US Leading Global Alliance To Counter Foreign Government Disinformation (theguardian.com) 122
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A global coalition of democracies is being formed to protect their societies from disinformation campaigns by foreign governments, the US special envoy on the issue has said. James Rubin, the special envoy for non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts at the US state department's global engagement centre (GEC), said the coalition hoped to agree on "definitions for information manipulation versus plain old opinions that other governments are entitled to have even if we disagree with them." The US, UK and Canada have already signed up to a formal framework agreement, and Washington hopes more countries will join.
The GEC focuses solely on disinformation by foreign powers. Apart from trying to develop global strategies, it works to expose specific covert disinformation operations, such as a Russian operation in Africa to discredit US health services. The US, UK and Canada signed the framework to counter foreign state manipulation this month with the aim of addressing disinformation as a national security threat that requires coordinated government and civil society responses. "Now is the time for a collective approach to the foreign information manipulation threat that builds a coalition of like-minded countries committed to strengthening resilience and response to information manipulation," the framework says. It also encourages information-sharing and joint data analysis tools to identify covert foreign disinformation.
A hugely experienced US official and journalist who has worked with diplomats such as Madeleine Albright in the past, Rubin admitted his first year as special envoy had been one of his most intellectually taxing because of the complex definitions surrounding disinformation. In the continuum between hostile opinion and disinformation, he has tried to identify where and how governments can intervene without limiting free speech. The principle on which he has alighted is deception by foreign powers. "In principle every government should be free to convey their views, but they should have to admit who they are," he said an interview. "We want to promote more fact-based information, but at the same time find ways to label those information operations that are generated by the Chinese government or the Kremlin but to which they don't admit. "In the end that is all I know we can do right now without interfering with a free press. We are not asking for such covert disinformation to be taken down but a way to be found for the source to be labelled."
The GEC focuses solely on disinformation by foreign powers. Apart from trying to develop global strategies, it works to expose specific covert disinformation operations, such as a Russian operation in Africa to discredit US health services. The US, UK and Canada signed the framework to counter foreign state manipulation this month with the aim of addressing disinformation as a national security threat that requires coordinated government and civil society responses. "Now is the time for a collective approach to the foreign information manipulation threat that builds a coalition of like-minded countries committed to strengthening resilience and response to information manipulation," the framework says. It also encourages information-sharing and joint data analysis tools to identify covert foreign disinformation.
A hugely experienced US official and journalist who has worked with diplomats such as Madeleine Albright in the past, Rubin admitted his first year as special envoy had been one of his most intellectually taxing because of the complex definitions surrounding disinformation. In the continuum between hostile opinion and disinformation, he has tried to identify where and how governments can intervene without limiting free speech. The principle on which he has alighted is deception by foreign powers. "In principle every government should be free to convey their views, but they should have to admit who they are," he said an interview. "We want to promote more fact-based information, but at the same time find ways to label those information operations that are generated by the Chinese government or the Kremlin but to which they don't admit. "In the end that is all I know we can do right now without interfering with a free press. We are not asking for such covert disinformation to be taken down but a way to be found for the source to be labelled."
Not a new problem (Score:1)
Before the internet this issue was prevalent in magazines, newspapers and TV programs (and still is).
Now we have the internet it's a problem with social media.
Just wait till we're all fitted with AR eyeballs!
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
US has been running disinformation campaigns through CIA for decades, are they feeling jealous or remorseful now?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Alternative headline: US seeks to defend its monopoly on propaganda and meddling in foreign affairs.
Re:Not a new problem (Score:4, Insightful)
But hey, you do you Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
hey, it's a global coalition of democracies! don't belittle canada and the lap doggy, you insensitive clod!
Re:Not a new problem (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Since we are pointing fingers, do not forget to include Fox News
Re:Not a new problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not new, but it is now way more amplified and internationalized. If I wanted to influence your population before, I had to found a newspaper in your country. Sooner or later someone would dig up where the money for that comes from and the jig is up.
Antisocial media are a godsend when it comes to destabilizing a country. First, you have to make sure you control the access of your own population to it, after all, you don't want to destabilize your own country. Then start astroturfing the living crap out of it. Launch desinformation campaigns where you simply spout some bull. It doesn't matter if that bull has anything to do with reality. Just name it "suppressed" and "hushed up" truth by "da man", that's good enough. Next, set up some webpages that people could find that support whatever bull you want to push and if people aren't jumping on it in time, have some other accounts point towards them. Have them pop up and get shot down and pretend it's The Powers That Are who want to keep that information under wraps. You'll need a couple thousand accounts to get that done, but hey, they're free after all, it's not like you have to spend money on that and people are cheap.
