Social Media as a Tool for Information Warfare - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14834163
Last year fighting with “fake information campaign” proposed by Obama was central topic. The vast sums of money were allocated to the training of journalists, support of independent mass media, holding of forums and seminars. Despite the fact that Donald Trump has criticized the anti-Russian rhetoric of his predecessor, essentially, nothing has been changed. And the programs started by the Obama administration are being still implemented.
The European and American publishers tarnish the image of Russia keeping with the best traditions of the Cold War era. And being financed from the US state budget, these organizations proceed training journalists as part of the information war. :hmm:
So, in September 2016 the US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) released the information about the VOA’s journalists training to work for it and communicate with the Russian-speaking audience using social networks. These journalists knew about the ways of audience attraction, establishing the communication with audience using chatbot applications.
Besides, during 2017 the BBG plans to increase the number of digital media in the Baltic states, the South Caucasus and the Central Asia in order to dominate over the Russian information sources. The major focus is put on attracting “authoritative young users” living in Russia. “Fighting with Russian false information campaign” will become the priority task for the Voice of America in 2018.
The Voice of America is interested in social media platforms because their audience is bigger than the traditional mass media audience. People think that information published on social media platforms is more reliable. There is an illusion that barrier between the information and the method of its presentation is absent.
Many experts believe that the true aim of this training is to select staff for promoting American ideas. Besides the journalists qualification growth, they were given the detailed recommendations how to cover particular issues.

The government- funded mass media are ready to pay much more than the independent information agencies. That is why the staff members keep their job and fulfill any political orders of their employers without taking into account the state interests of their own countries.
#14834164
Social media outlets should be regulated similar to telephone service since they are a primary method for socializing. A telephone company can't say "you said something we didn't like on our line, so now you don't have phone service anymore." It should be the same with Facebook, YouTube etc.
#14834168
Hong Wu wrote:Social media outlets should be regulated similar to telephone service since they are a primary method for socializing. A telephone company can't say "you said something we didn't like on our line, so now you don't have phone service anymore." It should be the same with Facebook, YouTube etc.

Facebook, YouTube etc. use the content to promote some of it, based on content, for their profit. That's nothing like telephone service (which might be compared to the ISP who provides your internet connection and allows you to do whatever you choose with it). Since social media considers the content already, it can be held accountable for it, and it has the right (and commercial need) to decide how appropriate it is.
#14834172
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Facebook, YouTube etc. use the content to promote some of it, based on content, for their profit. That's nothing like telephone service (which might be compared to the ISP who provides your internet connection and allows you to do whatever you choose with it). Since social media considers the content already, it can be held accountable for it, and it has the right (and commercial need) to decide how appropriate it is.


That's right. Though ISPs are more like mobile phone companies because while they provide the underlying infrastructure that makes it all go they don't have a natural monopoly unlike land line providers. If one ISP locks you out another will eagerly fill the place (assuming you can pay your bills).

Social media is actually wholly new thing because while in some respects their business model is comparable to private television or newspapers which have a triangular trade with consumers and advertisers, the content is provided wholly by the consumers rather than staff... This is something new.

I think if there is a market for free speech then a platform will arise to cater to it. Well 4chan already does I guess. I don't worry if youtube is aiming to become the new CNN, this will hurt youtube more than the locked out users.
#14834177
'Natural monopoly' ? I love how the world invents nonsense to justify their nonsense. If someone controls a majority of the market then it should be assumed they are controlling it. If 3 companies with the same views control the market then they are monopolizing it, and need to be regulated.
#14834185
One Degree wrote:'Natural monopoly' ? I love how the world invents nonsense to justify their nonsense. If someone controls a majority of the market then it should be assumed they are controlling it. If 3 companies with the same views control the market then they are monopolizing it, and need to be regulated.


So far youtube, facebook and the rest have been wildly lax about curating content that is to say by default they allowed freedom of speech in a way that no newspaper or TV station would or could. That is part of why they became so big in the first place. If they compromise the value of their own offering by becoming more like CNN then people will make some other platform big instead.

