6 ms·

I'd be pretty surprised if the US employed people to do anything like this on domestic US sites at any scale. What would they post? Wouldn't a smart individual

I'd be pretty surprised if the US employed people to do anything like this on domestic US sites at any scale. What would they post? Wouldn't a smart individual from a US site have detected this and shared, or a whistleblower have disclosed it? That said, I'd be pretty unsurprised if we employed people to do it on specific, foreign sites in places like Iran, China, Syria, Lybia, etc. Monitoring + Posting + Commenting. That would be smart and part of normal intel gathering. More interesting than the human commentary, however, would be bots running analysis on posts and comments, and then upvoting, downvoting, or spamming in the comments (with intent to ruin experience) based on content and sentiment -- allowing programatic and rule-driven propaganda effects.

ianlevesque 12y ago
The US does openly employ people to do this. One article about it: http://www.wired.com/2012/07/counterterrorism-trolls/all/ http://www.wired.com/2012/07/counterterrorism-trolls/all/
- conistonwater 12y ago
  From your link: > Within the State Department, a Silicon Valley veteran has quietly launched an improbable new initiative to annoy, frustrate and humiliate denizens of online extremist forums. Not exactly the comment section of BBC, is it?
  - lhc- 12y ago
    Depends on your definition of Extremists. Within the State Dept., I'd imagine there are plenty who think that anyone who supports Snowden is an extremist.
    - heroh 12y ago
      if you use Linux, TOR, Tails or any real encryption you're already deemed an extremist by NSA. http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extremist-forum-and-its-readers-get-flagged-extra-surveillance http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extrem...
Terr_ 12y ago
> Wouldn't a smart individual from a US site have detected this and shared, or a whistleblower have disclosed it? Eventually, but eventually can be a long time. Didn't Project Mockingbird fly (hah) under the radar for 14 years?
fiblye 12y ago
>I'd be pretty surprised if the US employed people to do anything like this on domestic US sites at any scale. What would they post? Call me a conspiracy nut, but now that social media is how most young people get their news, I wouldn't be surprised if the US gov paid people to post and promote bullshit fluff to keep people distracted from major events in the world. When those major stories do make it to the masses, there are people to comment about how it's a "non-issue" and "we need to focus on more important things" or that the US is doing what's necessary to protect its interests and the world's. Just a couple examples: All throughout the build up to the Manning trial, I distinctly remember most commenters on tech news sites supporting Manning. Upon conviction, I checked the comments on Ars Technica and the comments were overwhelmingly along the lines of "Let this be a sign to all future traitors.", "Lock HIM up and throw away the key!!" There was a comment about how suspicious the shift was, and the next three pages of comments were along the lines of, "How do we know YOU aren't working for someone?", "We never supported TRAITORS like YOU.", etc. It was bizarre. The overwhelming coverage of The Interview days after the CIA torture report came out. People were outraged, but then every corner of the internet was plastered with patriotism and how we need to release some awful comedy to stick it to some dirt poor totalitarian state. Now people have forgotten about that movie, as well as the CIA's issues. I also recall a huge amount of support for an invasion and increased funding of rebels in Syria back when the US government claimed Assad was using chemical weapons against his people. What shocked me was that the people most calling for war was liberal/feminist discussion circles. That all seems to be forgotten now that a group of rebels called ISIS is our enemy of the week.
- pyre 12y ago
  > dirt poor totalitarian state North Korea isn't dirt poor. All the wealth is concentrated at the top, and in the military-spending though.
  - mikeyouse 12y ago
    North Korea -- Population 25 Million -- is estimated to have a GDP of $40B. Wyoming -- Population 550,000 -- is estimated to have a GDP of $40B. North Korea is extremely poor by any reasonable definition. The presence of a wealthy elite doesn't change their abysmal GDP per capita or poverty rates.
holri 12y ago
there was a (German) talk at 31C3 about a proof of concept such a propaganda bot: http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6184_-_de_-_saal_g_-_201412271715_-_mein_bot_der_kombattant_-_josch_-_arche3000.html#video http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6184_-_de_-_...
Someone1234 12y ago
> What would they post? Anything that swayed public opinion. For one example posting negative things regarding the Edward Snowden controversy. There were people calling him a "traitor" who "got people killed" with zero post history. As I said, the evidence that the USG does this is not strong, although there have been reports that discuss doing it (and methods), and the USG almost certainly do have strong influence over the popular media (e.g. evening news, newspapers, etc) and have since the cold war (when newspapers would have a CIA employee in every newsroom, providing "feedback" on certain stories and some claim pushing US puff pieces).
pyre 12y ago
> a whistleblower have disclosed it Like how the NSA shenanigans got the whistle blown on them before they got very far?
- Someone1234 12y ago
  Yeah. People love to ignore even recent history. We had evidence that the NSA program was going on since 2003 and in 2005 anyone who was paying attention knew that they had hooks into major telephone hubs and under-sea cables with most of the major carriers (and there were already several whistleblowers). We also knew they were building huge data centres. But many people ignored it because "the US Government would never do such a thing!" It literally took Edward Snowdon to spell it out to these people before they would believe, but if your head wasn't buried in the sand nothing in the Snowden leaks should have been a shock or surprise (except maybe the fiber intercepts between private company's data centres, that wasn't known). I think people will naively pretend that the US Government has no influence over popular media OR social media until it is spelt out to them in plain English from internal memos. However we've already seen enough leaks to know SOMETHING is going on, we just don't know the scale (kind of like the 2003 version of the NSA scandal, we aren't at the 2005 level of knowledge yet).
  - rhino369 12y ago
    We didn't just had evidence. There was a huge political debate about warrent-less wiretapping during the Bush administration. Public debate, laws were passed, the whole 9 yards. In fact the big snowden shocker turned out to be bullshit. The report that the NSA had direct access to facebook and gmail. Turns out that was just a misinterpretation of a powerpoint slide. The only new and important info Snowden leaked was the metadata from phone companies that included everyone.
    - throwaway2048 12y ago
      people are still repeating the "its only metadata" line?
    - pyre 12y ago
analog31 12y ago
>>> What would they post? In my view, they don't really have to post anything of substance. All they might have to do is degrade the discourse through trolling, to the point where thoughtful views from either "side" are lost in the noise.
- cryoshon 12y ago
  This is certainly one of their tactics. Here's an okay link describing other tactics: http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/ http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinf...
freshhawk 12y ago
Would you be surprised really? You immediately came up with an idea to ruin certain conversations using technical know how not available to the general public. Now imagine you work somewhere with the budget and means to actually do it, and you are the type of person who is just as techy and also is fine with your career working with the people who got burned in the Snowden leak. Why wouldn't you actually do it? You probably would: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140714/10462727873/latest-snowden-revelations-suggest-gchq-is-just-like-4chan-trolls-with-more-firepower.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140714/10462727873/lates...
jqm 12y ago
I'd be surprised if they didn't. Look at comments on a site like Washington Post for instance. In addition to pro-government positions, there appears to be a pro Obama bunch that is strident beyond reason. I mean... Obama could eat a baby and they would be there 24-7 arguing that it was the best thing to do.

