5 ms·

The United States censors links to foreign propaganda as well. They DDOS sites sometimes, especially ISIL-active forums, etc. I don't know if they DDOS state sp

The United States censors links to foreign propaganda as well. They DDOS sites sometimes, especially ISIL-active forums, etc. I don't know if they DDOS state sponsored sites - they are probably more stealthy (something the Chinese don't care about).

themeekforgotpw 11y ago
It's true. Downvotes don't change that.
- nothrabannosir 11y ago
  Thanks for the info, although complaining about downvotes could perhaps do with a sprinkle of references? I don't personally care, either way, but "No, really! It's true!" does not generally a good point make.
  - themeekforgotpw 11y ago
    I agree with this. Sometimes I get brigaded and I feel the urge to call out the immaturity. For references, here's an example of a website that was simultaneously blocked on a bunch of providers because it matched domain name patterns of a Russia propaganda site: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/duplicates/38pmg8/hey_reddit_someone_is_trying_really_hard_to_erase/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/duplicates/38pmg8/hey_re... Here's a FOIA document from the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications in general about their (mostly overt capabilities to engage the Middle East). They mention DoD covert hacking/DoS capabilities: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/center-for-strategic-counterterrorism-communications-operations-state-1348/ https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/cen... There's plenty of this stuff to go around. My favorite (using MRIs to help develop propaganda for Twitter in the Middle East): http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf
    - pdabbadabba 11y ago
      > For references, here's an example of a website that was simultaneously blocked on a bunch of providers because it matched domain name patterns of a Russia propaganda site: Not sure what this demonstrates. If you look at the comments it seems pretty clear that this was just an ordinary case of mistaken blacklisting, possibly because the administrator had never heard of an SPF record. And, worst case, it was blacklisted because it was mistaken for a Russian spam site. There is no credible allegation of governmental involvement at all, and no reason to think that there was. Moreover, it looks like the problem was long since corrected, through the usual means for becoming un-blacklisted.
      - themeekforgotpw 11y ago
        A Russian spam site called StopFastTrack? The US use the term 'spam' and 'trolling' as code to mean foreign propaganda. I can get you more information about that as well.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Downvotes for making an irrelevant tu quoque don't imply people disagree with your statement.
  - themeekforgotpw 11y ago
    Well it's not irrelevant tu quoque. Telegram is like ZunZuneo and other initiatives by Western governments to force their adversary to choose to either censor something and take a PR hit or have their countrymen radicalised. I ought to have made that link clear. I apologize.
nahname 11y ago
There is a difference between attacking the message and attacking the messenger.
pdabbadabba 11y ago
A few citations would be nice, as would some explanation of how the conduct you allege in any way resembles the behavior of the Chinese government. I am aware of zero cases where the U.S. government has taken down a site just because it concluded that the site contained propaganda that the government did not want the U.S. populous to read. I seriously doubt such cases exist. The fact that I can pull up Wikileaks or RT without trouble tends to suggest that the U.S. government certainly does not do this regularly -- I think these sites certainly would be blocked under the Chinese approach, much as China has repeatedly blocked the New York Times, or specific New York Times stories. (https://www.google.com/search?q=china%20block%20new%20york%20times https://www.google.com/search?q=china%20block%20new%20york%2...) I don't doubt that it has the capability, and that the U.S. would use it if there were a compelling reason to do so (your assertion about ISIS forums, for example, strikes me as an attempt to suppress organization and recruitment by an active enemy of the United States in wartime [insert largely irrelevant debate about whether this is really a war, here]), but I seriously doubt there is any credible evidence that the U.S. government uses these tools in a way comparable to the Chinese government. We have a lot of problems here in the U.S., but I think you'd be hard pressed to make a credible case that pervasive Internet censorship, equivalent, or even remotely similar to what is done by the Chinese government, is one of them.
- themeekforgotpw 11y ago
  The ISIS example is far more complicated. It's part of information warfare. ISIS is of course partially supported by the US government for the purposes of destabilizing the Assad regime. But we don't want it in Iraq - just Syria - and its message as proved to move it farther than we want it to. Much of the information warfare has to do with controlling the movement - stopping it from spreading where we don't want it to and letting or encouraging it to spread in Syria. The State Department's "War of Ideas" and Congress's "Jihad 2.0" are higher level concepts that round down to the use of these capabilities to direct movements. Of course nothing can get done without some sort of conventional capability as well. I'm sorry that you aren't aware of it. The allegations, I hope, and there's plenty of both evidence and anecdotes and law that supports it, will pique your interest. I don't think its right to compare to China. I do think it's important to note that both need to fight against one another's propaganda. Again, if you drop the case that it's like the Chinese, and just ask whether it is done (especially overseas - it is done in huge amounts overseas) then yeah there is pervasive Internet censorship and propaganda. I encourage you to look up "strategic communication": http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476331.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476331.pdf Here's part of Jihad 2.0: http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf The US works with media executives to develop foreign aimed propaganda: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/133736 https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/133736 (And if you hadn't caught it that's what the SONY hacks were all about). I've also read quite a bit of scholarship on the Chinese program and it doesn't look so very different from the US side (from a technical perspective): http://gking.harvard.edu/files/censored.pdf http://gking.harvard.edu/files/censored.pdf There are certain things that get thwarted. Facebook's 'anti-spam' feature blocked the organization of this past year's MayDay protests. Whoops.