You have to play the relevant antisocial sites, with some (Reddit) it's fairly easy to become a "trusted" and "reliable" source for your dupes, with others (Twitter) it's harder, mostly due to the competition and the fact that karma farming is way harder.
You also have to play on all the fields. Make sure you launch some videos that support your narrative and keep it spinning. Wait for some dupes to jump on the train and hype their postings because they are (potentially at least) already known to be "genuine" and thus them repeating your bull gives it additional credibility, at least in the circles of Truthers and similar useful dupes for your spin.
If everything fails, just buy one of them. They're for sale.
Doing all that is way, way harder if you have to actually launch your own media channel in the country you want to destabilize. Moreover, the fact that some of the dupes actually start repeating your bull only adds to its credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
This also accelerates in an era where reading the morning paper has vanished, or even watching television news is very rare, and most people only get their news from snippets on youtube or facebook, where the legitimate stories sit side by side with conspiracy nonsense and partisan lies. Weird enough that obviously fake and humorous stories from Babylon Bee or the Onion are taken seriously. Social media algorithms have the effect of hardening the information bubbles that people see - they've read one cons
Re: (Score:2)
And it also has a pretty strong positive feedback loop. The more radical, outlandish and exaggerated you and your post are, the more "credible" you become and the more people listen to you. And of course everyone likes it when others are listening. So people get more and more radical in their position.
And not only radical but also insane.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not new, but it is now way more amplified and internationalized. If I wanted to influence your population before, I had to found a newspaper in your country. Sooner or later someone would dig up where the money for that comes from and the jig is up.
Antisocial media are a godsend when it comes to destabilizing a country. First, you have to make sure you control the access of your own population to it, after all, you don't want to destabilize your own country. Then start astroturfing the living crap out of it. Launch desinformation campaigns where you simply spout some bull. It doesn't matter if that bull has anything to do with reality. Just name it "suppressed" and "hushed up" truth by "da man", that's good enough. Next, set up some webpages that people could find that support whatever bull you want to push and if people aren't jumping on it in time, have some other accounts point towards them. Have them pop up and get shot down and pretend it's The Powers That Are who want to keep that information under wraps. You'll need a couple thousand accounts to get that done, but hey, they're free after all, it's not like you have to spend money on that and people are cheap.
You have to play the relevant antisocial sites, with some (Reddit) it's fairly easy to become a "trusted" and "reliable" source for your dupes, with others (Twitter) it's harder, mostly due to the competition and the fact that karma farming is way harder.
You also have to play on all the fields. Make sure you launch some videos that support your narrative and keep it spinning. Wait for some dupes to jump on the train and hype their postings because they are (potentially at least) already known to be "genuine" and thus them repeating your bull gives it additional credibility, at least in the circles of Truthers and similar useful dupes for your spin.
If everything fails, just buy one of them. They're for sale.
Doing all that is way, way harder if you have to actually launch your own media channel in the country you want to destabilize. Moreover, the fact that some of the dupes actually start repeating your bull only adds to its credibility.
Just the modern equvelent of yellow journalism.
Ultimately two things changed it.
1. Laws, making it illegal to print lies intended to harm, defame or slander without consequence.
2. People got used to it. Bullshit is like a drug (or a bad smell) the more you're subjected to it, the less effect it has on you.
As more of this stuff happens the less people will believe it. The more social media gets used for misinformation, the fewer people will believe and trust what they see on social media. I think Mu
Re: (Score:2)
The problem runs deeper. What you have here is the online equivalent of the Weekly World News, only that it's not just total nutters who think that the crap is true. Since there are so many sources and they all offer whatever crap you want to hear as the eternal and unwavering truth, because no matter what harebrained nuttery is your favorite one, you will find your fix on all antisocial media platforms, you will have your particular preferred kind of bullshit told to you. No matter what you want to hear. F
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we discussing horticulture?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Physician, heal thyself. (Score:5, Informative)
polls like those coming out of SC that show two thirds of people still believe Joe Biden didn't win the election.
