must be optimistic though. Growing pains, right? :P

pyinstallwoes 4y ago

Logically it's impossible to have strictly overseas social media campaigns because the material is not bound to a physical region, so there is arguably obvious "collateral damage." How much collateral damage is within the legal limits of law? At what rate and percentage is it considered acceptable? Reminds me of the 2019 U.S Army public document on the need to shift tactics towards cyber space, and it being an unknown territory for all militaries world wide because in the past wars were kenetic, and in the future they are psychic. Including the diffilculty of what strategies of identifying friend and foe and whatever an identity/ego is. It is very much similar to an 'arms race' (in lieu of using technology as a form of narrative control for operational security). Unfortunately game theory optimizes us towards maximum escalation of risk in the hope of equal tension. Fortunately it has worked so far. Interestingly it is the first time in history as we know it that an individual or a small collection of individuals could have significant military power enough to affect billions of people with crafted messages. AI and Human-In-The-Loop systems are both incredibly fascinating and frightening. I must be optimistic though. Growing pains, right? :P