You can refer to my previously linked Wikipedia entry and google my name to see videos of me giving a number of talks. Decide for yourself. I don’t hide from my public work. You do. That makes you a coward.
gman, your argument slides back and forth like some kind of kid in a skatepark.
Who are these domestic entities you are obliquely referring to that are as dangerous as Russia? I can’t think of a single one. Not even the Black Panthers in the 60s were anti American, they were a paramilitary response (an over the top one) to violence against their race by the police, but they never wanted to or meant to destabilize the government. That’s the most radical org I can think of.
So who are you slyly referring to? You say you were joking about MSNBC, who are you actually referring to?
This is 100% right. The internet has made media outlets prioritize clicks over accuracy. I see that constantly, across the industry. It’s terrible, and I completely agree that basically all outlets can improve so much to get more stories, and better reported stories, out with more consistency. Standardized tests might be part of the problem. I feel schooling should place more effort on practical skills (budgeting) and exposure to different viewpoints. But certainly, they should take on the Internet head-on – not just by embracing it as something unequivocally wonderful, as my high school and college did, but my encouraging skepticism.
The problem is so many people swayed by “fake news” BS don’t really go to school, so this would not reach them… For them, I don’t know that nuking Facebook or Twitter is the option. But it might be good to pressure those organizations to present opposing viewpoints as often as possible, especially from neutral fact-checkers.
As just one example, check out this company: https://www.bermanco.com/
From what I read, as example in the article linked below, it is notorious for impersonating people online, spreading disinformation, trying to arouse hatred/anger over certain issues. There’s dozens like it in DC.
The Internet has created a playground for these people. I run into dozens of them every month, on both sides of every issue. They traffic in lies and disinformation. What do we do about it? So many people don’t even notice it’s a problem. But Russia is just one example.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/the-mystery-of-david-martosko-214787
Weren’t you just saying it wasn’t a problem until Tom called you out on it?
Now it’s fine?
Social media disinformation is a huge problem, but I was taking issue with his implication that it was only right-wingers doing it, or that Russia was somehow the worst example. And I was also flagging a bigger problem: what can you even do about it. I suggest ignoring the sources as the easiest solution, which averts a lot of the panic.
To me, the Cambridge Analytica-related stuff should be the biggest deal, but doesn’t get much run because it’s difficult to understand. They gathered all this info about people, and (theoretically) combined it with stolen voter roll data to identify people who were a) gullible/susceptible and b) lived in key areas where a relatively small number of votes could make a large impact.
Then they micro-targeted ads to those people based on the things that would anger them. You could certainly argue those people should be smart enough to realize they are being manipulated, but we have both acknowledged that’s unlikely because either they didn’t go to school or because schools suck.
So, to bring this back around to the question you were asking earlier about why Russia having friend lists is dangerous, here’s a possibility. I’m making this up, but this is a thought to how that info might have been used…
A person is being targeted (or maybe a group, but let’s stick to an individual for the moment for ease of explanation) and is shown some crazy inflammatory bs ad/link to a story. Maybe they don’t really believe it or question it, but it leaves an impression on them. That same ad is shown to their friends. So one of them says, “did you see this crazy pizzagate (or whatever) story?” Now all of a sudden, someone in their circle has also seen the same thing, and now it starts to seem more likely to be true, just because someone they know also saw it, even if they think it was bs as well.
No idea if that happened or not, but my best guess at answering your question from before.
Oh my God. What the hell is even going on in here?
Well, you see, when a professional right wing political writer loves a forum, very very much…
It’s an interesting example because my understanding is Pizzagate was propagated primarily by domestic misinformation sites like Infowars and Mr. 4 chan himself (based on their twisted interpretation of a Wikileaks email dump that probably came from Russia). There’s so many groups already fighting to spread this kind of garbage even domestically, that I could see how easy it would be for a foreign power to stoke the flames in the way you mention.
I just picked that at random as a possible example. Don’t even know if there were fb ads about it. As I recall there were ads about Clinton wanting Sharia law and that kind of crap. But the subject isn’t important.
Another thread I’m going to mute because of gman. Sigh.
Good thing you proudly announced your decision to mute the thread! Otherwise, the mute doesn’t take effect, as we all know.
Yeah I understand. It’s similar to what companies are doing these days to market products.
Fuck.
Tools gonna tool. Nazis gonna Nazi. I’m done responding to our own personal alt-righter who is now posting in P and R again despite his assurances he wouldn’t. Liar lies? Not surprising.
I will happily continue to contribute to other discussion on the decline of facebook and the chilling effect of social media.
No, it’s not, dude. Let me try to get as basic as I possibly can.
When you try to convince someone to do something, you only do so because it gets you something you want. Marketers try to get people to buy products because it makes them money. I try to get my friends to vote for Democratic candidates because I want better roads for myself and schools for my daughter. I’ll generously assume that you try to swing people over to the right because you really like the idea of separating brown kids from their families and locking them up. There’s intent behind the communication.
Even if the methods are the same, you can have different intent. Do you really think there’s no difference between the intent of the marketer to sell a product and the intent of a foreign power to destabilize the US? I don’t believe you to be ignorant. So if you willingly contend that there’s no difference, and you are actively trying to convince others that there is no difference, then you are exactly as Timex describes. You’re working against the interest of the US in support of a foreign power.
I’m curious as to why, though. You know that Russia has done these things with the intent to destabilize the US, lower our standing on the world stage, and advance or forgive Russian interests and actions. So why try to minimize that? What is the intent behind your actions?
I thought he meant in terms of “reaching out” to the inner circle of targets/customers in terms of possible usage of the data discussed earlier. How did you manage to make the logical leap to him equivocating selling swiffers and political propaganda as the same thing?
Sorry, I shouldn’t have implied that he was equivocating. He’s saying that using misinformation to sell Swiffers is worse than using it to sow political discord in the US.
I mean, this tangent should really belong in the Russia thread, but the entire thread is in a weird place now, since it’s arguably a duplicate of the other social media topic in P&R.
The intent is to try and avoid dealing with the shame that goes along with harming your own country because you were duped.
This is, seriously, the driving force behind a lot of the support for Trump at this point.
It’s almost like a sunk cost fallacy. To admit what has occurred causes shame, and thus creates a psychological barrier to making that admission. This causes the victim to further dig in, and further support increasingly terrible things. And this, in turn, creates an increasing cause for shame, which further builds up that psychological barrier.
It creates a feedback loop of bad actions, not inspired by bad goals, but by the natural reluctance to admit when we have done things which are immoral or unethical. Sometimes, we all do such things, and the only way to fix them is to admit what we’ve done. But since we operate with the underlying assumption that we are moral and ethical, it’s very difficult to make such admissions.
Well put. That is how, as Kasparov says, Trump radicalizes his followers.