The poll was of Republican primary voters, not the general public, and it was 62%, not two-thirds.
When you complain about disinformation, you shouldn't do it yourself.
Re: Physician, heal thyself. (Score:1)
The poll was of Republican primary voters, not the general public, and it was 62%, not two-thirds.
That's disturbing.
When you complain about disinformation, you shouldn't do it yourself
That's exactly what the parent said.
Re: Physician, heal thyself. (Score:4, Informative)
That's disturbing.
You need to look at the question.
The pollsters didn't ask if Biden won the election.
They asked if Biden "legitimately won" the election.
That makes it a fuzzy question. What makes an election "legitimate"?
Perhaps some of the pollees felt that Biden won, but there were enough irregularities in many precincts that the election wasn't really legitimate, regardless of who won.
It took Georgia a month to count the votes, and each time they counted, they got different numbers. That's messed up. Is it "legitimate"?
It was a dumb question designed to magnify polarization.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem like you're splitting hairs here. Not only has every poll I've seen on the 2020 election given the roughly 2/3rds number of Republicans denying the results (and they couldnt all be asking the question in the exact same way) but your example couldnt possibly explain more than a few points worth of responses going for denial. The fact is that as of any data I've seen recently a very solid majority of one of our two political parties believe completely unfounded conspiracy.
Plus, while the parent was c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Physician, heal thyself. (Score:4, Insightful)
There were hardly any irregularities, and the ones with actual evidence were not large enough to have affected the outcome. No, this was a straight forward election and the person with the fewest votes ended up losing. The big stories all turned out to be fake. Mike Lindell LOST his $1 million challenge of "prove my election data isn't real data!"
The biggest election irregularities by far was with Trump calling up state officials and asking them to cheat!
You ALWAYS get different number every time you count! Ballots are not immutable, mistakes are made in counting, even automatic voting machines with paper ballots return different number if you immediately run the same ballots through again. Yes, counting takes ages, it always takes ages, you NEVER know the final number the night of the election. Some losers will challenge the counts, some counts are close and need recounts, absentee ballots take times to open up and count, ballots from overseas members of the military (legal and legitimate ballots) take time to arrive.
The biggest debunk though is just to step back and take a look. Anyone who thinks that after 4 years of inept comic sans in office that he was the most popular candidate amongst swing state voters must be deeply confused.
Re: (Score:2)
The poll was of Republican primary voters, not the general public, and it was 62%, not two-thirds.
That's disturbing.
When you complain about disinformation, you shouldn't do it yourself
That's exactly what the parent said.
The problem with disinformation is that it is now the basis of Republican policy.
When the Russian Intel agent was recently arrested for the lies he provided to the Republican leaders Gym Jordan, and James Comer, the leaders of the party, who were basing their impeachment proceeding on the intel agent's lies - and they knew it was lies. He's been arrested now, and Joran and Comer are a little nervous.
The 2024 Republican party is now a 5th column for roossia.
And while our enemies would be really pleased
Re: Physician, heal thyself. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats thought Steele document wasn't reliable as well. And the Steele document went nowhere. The dossier only came up briefly in the impeachment when a Trump official said that it was used by Russia to spread disinformation, but the dossier was never used as evidence or the basis for further investigations. Many mainstream news outlets distrusted the dossier from the start and had no interest in publishing it. (Buzzfeed shouldn't be considered mainstream news when the did publish it)
The poll? (Score:1)
Which poll? While you're correct it's Republican voters and not the general public there have been dozens of polls show this all showing right around 2/3rds.
Re: (Score:2)
polls like those coming out of SC that show two thirds of people still believe Joe Biden didn't win the election.
The poll was of Republican primary voters, not the general public, and it was 62%, not two-thirds.
When you complain about disinformation, you shouldn't do it yourself.
I think, colloquially speaking the difference between 62% and 66.6667% is not that great. It's still quite disturbing that over 3 in 5 republicans can ignore the evidence of their own eyes and ears and think one of the most heavily monitored elections was somehow "stollen". South Carolina is around 60% republican so that's at least 35-40% of the voting populace.
