7 ms·

Imagine an AI impersonating your friends and relatives and trying to tell you that you are not trans/gay/green/vegan or whatever the president doesn't like that

Imagine an AI impersonating your friends and relatives and trying to tell you that you are not trans/gay/green/vegan or whatever the president doesn't like that very morning. They're building the Ministry of Truth. If you need an AI and propaganda to convince someone instead of neutral, rational, and educational means - then guess what, you are in the wrong.

lettergram 1y ago
They tried it last administration too -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Boar... To be honest, it's been going on for effectively forever. See operation mockingbird -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
- throwawayq3423 1y ago
  Your first citation exposes disinformation it doesn't create and disseminate it. Your second citation was a Cold War shitshow that has no relevancy today.
  - jerkstate 1y ago
    even the word "disinformation" is just a frame
    - malfist 1y ago
      That's the tolerance paradox. Things can be disinformation without playing games with equivocation. If Phillip morris is running a bot farm or paying people to tell others that smoking is healthy and doesn't cause cancer, then we have a duty to call that disinformation and strive to correct it. And I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me about the growing lung cancer rates in nonsmokers or that lung cancer is more deadly in nonsmokers.
      - jerkstate 1y ago
        That's completely irrelevant to the original poster's point. The "Disinformation Governance Board" as referenced in the original post was not sponsored by phillip morris, and did not claim that smoking was healthy. Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation"
        throwawayq3423 1y ago
        Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation" Not a word of that is accurate. 1. The US government has never had the authority to remove content. They merely flag what they find of foreign and malign origin for platforms, which then take the decisions themselves. 2. The U.S. government worked to uncover foreign influence operations. If those influence operations, aside from promoting chaos, supported one candidate over another, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore them. What it should be is a moment of introspection for conservatives as to why unambiguous enemies of America want the candidate that you want to run the country. But that introspection has not and probably will never come.
        jerkstate 1y ago
        > Not a word of that is accurate. Check the wikipedia page > The US government has never had the authority to remove content. this is technically true, but false in practice. > The U.S. government worked to uncover foreign influence operations. If those influence operations, aside from promoting chaos, supported one candidate over another, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore them. they worked to uncover some foreign influence operations (and broadly propagandized the connection to the political campaign); other foreign influence operations (such as a certain dossier compiled by a foreign intelligence agent, colluding with one of the political parties, and using many foreign intelligence sources), they used as the basis for propaganda in mainstream media, which was laundered back into "evidence" for an intelligence operation against a political candidate. Classic disinformation technique. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg Do you see what I mean when I say "disinformation is a frame" ?
    - throwawayq3423 1y ago
      No, it's a classification of information. And you're deflecting away from the fact that no one can agree on basic definitions of terminology and everyone is just talking past each other.
  - gruez 1y ago
    [flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- jauntywundrkind 1y ago
  From that DGB link: > the board would have no operational authority or capability but would collect best practices for dissemination to DHS organizations already tasked with defending against disinformation threats, > the board would not monitor American citizens > the board would study policy questions, best practices, and academic research on disinformation, and then submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content. > the board would monitor disinformation spread by "foreign states such as Russia, China, and Iran" and "transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling organizations", and disinformation spread during natural disasters (listing as an example misinformation spread about the safety of drinking water during Hurricane Sandy). The DHS added that "The Department is deeply committed to doing all of its work in a way that protects Americans' freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy." > the DGB announced that it would provide quarterly reports to the United States Congress. There was zero benefit of a doubt given by the GOP, and merely the idea of trying to work against foreign influence seemingly unacceptable. Anything to drum up more fear, and frankly, to give quarter to the destabilizing awful elements of this planet. Tulso Gabbard called this the Ministry of Truth. But she's also the one who has left America utterly defenseless by ending all safeguards against international disinformation, by shutting down CISA cyber security protection, and by being a fountain of rank disgusting disinformation weaponizing intelligence agencies for base political gain again and again and again. She has close ties to Russia and in my opinion is working for them. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tulsi-gabbard-russian-connection-dni-trump-syria-b2692244.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... It's all spin, no bite. The endless fear mongering of the GOP is preventing even basic security of the nation.
netsharc 1y ago
Ha, quick, make GaslightGPT and sell it to governments..! Non-stop, never tiring system to convince citizens that they're wrong! Even the "we're not Trump" EU are still gaslighting about the genocide, amongst other things.
SirChud 1y ago
[flagged]
- gumby271 1y ago
  Yeah imagine such a wild thing
- throwawayq3423 1y ago
  Hacker News is not for regurgitating culture war nonsense. Go back to Reddit.
  - cookiengineer 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - SirChud 1y ago
    [dead]
- cwillu 1y ago
  As opposed to governments forcing hormone therapies on gay people in a hamfisted attempt to make them not gay?
candiddevmike 1y ago
Would this replace Facebook?
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  Will FB partner with it?
  - echelon 1y ago
    It hasn't already? I'd be shocked if this wasn't already happening. Both with domestic and foreign targets. We've been doing propaganda for a century. The methods are changing.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
michaelterryio 1y ago
It's a bit strange you think the government has a problem with any of those things. Those are not the right examples.
- thejazzman 1y ago
  it's a bit strange that you're unaware that those are some of the current governments biggest concerns -- as evidence by their endless direct attacks on those precise subjects..
- HaZeust 1y ago
  Brother man, Trump cares so much about LGBT rhetoric that it was one of the first executive orders he signed: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defe... And it's been one of the ones he's been actively trying to enforce: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/21/health/trans-community-trump-all-of-government https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/21/health/trans-community-trump-... https://19thnews.org/2025/03/trump-anti-trans-executive-orders/ https://19thnews.org/2025/03/trump-anti-trans-executive-orde... Shit, here's an article from TODAY if you want to say these measures are no longer high-priority: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/school-board-sues-trump-admin-to-defend-transgender-student-policy/2025/08 https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/school-board-sues-tru...
decremental 1y ago
[dead]
sneak 1y ago
It’s a common misconception that people have that propaganda is untrue. Just like a good documentary, selecting which set of true, objective facts to insert into one’s attention and narrative can perfectly serve an agenda.
- card_zero 1y ago
  Yes, there was plenty of anti-nazi propaganda in WW2. It wasn't rational argument. It would have been more noble not to use any propaganda. So perhaps it's wrong to use it. However, opinions forced on the public aren't all incorrect just because they're forced. Or for another example, there's anti-smoking propaganda. Changing people's minds by disgusting them with pictures of disease is manipulative, and I don't like it, but the general message that smoking is unhealthy remains true. This justifies nothing, but is a fact.
- daft_pink 1y ago
  I’m for Ukraine, but I’ve been watching YouTube videos from decent sources for years. They’re talking about how some new tactic or weapon is a game changer in the war. The war has been going on for years with no big changes. I recently stopped watching these videos because it’s obvious they’re propaganda. Just because it sounds good doesn’t make it true.