Don't forget youtube, facebook etc DON'T have legal monopolies they don't even have natural monopolies, they are only big because the users made them big and the users can unmake that bigness and give it to someone else.
#14834189
I agree in principle, but the reality are these companies are wealthy enough and have the outlet to control what people think. I suppose you could say People are ultimately to blame for being so gullible. The problem is if you only have one book to read, most can't think of alternatives on their own. If they use Facebook, then they won't even notice what is no longer allowed. Their perception will be based without the benefits of that banned view. In the past we have used an identification system to let people know the type of information they are accessing. This view makes sense to me. We should not be forced to view offensive material, but it should still be available to those who don't believe it to be offensive.
#14834194
One Degree wrote: agree in principle, but the reality are these companies are wealthy enough and have the outlet to control what people think. I suppose you could say People are ultimately to blame for being so gullible. The problem is if you only have one book to read, most can't think of alternatives on their own. If they use Facebook, then they won't even notice what is no longer allowed. Their perception will be based without the benefits of that banned view. In the past we have used an identification system to let people know the type of information they are accessing. This view makes sense to me. We should not be forced to view offensive material, but it should still be available to those who don't believe it to be offensive.


They are but the palest wisp of a shadow of the USSR's Pravda and even under those odious circumstances samizdat was still a thing. Controlling what people think isn't that easy.
#14834199
One Degree wrote:'Natural monopoly' ? I love how the world invents nonsense to justify their nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

"The original concept of natural monopoly is often attributed to John Stuart Mill, who (writing before the marginalist revolution) believed that prices would reflect the costs of production in absence of an artificial or natural monopoly."

So the phrase and concept is over 150 years old.
#14834203
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

"The original concept of natural monopoly is often attributed to John Stuart Mill, who (writing before the marginalist revolution) believed that prices would reflect the costs of production in absence of an artificial or natural monopoly."

So the phrase and concept is over 150 years old.


Thank you. I don't see that it matters when the term was invented. There is still nothing 'natural ' about a monopoly. Applying it to US phone service is even more absurd. There was nothing natural about ATT/Bell systems controlling the phone system. That is why they were broken up before someone decided some companies are just too big to be allowed to fail, and global corporations are our Gods. :lol:
#14834205
CharlesLonsdale wrote:Last year fighting with “fake information campaign” proposed by Obama was central topic. The vast sums of money were allocated to the training of journalists, support of independent mass media, holding of forums and seminars. Despite the fact that Donald Trump has criticized the anti-Russian rhetoric of his predecessor, essentially, nothing has been changed. And the programs started by the Obama administration are being still implemented.
The European and American publishers tarnish the image of Russia keeping with the best traditions of the Cold War era. And being financed from the US state budget, these organizations proceed training journalists as part of the information war. :hmm:
So, in September 2016 the US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) released the information about the VOA’s journalists training to work for it and communicate with the Russian-speaking audience using social networks. These journalists knew about the ways of audience attraction, establishing the communication with audience using chatbot applications.
Besides, during 2017 the BBG plans to increase the number of digital media in the Baltic states, the South Caucasus and the Central Asia in order to dominate over the Russian information sources. The major focus is put on attracting “authoritative young users” living in Russia. “Fighting with Russian false information campaign” will become the priority task for the Voice of America in 2018.
The Voice of America is interested in social media platforms because their audience is bigger than the traditional mass media audience. People think that information published on social media platforms is more reliable. There is an illusion that barrier between the information and the method of its presentation is absent.
Many experts believe that the true aim of this training is to select staff for promoting American ideas. Besides the journalists qualification growth, they were given the detailed recommendations how to cover particular issues.