When it comes to misinformation, the US really has created it's own worst enemy. A generation raised on Fox News. Fox News, to those of us over t
Re: (Score:2)
It's all baffling. That's my flaw, I keep hoping and expecting that people will be logical despite evidence the people aren't. What's the major political talking points and ideals that are happening over there? Whining about losing an election, whining about having to be on trial. Whining, whining, whining. Me, me, me. Plus criticizing celebrities, talking about old anecdotes, rambling incoherent stories, non-sequiturs. And sneakers. Somehow this sort of non-campaigning campaign is still attracting camp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Physician, heal thyself. (Score:4, Informative)
This is not new. In California since the 80s I remember Republicans being the most common losers of elections to complain that everythinh is rigged - this include Republicans who lose to other Republicans in a party primary. Sure, Democrats occassionally did this whining also, but just about every election there was one Republican who refused to concede in a comical fashion (usually somewhere in Orange County). Claims about voters being bused in from Mexico. With so much practice, no wonder the whining continues.
Also, if their guy wins, it's God's Will and a mandate from the people, if they lose it's a problem with the elections or Satan's grasp on the country.
Introspection is unlikely to occur. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Governments don't want a system of true investigative reporting because this would expose any source of disinformation including their own.
What they want is to be able to spread whatever (dis)information they want, while preventing anyone else from doing the same. This is why the proposed "solutions" always amount to censorship in favor of one side.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course that's exactly what any conspiracy nut from any era claims to justify their nonsense.
Indeed (Score:2)
the western style democracies are also **very** guilty of this.
The disinformation is coming from inside the house!
Re: (Score:2)
The disinformation is coming from inside the house!
After hearing President Biden speak on this for more than 45 seconds, I’m more convinced we need to address the delusion campaign at the voting booth.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you spent any time listening to Trump ever? "Delusion" doesnt even begin to explain the shit he says.
Re: Introspection is unlikely to occur. (Score:2)
Perhaps it would be best to start at home and remove undue influences over our media.
"Our" media?
*looks at Newsmax, Fox News, WSJ, NYT, Huffpo*
What in the FUCK are you talking about, undue influence? If you don't have a broad spectrum of competing news outlets in your country, maybe you do deserve to be on the receiving end of this program.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTuber Shaun released a video yesterday that makes a really good point about journalism today.
Now we have social media, often you read about news there before the mainstream journalists pick it up. When they do finally publish it, often the lies that go along with it are already obvious to you because you have seen the truth in a video someone made with their phone.
As an example, last week we saw multiple videos of Israelis blocking aid trucks going into Gaza. They looked well organized too, with dozens o
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your post is a fantastic example... just in the opposite direction you intend. The entirety of western media have been nothing but Hamas stenographers this entire conflict. From the very first day when they aired interviews insisting no civilians had been killed, the denial of rapes and torture, the denial of UN personnel being participants, the blood libels over Hamas and PIJ shootings and missiles, war criminals dressed as journalists and doctors using civilian infrastructure to store munitions and stage
Re: (Score:3)
That's actually a great example of a lie that was debunked early on, but which to this day mainstream journalists repeat because it's the official Israeli position.
There were no rapes during the October 7th attack. The alleged victims have publicly withdrawn their statements, and Israel has not presented any evidence such as DNA or rape kits. In fact, one victim admitted she hadn't been raped, but was upset because she believed the propaganda and expected to be raped.
Much like the "40 beheaded babies" one,
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And another fantastic set of examples, thank you AmiMojo.
Much like the "40 beheaded babies" one, which turned out to be untrue as well.
You're absolutely right. Non-medical personnel who saw headless babies and thought they had been beheaded were completely wrong. The reality is that the bodies were in such bad shape that experts could not determine exactly how many there were or what had been done to get them into that state. It took CT scans to figure out that remains so mutilated they weren't even recognizeably human were actually multiple bodies, where families had been tied toget
Re: (Score:3)
I see your links are all Israeli sources, Twitter, or worse.
It seems strange that Israel didn't think to invite international journalists or human rights organizations to look at the evidence, to gather it themselves. Now all we have is the word of proven liars.
Now they have about as much credibility as that terrorist duty roster, that Arabic readers immediately identified as a calendar. It's actually quite mind boggling how shit at propaganda and lying they are.