lettergram 1y ago

They tried it last administration too -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Boar... To be honest, it's been going on for effectively forever. See operation mockingbird -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

throwawayq3423 1y ago
Your first citation exposes disinformation it doesn't create and disseminate it. Your second citation was a Cold War shitshow that has no relevancy today.
- jerkstate 1y ago
  even the word "disinformation" is just a frame
  - malfist 1y ago
    That's the tolerance paradox. Things can be disinformation without playing games with equivocation. If Phillip morris is running a bot farm or paying people to tell others that smoking is healthy and doesn't cause cancer, then we have a duty to call that disinformation and strive to correct it. And I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me about the growing lung cancer rates in nonsmokers or that lung cancer is more deadly in nonsmokers.
    - jerkstate 1y ago
      That's completely irrelevant to the original poster's point. The "Disinformation Governance Board" as referenced in the original post was not sponsored by phillip morris, and did not claim that smoking was healthy. Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation"
      - throwawayq3423 1y ago
        Instead, it was sponsored by taxpayers, and was run by people with clear political goals for the suppression of what they considered "disinformation" "misinformation" and "malinformation" Not a word of that is accurate. 1. The US government has never had the authority to remove content. They merely flag what they find of foreign and malign origin for platforms, which then take the decisions themselves. 2. The U.S. government worked to uncover foreign influence operations. If those influence operations, aside from promoting chaos, supported one candidate over another, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore them. What it should be is a moment of introspection for conservatives as to why unambiguous enemies of America want the candidate that you want to run the country. But that introspection has not and probably will never come.
        jerkstate 1y ago
        > Not a word of that is accurate. Check the wikipedia page > The US government has never had the authority to remove content. this is technically true, but false in practice. > The U.S. government worked to uncover foreign influence operations. If those influence operations, aside from promoting chaos, supported one candidate over another, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card to ignore them. they worked to uncover some foreign influence operations (and broadly propagandized the connection to the political campaign); other foreign influence operations (such as a certain dossier compiled by a foreign intelligence agent, colluding with one of the political parties, and using many foreign intelligence sources), they used as the basis for propaganda in mainstream media, which was laundered back into "evidence" for an intelligence operation against a political candidate. Classic disinformation technique. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcEVYq2qUg Do you see what I mean when I say "disinformation is a frame" ?
  - throwawayq3423 1y ago
    No, it's a classification of information. And you're deflecting away from the fact that no one can agree on basic definitions of terminology and everyone is just talking past each other.
- gruez 1y ago
  [flagged]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jauntywundrkind 1y ago
From that DGB link: > the board would have no operational authority or capability but would collect best practices for dissemination to DHS organizations already tasked with defending against disinformation threats, > the board would not monitor American citizens > the board would study policy questions, best practices, and academic research on disinformation, and then submit guidance to the DHS secretary on how different DHS agencies should conduct analysis of online content. > the board would monitor disinformation spread by "foreign states such as Russia, China, and Iran" and "transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling organizations", and disinformation spread during natural disasters (listing as an example misinformation spread about the safety of drinking water during Hurricane Sandy). The DHS added that "The Department is deeply committed to doing all of its work in a way that protects Americans' freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy." > the DGB announced that it would provide quarterly reports to the United States Congress. There was zero benefit of a doubt given by the GOP, and merely the idea of trying to work against foreign influence seemingly unacceptable. Anything to drum up more fear, and frankly, to give quarter to the destabilizing awful elements of this planet. Tulso Gabbard called this the Ministry of Truth. But she's also the one who has left America utterly defenseless by ending all safeguards against international disinformation, by shutting down CISA cyber security protection, and by being a fountain of rank disgusting disinformation weaponizing intelligence agencies for base political gain again and again and again. She has close ties to Russia and in my opinion is working for them. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tulsi-gabbard-russian-connection-dni-trump-syria-b2692244.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... It's all spin, no bite. The endless fear mongering of the GOP is preventing even basic security of the nation.