themeekforgotpw 11y ago

It's true. Downvotes don't change that.

nothrabannosir 11y ago
Thanks for the info, although complaining about downvotes could perhaps do with a sprinkle of references? I don't personally care, either way, but "No, really! It's true!" does not generally a good point make.
- themeekforgotpw 11y ago
  I agree with this. Sometimes I get brigaded and I feel the urge to call out the immaturity. For references, here's an example of a website that was simultaneously blocked on a bunch of providers because it matched domain name patterns of a Russia propaganda site: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/duplicates/38pmg8/hey_reddit_someone_is_trying_really_hard_to_erase/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/duplicates/38pmg8/hey_re... Here's a FOIA document from the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications in general about their (mostly overt capabilities to engage the Middle East). They mention DoD covert hacking/DoS capabilities: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/center-for-strategic-counterterrorism-communications-operations-state-1348/ https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/cen... There's plenty of this stuff to go around. My favorite (using MRIs to help develop propaganda for Twitter in the Middle East): http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    > For references, here's an example of a website that was simultaneously blocked on a bunch of providers because it matched domain name patterns of a Russia propaganda site: Not sure what this demonstrates. If you look at the comments it seems pretty clear that this was just an ordinary case of mistaken blacklisting, possibly because the administrator had never heard of an SPF record. And, worst case, it was blacklisted because it was mistaken for a Russian spam site. There is no credible allegation of governmental involvement at all, and no reason to think that there was. Moreover, it looks like the problem was long since corrected, through the usual means for becoming un-blacklisted.
    - themeekforgotpw 11y ago
      A Russian spam site called StopFastTrack? The US use the term 'spam' and 'trolling' as code to mean foreign propaganda. I can get you more information about that as well.
cbd1984 11y ago
Downvotes for making an irrelevant tu quoque don't imply people disagree with your statement.
- themeekforgotpw 11y ago
  Well it's not irrelevant tu quoque. Telegram is like ZunZuneo and other initiatives by Western governments to force their adversary to choose to either censor something and take a PR hit or have their countrymen radicalised. I ought to have made that link clear. I apologize.

nahname 11y ago

There is a difference between attacking the message and attacking the messenger.

pdabbadabba 11y ago

A few citations would be nice, as would some explanation of how the conduct you allege in any way resembles the behavior of the Chinese government. I am aware of zero cases where the U.S. government has taken down a site just because it concluded that the site contained propaganda that the government did not want the U.S. populous to read. I seriously doubt such cases exist. The fact that I can pull up Wikileaks or RT without trouble tends to suggest that the U.S. government certainly does not do this regularly -- I think these sites certainly would be blocked under the Chinese approach, much as China has repeatedly blocked the New York Times, or specific New York Times stories. (https://www.google.com/search?q=china%20block%20new%20york%20times https://www.google.com/search?q=china%20block%20new%20york%2...) I don't doubt that it has the capability, and that the U.S. would use it if there were a compelling reason to do so (your assertion about ISIS forums, for example, strikes me as an attempt to suppress organization and recruitment by an active enemy of the United States in wartime [insert largely irrelevant debate about whether this is really a war, here]), but I seriously doubt there is any credible evidence that the U.S. government uses these tools in a way comparable to the Chinese government. We have a lot of problems here in the U.S., but I think you'd be hard pressed to make a credible case that pervasive Internet censorship, equivalent, or even remotely similar to what is done by the Chinese government, is one of them.

themeekforgotpw 11y ago
The ISIS example is far more complicated. It's part of information warfare. ISIS is of course partially supported by the US government for the purposes of destabilizing the Assad regime. But we don't want it in Iraq - just Syria - and its message as proved to move it farther than we want it to. Much of the information warfare has to do with controlling the movement - stopping it from spreading where we don't want it to and letting or encouraging it to spread in Syria. The State Department's "War of Ideas" and Congress's "Jihad 2.0" are higher level concepts that round down to the use of these capabilities to direct movements. Of course nothing can get done without some sort of conventional capability as well. I'm sorry that you aren't aware of it. The allegations, I hope, and there's plenty of both evidence and anecdotes and law that supports it, will pique your interest. I don't think its right to compare to China. I do think it's important to note that both need to fight against one another's propaganda. Again, if you drop the case that it's like the Chinese, and just ask whether it is done (especially overseas - it is done in huge amounts overseas) then yeah there is pervasive Internet censorship and propaganda. I encourage you to look up "strategic communication": http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476331.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476331.pdf Here's part of Jihad 2.0: http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf The US works with media executives to develop foreign aimed propaganda: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/133736 https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/133736 (And if you hadn't caught it that's what the SONY hacks were all about). I've also read quite a bit of scholarship on the Chinese program and it doesn't look so very different from the US side (from a technical perspective): http://gking.harvard.edu/files/censored.pdf http://gking.harvard.edu/files/censored.pdf There are certain things that get thwarted. Facebook's 'anti-spam' feature blocked the organization of this past year's MayDay protests. Whoops.