3 ms·

It's not in my interest to discuss the actions of the intelligence system in the US/UK, so I wont. I'm inclined never to address the subject again, to be honest

It's not in my interest to discuss the actions of the intelligence system in the US/UK, so I wont. I'm inclined never to address the subject again, to be honest. Tulsi Gabbard's hearing may be a tiny bit illuminating. The DOGE wrecking ball might lead to a new Church-committe-style hearing, there's already hearings in the house on the "censorship-industrial complex" but they're too naive at the moment. DOGE still think the "DEI" funding of USAID has something to do with being leftwing (rather than, say, the funding counter-government movements). Meh. In many ways, it's all too late now. "How should the intelligence services conduct themselves?" has never been a question open to democratic debate, nor one any mass media outlet would dream of posing. Today, esp. it isnt one we citizens should raise -- leave it to whomever is able to roll the dice "at the top".

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> USAID has something to do with being leftwing (rather than, say, the funding counter-government movements) Yes, against our allies. Literally how soft power works. (As well as funding insurgencies against our adversaries’ proxies.) Zero evidence it’s been used domestically. Which makes sense, because that would be dumb. Use those resources to attack directly. > "How should the intelligence services conduct themselves?" has never been a question open to democratic debate This is just excusing laziness. I’ve worked on privacy and intelligence bills, including giving comment and adding revisions at the federal level. The problem is it’s boring work and like two constituents call about it. The IC has been weak since the Iraq War and never put up a fight directly; they relied on their neocon warhawks to be their surrogates. Which mostly worked because the overlap between people who care about this and people who are nihilistic about civics to the point of being electorally irrelevant is huge.
- mjburgess 2y ago
  I think this weakness is out of date. The privatisation of mass culture via social media (, the internet, etc.) provides highly asymmetric rewards for action via these "private" entities which can be strong-armed and hands-bloodied in participation in relevant "consensus-building NGOs". Absent trump's election, the whole apparatus deployed to against media companies (targeting their ad networks to defund, strong-arming censorship, strong-arming participation etc.) would have went completely institutionally unaddressed. > that would be dumb Sure, given that your opponent can be elected your boss -- which happened, and now he's taking a wrecking ball to every agency which concerned itself with these tactics. However, at the time it did not seem dumb. It seemed that trump was an existential threat to democracy. That may have even been to a degree true, but the dirty tricks approach has radicalized the far-right against the state in ways which used to be confined to the (previously targeted) far-left.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> USAID has something to do with being leftwing (rather than, say, the funding counter-government movements) Yes, against our allies. Literally how soft power works. (As well as funding insurgencies against our adversaries’ proxies.) Zero evidence it’s been used domestically. Which makes sense, because that would be dumb. Use those resources to attack directly. > "How should the intelligence services conduct themselves?" has never been a question open to democratic debate This is just excusing laziness. I’ve worked on privacy and intelligence bills, including giving comment and adding revisions at the federal level. The problem is it’s boring work and like two constituents call about it. The IC has been weak since the Iraq War and never put up a fight directly; they relied on their neocon warhawks to be their surrogates. Which mostly worked because the overlap between people who care about this and people who are nihilistic about civics to the point of being electorally irrelevant is huge.

mjburgess 2y ago
I think this weakness is out of date. The privatisation of mass culture via social media (, the internet, etc.) provides highly asymmetric rewards for action via these "private" entities which can be strong-armed and hands-bloodied in participation in relevant "consensus-building NGOs". Absent trump's election, the whole apparatus deployed to against media companies (targeting their ad networks to defund, strong-arming censorship, strong-arming participation etc.) would have went completely institutionally unaddressed. > that would be dumb Sure, given that your opponent can be elected your boss -- which happened, and now he's taking a wrecking ball to every agency which concerned itself with these tactics. However, at the time it did not seem dumb. It seemed that trump was an existential threat to democracy. That may have even been to a degree true, but the dirty tricks approach has radicalized the far-right against the state in ways which used to be confined to the (previously targeted) far-left.