3 ms·

The same outcome could be achieved by instructing children on what Propaganda is, who created it, why it was created and how it has become akin to modern market

The same outcome could be achieved by instructing children on what Propaganda is, who created it, why it was created and how it has become akin to modern marketing and advertising. Attempting to reframe the perception of deception as "information warfare" is disingenuous to the actual battle at hand; which is Propagandists versus everyone else. The implications of critical ignoring replace the foundational need for critical thought. The basis for your argument is fully set on anonymity. If the governments of the world provided nation-based social media structures where real people, confirmed as vested citizens, go to communicate, you would see a dramatic drop in "misinformation". As it is now, misinformation helps the various intelligence agencies and media outlets sell eyeballs or distort truth. The idea we should take a "shunning" like approach to communication is draconian and misplaced.

sououwantchina 3y ago
Ok good points made but your solution is far more dangerous than the problem. State actors could be masquerading as propagandists to bring your solution into reality to fix a problem they are creating. We have no way of knowing.
landemva 3y ago
> If the governments of the world provided nation-based social media structures where real people, confirmed as vested citizens, go to communicate, you would see a dramatic drop in "misinformation". Is there an example where that has been successful? France's Minitel maybe? > misinformation helps the various intelligence agencies and media outlets sell eyeballs or distort truth. This is the likely outcome which puts us back into government controlled propaganda and no government-approved online alternatives.
jfengel 3y ago
I can't imagine how such a class could be taught, at least in the US. At the federal level both sides accuse each other of misinformation, not merely differences of opinion but active propaganda. It doesn't really matter which side, if either, is correct. Any class which tended to lead students toward conclusions either way would be met with accusations of brainwashing and playing politics with education. Even if they discussed it in purely abstract terms, it would be either so anodyne as to be useless, or bitterly rejected by at least one side. I of course have my own opinions about which is more at fault. But we're a democracy, and it's close enough to 50-50 that a near majority is going to feel deeply abused regardless of the outcome. It would be nice if there were some kind of scientific body we could trust to guide the process, but none has sufficient support.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > I can't imagine how such a class could be taught, at least in the US. At the federal level both sides accuse each other of misinformation, not merely differences of opinion but active propaganda. The class wouldn't take either side. It would just discuss propaganda techniques and how to defeat them. Use material from some other time or place to examine it.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    I suspect that no matter what example you chose, at least one side would find it prejudicial. A friend was just recounting a class she took in elementary school. Students read papers advocating a ban or government support for dihydrogen monoxide. (My friend knew the gag and was asked not to spoil the joke. She was allowed to portray herself as an addict, to the horror of all classmates.) That seems as neutral a piece of material as you're going to get. Still... I'm skeptical. I believe that if you rolled this out it would be presented as being an analogy to political topics and become seen as a covert argument for the other side. I have my suspicions about who and how, but that's not really the point. The point is that it would be somebody, no matter how neutrally it was designed. Neutrality itself has become a controversial political topic.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      I think you (or many people, because I don't know you) buy into one side's propaganda: Hopelessness, despair. That's actually the objective of professional propaganda - to paralyze, not to persuade. What you see is out of the textbook. People can work together, can learn, can make it happen. It takes effort, it's not easy, but it's natural human instinct. It's the foundation of democracy. People much prefer it. In fact it is easy, really; the good people greatly outnumber the bad people; they are just sitting around, feeling intimidated, repeating the propaganda about how impossible it is. I remember somewhere, I was taught never to quit ...
      - jfengel 3y ago
        I appreciate you saying that. I'm afraid I've got a very well founded cynicism, but I do try. Thank you.
nradov 3y ago
I have zero interest in using government controlled social media, nor do I want my taxes wasted on that type of boondoggle.
tremon 3y ago
Propagandists versus everyone else Once you have reached the point where every situation is reduced to a simplistic black&white view, the propagandists have already won: you've become one of them.
- RyanAdamas 3y ago
  As opposed to statements of absolutism? Sounds like you're one of them!
gibbitz 3y ago
I took a semiotics course in college where the professor asked the question "is the fish aware of the water it swims in?" A rephrasing of an Einstein quote but one that I think 12 year olds need to be aware of when they get smart phones. Advertising sprang right out of the Nazi propaganda ideology and has been a force manipulating children long before these phones. Media literacy is a subject kids need to be learning right along with reading clocks and handwriting. The problem can be more benign too. My kids lose track of time diving down rabbit holes all day. They have no critical ignoring skills and are using time better spent on experiences taking multi-page "do you have autism" tests that serve them 10 plus ads per page, tempting them to waste even more time.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Media literacy is a subject kids need to be learning right along with reading clocks and handwriting. Agreed. It's done in some places. > semiotics course Such topics are sneered at now, but post-modernism was built as a response, in a sense, to WWII propaganda. It's the propagandists who are threatened by it, and somehow seem to have benefitted from - if not pushed - everyone unilaterally disarming. Also: I looked into the origin of that quote and as far as I know, it's attributed to many different people (the version I heard: 'I don't know who discovered water, but it wasn't a fish.'). Advertising is sometimes attributed to the The Commitee on Public Information (or the 'Creel Committee'), a US government group that produced propaganda for WWI, pre-Nazi.