Re: Introspection is unlikely to occur. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not denial. He knows he's lying, just like his predecessors knew they were lying in the 40s. That's why he's doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
The key problem is that until very recently, nobody really had any interest in a population that could actually verify information and call a spade a spade and bullshit bullshit. Everyone was very happy to have a population that can't do anything but simply believe what they're told. Sure, they were told different things, but in the end, all these things were to the benefit of someone. This or that political party, this or that corporation, just believe what you're told and of course, the other side is evil
Re: (Score:2)
While by no means the worst offenders, although it's quite difficult to quantify, the western style democracies are also **very** guilty of this.
There is likely a hidden Federal agency that is responsible for the continuous bombardment of Western propaganda upon Westerners. The CIA does it for foreigners and since 2012, could even be that hidden agency for Western societies.
Regardless, I doubt that this alliance of 'disinformation' debunking coordinates with the 'hidden agency'. The results should be hilarious. I wonder when they will start believing and reacting to the other 'official' propaganda arm and get swept up into a mental war to where nobo
The fight against undesirable information (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that some information cannot be suppressed with conventional means, it's time to try something new for the Global Elite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The fight against undesirable information (Score:2)
We have the most contrarian backwards media in the world. And the most contrarian good intentioned media in the world. And just flat out more media in total than whatever shithole country you're from. Jealous much?
Re: (Score:2)
Who exactly might that be?
I hear a lot about that "Elite", but whenever I ask who the hell that would be, nobody can tell me. By now I would have thought we have them identified.
Unserious nonsense (Score:1, Insightful)
100k people die in this country every year from fentanyl overdose coming in from China through our open southern border and these dumbasses think some noise on social media is where we should focus on foreign powers attacking us?
I'm sure those 100k dead annually and their families are deeply concerned about what Putin and Xi are posting on Twitter and Facebook.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Mod down by Chinese 50 cent shill. Expected. Do this one, too.
Re: (Score:1)
Lmao, listen to yourself.
"It comes in from multiple places, so we ignore it while 100k people die and we spend real effort to control social media. And because some does come through places other than the border you are rayyycciissss!"
The days when calling someone racist having the ability to shut down debate are looooong over. When everything g is racist, nothing is, you guys killed that word. Say something intelligent or stfu but going to dog whistle ad hominem just makes clear you're an idiot.
Keep pos
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that your slashdot username "iAmWaySmarterThanYou" is self-defeating, don't you?
Only an idiot (IQ deficit) would think that, without specific knowledge. (See also Dunning-Kruger effect). Only an idiot (EQ deficit) would think it was a good idea to keep saying it.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if you had to rank issues by importance and then address them in order, I would be right with you. And we all know what the solution to the crisis with fentanyl and harmful drugs is, but it is not currently achievable.
But you don't have to address them in order and solving one does not preclude attempting to solve the others. I am skeptical about the solution, and alarmed at how we might define "disinformation" but your point doesn't make logical sense.
Re: (Score:1)
And we all know what the solution to the crisis with fentanyl and harmful drugs is, but it is not currently achievable.
Make them available for free, in high-quality controlled doses, to anyone who asks a medical professional for them and use that interaction as an opportunity to point the users at free services to help them reduce their use? https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com].
At a stroke, smashes the criminal gangs trafficking the drugs, removes the incentive to push drugs onto new users, removes the cost involved in prosecuting drug crime, and maximising the chance of people on hard drugs recovering.
Re: (Score:3)
It has nothing to do with order.
It has to do with the focus on silly shit like Putin/Xi posting crap to social media while _ignoring_ more serious issues.
If they can do both at once, which they can, they how come the more serious issue gets zero effort?
Re: (Score:1)
And we all know what the solution to the crisis with fentanyl and harmful drugs is, but it is not currently achievable.
Ah, but let's ban assault weapons (again), because kitchen knives killing far more will prevent harm, right? /s
Unfortunately, "we all know" is no longer a valid stance. Just because we all know, doesn't mean corrupt leaders will DO something with all that knowledge. They do what the money tells them to do.
What we all know, is the voting age should be raised, because root cause.
Re: (Score:2)
100k? That all? Peanuts.
The Covid disinformation campaign alone cost a magnitude more people their life.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because some other thing kills people we should ignore this one over here.
Over time fentanyl will kill more people than the entire total of all covid deaths with or without vax and the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
The key difference is here that I cannot die from Fentanyl because someone next to me is irresponsible and stupid. I'd have to be the one who takes it. That is the difference here.