ianlevesque 12y ago

The US does openly employ people to do this. One article about it: http://www.wired.com/2012/07/counterterrorism-trolls/all/ http://www.wired.com/2012/07/counterterrorism-trolls/all/

conistonwater 12y ago
From your link: > Within the State Department, a Silicon Valley veteran has quietly launched an improbable new initiative to annoy, frustrate and humiliate denizens of online extremist forums. Not exactly the comment section of BBC, is it?
- lhc- 12y ago
  Depends on your definition of Extremists. Within the State Dept., I'd imagine there are plenty who think that anyone who supports Snowden is an extremist.
  - heroh 12y ago
    if you use Linux, TOR, Tails or any real encryption you're already deemed an extremist by NSA. http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extremist-forum-and-its-readers-get-flagged-extra-surveillance http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extrem...

Terr_ 12y ago

> Wouldn't a smart individual from a US site have detected this and shared, or a whistleblower have disclosed it? Eventually, but eventually can be a long time. Didn't Project Mockingbird fly (hah) under the radar for 14 years?

fiblye 12y ago

>I'd be pretty surprised if the US employed people to do anything like this on domestic US sites at any scale. What would they post? Call me a conspiracy nut, but now that social media is how most young people get their news, I wouldn't be surprised if the US gov paid people to post and promote bullshit fluff to keep people distracted from major events in the world. When those major stories do make it to the masses, there are people to comment about how it's a "non-issue" and "we need to focus on more important things" or that the US is doing what's necessary to protect its interests and the world's. Just a couple examples: All throughout the build up to the Manning trial, I distinctly remember most commenters on tech news sites supporting Manning. Upon conviction, I checked the comments on Ars Technica and the comments were overwhelmingly along the lines of "Let this be a sign to all future traitors.", "Lock HIM up and throw away the key!!" There was a comment about how suspicious the shift was, and the next three pages of comments were along the lines of, "How do we know YOU aren't working for someone?", "We never supported TRAITORS like YOU.", etc. It was bizarre. The overwhelming coverage of The Interview days after the CIA torture report came out. People were outraged, but then every corner of the internet was plastered with patriotism and how we need to release some awful comedy to stick it to some dirt poor totalitarian state. Now people have forgotten about that movie, as well as the CIA's issues. I also recall a huge amount of support for an invasion and increased funding of rebels in Syria back when the US government claimed Assad was using chemical weapons against his people. What shocked me was that the people most calling for war was liberal/feminist discussion circles. That all seems to be forgotten now that a group of rebels called ISIS is our enemy of the week.