sououwantchina 3y ago

Ok good points made but your solution is far more dangerous than the problem. State actors could be masquerading as propagandists to bring your solution into reality to fix a problem they are creating. We have no way of knowing.

landemva 3y ago

> If the governments of the world provided nation-based social media structures where real people, confirmed as vested citizens, go to communicate, you would see a dramatic drop in "misinformation". Is there an example where that has been successful? France's Minitel maybe? > misinformation helps the various intelligence agencies and media outlets sell eyeballs or distort truth. This is the likely outcome which puts us back into government controlled propaganda and no government-approved online alternatives.

jfengel 3y ago

I can't imagine how such a class could be taught, at least in the US. At the federal level both sides accuse each other of misinformation, not merely differences of opinion but active propaganda. It doesn't really matter which side, if either, is correct. Any class which tended to lead students toward conclusions either way would be met with accusations of brainwashing and playing politics with education. Even if they discussed it in purely abstract terms, it would be either so anodyne as to be useless, or bitterly rejected by at least one side. I of course have my own opinions about which is more at fault. But we're a democracy, and it's close enough to 50-50 that a near majority is going to feel deeply abused regardless of the outcome. It would be nice if there were some kind of scientific body we could trust to guide the process, but none has sufficient support.

wolverine876 3y ago
> I can't imagine how such a class could be taught, at least in the US. At the federal level both sides accuse each other of misinformation, not merely differences of opinion but active propaganda. The class wouldn't take either side. It would just discuss propaganda techniques and how to defeat them. Use material from some other time or place to examine it.
- jfengel 3y ago
  I suspect that no matter what example you chose, at least one side would find it prejudicial. A friend was just recounting a class she took in elementary school. Students read papers advocating a ban or government support for dihydrogen monoxide. (My friend knew the gag and was asked not to spoil the joke. She was allowed to portray herself as an addict, to the horror of all classmates.) That seems as neutral a piece of material as you're going to get. Still... I'm skeptical. I believe that if you rolled this out it would be presented as being an analogy to political topics and become seen as a covert argument for the other side. I have my suspicions about who and how, but that's not really the point. The point is that it would be somebody, no matter how neutrally it was designed. Neutrality itself has become a controversial political topic.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    I think you (or many people, because I don't know you) buy into one side's propaganda: Hopelessness, despair. That's actually the objective of professional propaganda - to paralyze, not to persuade. What you see is out of the textbook. People can work together, can learn, can make it happen. It takes effort, it's not easy, but it's natural human instinct. It's the foundation of democracy. People much prefer it. In fact it is easy, really; the good people greatly outnumber the bad people; they are just sitting around, feeling intimidated, repeating the propaganda about how impossible it is. I remember somewhere, I was taught never to quit ...
    - jfengel 3y ago
      I appreciate you saying that. I'm afraid I've got a very well founded cynicism, but I do try. Thank you.

nradov 3y ago

I have zero interest in using government controlled social media, nor do I want my taxes wasted on that type of boondoggle.

tremon 3y ago

Propagandists versus everyone else Once you have reached the point where every situation is reduced to a simplistic black&white view, the propagandists have already won: you've become one of them.

RyanAdamas 3y ago
As opposed to statements of absolutism? Sounds like you're one of them!

gibbitz 3y ago

I took a semiotics course in college where the professor asked the question "is the fish aware of the water it swims in?" A rephrasing of an Einstein quote but one that I think 12 year olds need to be aware of when they get smart phones. Advertising sprang right out of the Nazi propaganda ideology and has been a force manipulating children long before these phones. Media literacy is a subject kids need to be learning right along with reading clocks and handwriting. The problem can be more benign too. My kids lose track of time diving down rabbit holes all day. They have no critical ignoring skills and are using time better spent on experiences taking multi-page "do you have autism" tests that serve them 10 plus ads per page, tempting them to waste even more time.

wolverine876 3y ago
> Media literacy is a subject kids need to be learning right along with reading clocks and handwriting. Agreed. It's done in some places. > semiotics course Such topics are sneered at now, but post-modernism was built as a response, in a sense, to WWII propaganda. It's the propagandists who are threatened by it, and somehow seem to have benefitted from - if not pushed - everyone unilaterally disarming. Also: I looked into the origin of that quote and as far as I know, it's attributed to many different people (the version I heard: 'I don't know who discovered water, but it wasn't a fish.'). Advertising is sometimes attributed to the The Commitee on Public Information (or the 'Creel Committee'), a US government group that produced propaganda for WWI, pre-Nazi.