The government- funded mass media are ready to pay much more than the independent information agencies. That is why the staff members keep their job and fulfill any political orders of their employers without taking into account the state interests of their own countries.
Bahaha! :lol: You're worried about social media warfare and pseudo-democratic elections ... Meanwhile, the military-intelligence bureaucracy continues to develop electromagnetic weapons for full-spectrum dominance of human systems. JADE HELM 15(Joint assistant for development and execution), had explicitly stated that AI integration is for full-spectrum dominance of the human domain. Social media is low level tool for commercial/military intelligence operations. People willingly sign up and participate, they want technocracy. Brainwashing is a social-psychological side-effect of media, and that is what people pay attention to, they never bring up the gene-washing effect. Smart-phones, computers, nano-polymers, CRISPR, smart-cars, smart-fridges, geoengineering, weather-modification, electromagnetic atmosphere experiments, energy weapons, etc- establish a militarized template for full-spectrum dominance of the human domain. Once the internet of things is fully implemented functional and normalized, average people will incrementally expose their neurophysiology to epi-genetic genewashing. Behavioral-psychologists can use neuroplastic events to support technocratic-infrastructure.

Militarized information systems augment the human domain, control the environment and you can control the organisms inside the environment. You should be posting this in the 'biological circus' forum, because the political circus is a superficial game played by useful idiots. You're 10-15 years too late, but that is the business of 'leaks.' When a leak occurs, it will appear in front of the populace after the 'fact.' In other-words, the government can bypass public opinion/disclosure and just 'leak' the information later and say "deal with it." And the best part of the exoteric cultural program- had someone mentioned the possibility of 'social media as a tool for information warfare' 10-15 years ago, society would call em a conspiracy theorist or nutter.

Reality check, we're entering the quantum age of information, we developed nuclear weapons in 1945, yet you're worried about social media being used as a tool for information warfare. :lol: The public will always be living in the technological past, because that is the nature of classified/compartmentalized research and development. You're one guinea pig in the global laboratory, bro.

viewtopic.php?t=166559
Natural monopolies are a well described thing in economics with countless examples throughout history. Just because you aren't familiar with the term doesn't mean you are absolved from googling it before accusing me of making stuff up.
Yes... Yes... Get upset, bicker over superficial things. Good guinea pig.
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 17 Aug 2017 17:49, edited 2 times in total.
#14834207
mikema63 wrote:Natural monopolies are a well described thing in economics with countless examples throughout history. Just because you aren't familiar with the term doesn't mean you are absolved from googling it before accusing me of making stuff up. :eh:


Boy you are defensive lately. I was aware of the term and was not accusing you of making anything up. The term is ridiculous to me and I expressed that. We live in a world of absurdity and it is therapeutic to draw attention to our absurdity, as we see it. To simply accept things as they are without wondering about them is not me.
#14834220
One Degree wrote:Thank you. I don't see that it matters when the term was invented. There is still nothing 'natural ' about a monopoly. Applying it to US phone service is even more absurd. There was nothing natural about ATT/Bell systems controlling the phone system. That is why they were broken up before someone decided some companies are just too big to be allowed to fail, and global corporations are our Gods.

That they needed to be broken up is good evidence for them having a natural monopoly. The cost of installing new wires to a house (and giving permission for new poles in the street, or to dig up streets to lay underground ones) gave them the natural monopoly, because new competitors could not afford to spend all that capital just to start competing with a company that had long ago paid off the capital cost.

In fact, your paragraph above makes me think you still don't understand what the term means. You have read one or more articles on it by now, haven't you?
#14834221
These are our FACTS...
mikema63 wrote:The only absurdity is your loose relationship to facts and your roleplay as not being serious when you say patently untrue things. Double that for claiming I'll bring defensive by pointing out that you are wrong about something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KeX5OZr0A4

Mikema, the professionally trained sleep-walker loves factoids.
#14834241
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:That they needed to be broken up is good evidence for them having a natural monopoly. The cost of installing new wires to a house (and giving permission for new poles in the street, or to dig up streets to lay underground ones) gave them the natural monopoly, because new competitors could not afford to spend all that capital just to start competing with a company that had long ago paid off the capital cost.

In fact, your paragraph above makes me think you still don't understand what the term means. You have read one or more articles on it by now, haven't you?


I object to 'natural '. 'Necessary ' would be a better word perhaps

I agree. ....and tet you have completely ign[…]

I'm not confused at all about both of you whining[…]

I see. You have no argument. Just feelings. An[…]

Revolutionary Hope

Well, since you aren't going to argue your side a[…]