netsharc 1y ago

Ha, quick, make GaslightGPT and sell it to governments..! Non-stop, never tiring system to convince citizens that they're wrong! Even the "we're not Trump" EU are still gaslighting about the genocide, amongst other things.

SirChud 1y ago

[flagged]

gumby271 1y ago
Yeah imagine such a wild thing
throwawayq3423 1y ago
Hacker News is not for regurgitating culture war nonsense. Go back to Reddit.
- cookiengineer 1y ago
  [flagged]
- SirChud 1y ago
  [dead]
cwillu 1y ago
As opposed to governments forcing hormone therapies on gay people in a hamfisted attempt to make them not gay?

candiddevmike 1y ago

Would this replace Facebook?

actionfromafar 1y ago
Will FB partner with it?
- echelon 1y ago
  It hasn't already? I'd be shocked if this wasn't already happening. Both with domestic and foreign targets. We've been doing propaganda for a century. The methods are changing.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

michaelterryio 1y ago

It's a bit strange you think the government has a problem with any of those things. Those are not the right examples.

thejazzman 1y ago
it's a bit strange that you're unaware that those are some of the current governments biggest concerns -- as evidence by their endless direct attacks on those precise subjects..
HaZeust 1y ago
Brother man, Trump cares so much about LGBT rhetoric that it was one of the first executive orders he signed: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defe... And it's been one of the ones he's been actively trying to enforce: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/21/health/trans-community-trump-all-of-government https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/21/health/trans-community-trump-... https://19thnews.org/2025/03/trump-anti-trans-executive-orders/ https://19thnews.org/2025/03/trump-anti-trans-executive-orde... Shit, here's an article from TODAY if you want to say these measures are no longer high-priority: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/school-board-sues-trump-admin-to-defend-transgender-student-policy/2025/08 https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/school-board-sues-tru...

decremental 1y ago

[dead]

sneak 1y ago

It’s a common misconception that people have that propaganda is untrue. Just like a good documentary, selecting which set of true, objective facts to insert into one’s attention and narrative can perfectly serve an agenda.

card_zero 1y ago
Yes, there was plenty of anti-nazi propaganda in WW2. It wasn't rational argument. It would have been more noble not to use any propaganda. So perhaps it's wrong to use it. However, opinions forced on the public aren't all incorrect just because they're forced. Or for another example, there's anti-smoking propaganda. Changing people's minds by disgusting them with pictures of disease is manipulative, and I don't like it, but the general message that smoking is unhealthy remains true. This justifies nothing, but is a fact.
daft_pink 1y ago
I’m for Ukraine, but I’ve been watching YouTube videos from decent sources for years. They’re talking about how some new tactic or weapon is a game changer in the war. The war has been going on for years with no big changes. I recently stopped watching these videos because it’s obvious they’re propaganda. Just because it sounds good doesn’t make it true.