pyre 12y ago
> dirt poor totalitarian state North Korea isn't dirt poor. All the wealth is concentrated at the top, and in the military-spending though.
- mikeyouse 12y ago
  North Korea -- Population 25 Million -- is estimated to have a GDP of $40B. Wyoming -- Population 550,000 -- is estimated to have a GDP of $40B. North Korea is extremely poor by any reasonable definition. The presence of a wealthy elite doesn't change their abysmal GDP per capita or poverty rates.

holri 12y ago

there was a (German) talk at 31C3 about a proof of concept such a propaganda bot: http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6184_-_de_-_saal_g_-_201412271715_-_mein_bot_der_kombattant_-_josch_-_arche3000.html#video http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6184_-_de_-_...

Someone1234 12y ago

> What would they post? Anything that swayed public opinion. For one example posting negative things regarding the Edward Snowden controversy. There were people calling him a "traitor" who "got people killed" with zero post history. As I said, the evidence that the USG does this is not strong, although there have been reports that discuss doing it (and methods), and the USG almost certainly do have strong influence over the popular media (e.g. evening news, newspapers, etc) and have since the cold war (when newspapers would have a CIA employee in every newsroom, providing "feedback" on certain stories and some claim pushing US puff pieces).

pyre 12y ago

> a whistleblower have disclosed it Like how the NSA shenanigans got the whistle blown on them before they got very far?

Someone1234 12y ago
Yeah. People love to ignore even recent history. We had evidence that the NSA program was going on since 2003 and in 2005 anyone who was paying attention knew that they had hooks into major telephone hubs and under-sea cables with most of the major carriers (and there were already several whistleblowers). We also knew they were building huge data centres. But many people ignored it because "the US Government would never do such a thing!" It literally took Edward Snowdon to spell it out to these people before they would believe, but if your head wasn't buried in the sand nothing in the Snowden leaks should have been a shock or surprise (except maybe the fiber intercepts between private company's data centres, that wasn't known). I think people will naively pretend that the US Government has no influence over popular media OR social media until it is spelt out to them in plain English from internal memos. However we've already seen enough leaks to know SOMETHING is going on, we just don't know the scale (kind of like the 2003 version of the NSA scandal, we aren't at the 2005 level of knowledge yet).
- rhino369 12y ago
  We didn't just had evidence. There was a huge political debate about warrent-less wiretapping during the Bush administration. Public debate, laws were passed, the whole 9 yards. In fact the big snowden shocker turned out to be bullshit. The report that the NSA had direct access to facebook and gmail. Turns out that was just a misinterpretation of a powerpoint slide. The only new and important info Snowden leaked was the metadata from phone companies that included everyone.
  - throwaway2048 12y ago
    people are still repeating the "its only metadata" line?
  - pyre 12y ago

analog31 12y ago

>>> What would they post? In my view, they don't really have to post anything of substance. All they might have to do is degrade the discourse through trolling, to the point where thoughtful views from either "side" are lost in the noise.

cryoshon 12y ago
This is certainly one of their tactics. Here's an okay link describing other tactics: http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/ http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinf...

freshhawk 12y ago

Would you be surprised really? You immediately came up with an idea to ruin certain conversations using technical know how not available to the general public. Now imagine you work somewhere with the budget and means to actually do it, and you are the type of person who is just as techy and also is fine with your career working with the people who got burned in the Snowden leak. Why wouldn't you actually do it? You probably would: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140714/10462727873/latest-snowden-revelations-suggest-gchq-is-just-like-4chan-trolls-with-more-firepower.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140714/10462727873/lates...

jqm 12y ago

I'd be surprised if they didn't. Look at comments on a site like Washington Post for instance. In addition to pro-government positions, there appears to be a pro Obama bunch that is strident beyond reason. I mean... Obama could eat a baby and they would be there 24-7 arguing that it was the best thing to do.