Which in turn opens the question: Why do these people take it? It's not like you can accidentally take a drug. It's not like someone sits next to you, talks to you and suddenly you're a Fenta addict.
Maybe taking a look at this angle could solve the problem way better than trying some ridiculous "war on drugs"? Because by now we sh
Re: (Score:1)
Yes because some other thing kills people we should ignore this one over here.
Hey, if you're going to whatabout foreign government disinformation with the border crisis,
Then Opportunist should be allowed to whatabout the border crisis with the Covid pandemic. Right?
Is that how it works really? We are only allowed to focus on one problem at once? We can't possibly deal with more than one issue at a time?
So let's just endlessly debate which one kills the most people and is theoretically the most important, rather than doing anything about any of it at all.
US Leading Global Alliance to Censor Feigen Nation (Score:1, Flamebait)
fixed the headline
Re: (Score:2)
And why should the US be the only one that does NOT do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, better this one than some other. This one at least nominally is supposed to have my interest in mind, any other government is, at best, indifferent to my well being and at worst against it.
This is just more BS from this admin. (Score:3)
But any simple treaty will mean nothing to Putin, Xi, and Trump. They will back all the manipulation possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply have (western) gov give out packet of X.509 Digital Certificates with each vetted person ( for America, upon REAL ID). Once you have that, even social media can use that
You didn't think of Publius at all during your solutioning. :(
https://guides.loc.gov/federal... [loc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I thought of the fact that we are being destroyed by others, and with a SIMPLE VETTED ID for the internet (no different than having 1 for the road, buying firearms, alcohol, cigs, porn, homes, getting government funding, etc) that is not mandated, but available, we solve many many issues without compromising anonymity on the net.
pot meet kettle (Score:2, Interesting)
Who will regulate the regulators? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, there's always two sides of everything, but that's not important. What is important is, what is good for you, society, the country or whatever you consider important. That's it. That's all that matters.
Detach yourself from the idea that there is some inherent "fairness" that is supposed to exist. Life ain't fair, and the outcome is neither. In the end you're dead. What matters is the time 'til then.
Re: (Score:2)
This post right here is a prime example of what people start to think when exposed to misinformation. Basically a bingo card for discredited conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is mostly that people want to believe something. And most people don't have any other option because they never learned how to test and verify information. All they ever learned was to believe someone. So they can only pick and choose who they want to believe, but they have neither the ability nor the information to test anything they hear for veracity.
And there is certainly no shortage nowadays of people, organizations, corporations, countries and other actors that want to tell you what you're
How could this work? (Score:2)
Let's say the Kremlin has hired hundreds or thousands of human "bots" to spread disinformation on the internet (he has, [wikipedia.org] and it's a small line item compared to the rest of the war budget).
Let's even say we can even detect and label 90% of disinformation within 48 hours as state-sponsored (although perhaps only 1% of fake social profiles are caught in reality [washingtonpost.com]).
Even then you haven't solved the problem, because the Kremlin is throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. So in that 48 hours, som
aye it's your duty (Score:2)
Democracy (Score:3)
The real threat of disinformation is that the people might interfere with Democracy.
Democracy's most sacred notion is that the people - for better or worse - actually control the government, not the other way around. If we, as a people are so stupid as to believe disinformation, well, we live and learn. That's the point of democracy - that people get learn from their own mistakes. And society, as a consequence, grows collectively wiser.
Who is worried about disinformation? It is the arrogant, will to power types who honestly believe that you, dear voter, are too stupid to think for yourself. And maybe you are. If so, just reply to me with how disinformation led you to do something stupid, and I'll be forced to concede the point.
Only "our" disinformation allowed (Score:2)
It is all geopolitical - and the gloves are off (Score:3)
https://prospect.org/politics/... [prospect.org]
Selling the preferred narrative, as always... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a US citizen, love my country. But, it's fairly clear our gov't wants certain narratives out there, our media is so blatantly moderated and that influence has extended to companies like Youtube, Google, Facebook. We are sold narratives that certain countries are bad, their leaders corrupt, so we start wars and get the public riled up on false narratives. If you speak against that, and you become a bigger problem, you can expect trouble. It's how it works. We do it, other countries do it. But you
Re: (Score:1)
Ironic (Score:2)
Why would anyone allow the US government to be the arbiter of truth?
But what about domestic misinformation? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Why bother with the mouthpiece, just go direct to Vovochka.