3 ms·

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 desta

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.

pdabbadabba 11y ago
Perhaps we're not really disagreeing about anything. I know, and have already agreed, that the U.S. can and does engage in so-called "strategic communications" overseas. This surely encompasses influencing the messages that reach targeted populations overseas in furtherance of certain strategic aims. I also agree that the U.S. might try to take down certain sites in particularly extreme cases (such as the U.S.'s targeting of ISIS forums that you allege). What I strongly object to, however, is the equivalence you are suggesting between U.S. "strategic communications" and China's pervasive Internet censorship, both as a matter of raw degree, and also taking into account the different circumstances in which the two countries exercise these capabilities. When asking whether there is some sort of moral equivalence to be drawn between the Chinese and U.S. programs, the question to ask is when do the countries exercise their capabilities, not whether they have these technical capabilities, or whether they are sometimes used. And I still don't see that you've provided any credible evidence that the two are comparable in these terms. (Though maybe we agree here too -- you say "I don't think its right to compare to China" but if this is true, I really don't know why your comments are relevant commentary on this article.) I certainly don't disagree that the U.S. and Chinese programs are likely similar "from a technical perspective," but I don't think the technical perspective is the perspective that should interest people here.
- themeekforgotpw 11y ago
  The US absolutely does censor group organization efforts in the US and political speech as well. What the US does is quite different than China and it faces quite a different set of challenges than China. It's an apples and oranges comparison. We agree here. So to address why this is relevant has to do with China DDoSing content that is not a domestic product/service of China. Telegraph is not from China. China blocking Telegraph is like the US blocking stopfasttrack.ru and videos from warfighters in the Middle East. China blocking Telegraph is like the UK plans to take what they currently do and what they plan to do by law and block certain foreign tools for secure communication. The US, too, blocks (and sabotages) secure communication software - it has been defunding secure communication software with partnerships in the valley, has Comey talking to Congress about the need for software front doors, and the Snowden leaks showed us how comprehensively backdoored everything is including relationships between vendors and services with customers. The US does this with foreign developed services and it thwarts secure communication capabilities both provided by foreign governments and its own private sector intended for domestic use. That's the equivalence and the relevance.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    >The US absolutely does censor group organization efforts in the US and political speech as well. But this is precisely the claim for which you have provided no substantial support (though you have provided ample support for the uncontroversial assertion that the U.S. engages in strategic communications operations), other than 1) a single website that was temporarily blacklisted by private spam filtering organizations and ISPs, likely for some combination of factors including the absence of an SPF record, and which was promptly un-blacklisted upon request and 2) forums being used to support an enemy during wartime. What am I missing? > China blocking Telegraph is like the US blocking . . .videos from warfighters in the Middle East. No. It is not. It similar only in from a technical perspective. From the perspective of the government's motivations for blocking them, and the moral acceptability of those motivations, the two are entirely different. The U.S. blocked forums being used to publicize and support enemy activities in a war zone (by a terrorist group, by any definition, to boot), while China blocked communications tools being used by human rights lawyers to expose inequities in China's legal system. Whatever you may think about the legitimacy of the U.S.'s "war" against ISIS, it's not too hard to draw a line between these two situations. The problem is not that, e.g., China censors communications. I think most would agree that this is sometimes necessary (though perhaps only very rarely). The issue, which you're glossing over, is when and why.

pdabbadabba 11y ago

Perhaps we're not really disagreeing about anything. I know, and have already agreed, that the U.S. can and does engage in so-called "strategic communications" overseas. This surely encompasses influencing the messages that reach targeted populations overseas in furtherance of certain strategic aims. I also agree that the U.S. might try to take down certain sites in particularly extreme cases (such as the U.S.'s targeting of ISIS forums that you allege). What I strongly object to, however, is the equivalence you are suggesting between U.S. "strategic communications" and China's pervasive Internet censorship, both as a matter of raw degree, and also taking into account the different circumstances in which the two countries exercise these capabilities. When asking whether there is some sort of moral equivalence to be drawn between the Chinese and U.S. programs, the question to ask is when do the countries exercise their capabilities, not whether they have these technical capabilities, or whether they are sometimes used. And I still don't see that you've provided any credible evidence that the two are comparable in these terms. (Though maybe we agree here too -- you say "I don't think its right to compare to China" but if this is true, I really don't know why your comments are relevant commentary on this article.) I certainly don't disagree that the U.S. and Chinese programs are likely similar "from a technical perspective," but I don't think the technical perspective is the perspective that should interest people here.

themeekforgotpw 11y ago
The US absolutely does censor group organization efforts in the US and political speech as well. What the US does is quite different than China and it faces quite a different set of challenges than China. It's an apples and oranges comparison. We agree here. So to address why this is relevant has to do with China DDoSing content that is not a domestic product/service of China. Telegraph is not from China. China blocking Telegraph is like the US blocking stopfasttrack.ru and videos from warfighters in the Middle East. China blocking Telegraph is like the UK plans to take what they currently do and what they plan to do by law and block certain foreign tools for secure communication. The US, too, blocks (and sabotages) secure communication software - it has been defunding secure communication software with partnerships in the valley, has Comey talking to Congress about the need for software front doors, and the Snowden leaks showed us how comprehensively backdoored everything is including relationships between vendors and services with customers. The US does this with foreign developed services and it thwarts secure communication capabilities both provided by foreign governments and its own private sector intended for domestic use. That's the equivalence and the relevance.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  >The US absolutely does censor group organization efforts in the US and political speech as well. But this is precisely the claim for which you have provided no substantial support (though you have provided ample support for the uncontroversial assertion that the U.S. engages in strategic communications operations), other than 1) a single website that was temporarily blacklisted by private spam filtering organizations and ISPs, likely for some combination of factors including the absence of an SPF record, and which was promptly un-blacklisted upon request and 2) forums being used to support an enemy during wartime. What am I missing? > China blocking Telegraph is like the US blocking . . .videos from warfighters in the Middle East. No. It is not. It similar only in from a technical perspective. From the perspective of the government's motivations for blocking them, and the moral acceptability of those motivations, the two are entirely different. The U.S. blocked forums being used to publicize and support enemy activities in a war zone (by a terrorist group, by any definition, to boot), while China blocked communications tools being used by human rights lawyers to expose inequities in China's legal system. Whatever you may think about the legitimacy of the U.S.'s "war" against ISIS, it's not too hard to draw a line between these two situations. The problem is not that, e.g., China censors communications. I think most would agree that this is sometimes necessary (though perhaps only very rarely). The issue, which you're glossing over, is when and why.