11-04-2017, 05:02 AM
Quote:One could almost pity the executives from Facebook, Google and Twitter as they were grilled on Capitol Hill earlier this week by senators upset about Russian meddling in last year’s presidential election via the posting of cleverly worded propaganda ads and messages on social media sites.
After all, how do you detect – let alone stop – a small group of determined foreign nationals manipulating and taking advantage of what’s supposed to be open, free-flowing Internet platforms idealistically designed to allow billions of people across the globe to voice their thoughts on everything from world politics to the type off pigeons in Trafalgar Square?
Of course, the Facebook, Google and Twitter executives at the Senate hearing earlier this week bowed their heads, expressed remorse and vowed to do better in combating the threat of foreign interference in our democratic elections.
But the question is: Can they do better? Is it possible? Remember: Facebook alone acknowledges that it received only about $100,000 in paid ads by those it later learned were tied to various Russian groups, but those ads were still seen by about 10 million people, according to media reports.
When you include free Facebook messages posted on bogus accounts taken out by Russians – and the corresponding “like” endorsements by almost countless readers – the number of people exposed to manipulative Russian antics ballooned to about 126 million, Facebook admits, according to media reports.
Now think about it: A swing of only 100,000 votes or less in last year’s presidential election could have put Hillary Clinton in the White House, not Donald Trump. So you get the picture. It doesn’t take much on social media to effectively “interfere” in a presidential election.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tak...ontributor#
We are under the rule, for all practical purposes, of people on the same level as those who ruled Russia a bit more than a century ago: people who believed that no human suffering was excessive so long as they got to live pampered lives. Imperial Russia was in no way a democracy. If the Tsar had an absolute veto on any legislation (which makes legislative activity meaningless except as obedience to the Leader), our system is a bit more sophisticated. Lobbyists loyal only to their super-rich paymasters are the real power in the legislative process. We are still free to gripe about it, but for now we can do little.
People like Donald Trump go to Russia and are awed -- certainly not by the Soviet era, but instead the Tsarist era. That is what they want, and all that President Trump lacks that a Tsar lacked is a crown, throne, and scepter. Putin may be ex-KGB, but he can more effectively dazzle foreigners with the relics of the tsarist order than with crude Bolshevik propaganda. But even Gorbachev knew how to dazzle Donald Trump. Putin has been good at reinforcing the dazzle.
....It may be ironic, but think of all the efforts that the Soviet Union made to get military and technological secrets through espionage, and to corrupt American life through the pathetic appeals of the Communist Party. That did not work. The Soviet Union never got the means with which to overpower the western democracies or to develop a Communist cause in America capable of overthrowing so much as a school board.
But the Russian government has found other weaknesses in America in its educational system and its culture. People simply do not fact-check. We had to know that something was wrong in America when millions believed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, or even that the Moon Landing was faked -- or that vaccinations cause autism. It could supply the definitive fake news -- black propaganda -- through Facebook and other social media.
Facebook is a nice way to keep in touch with friends. It's a not a news source; it is a rumor mill. "I saw this on Facebook" is less credible than "I read this on the New York Times website", "I saw this on CBS News", or even "I read this on Breitbart or saw it on FoX News". (OK, FoX Newspeak Channel and Breitbart are suspect... but at least one knows the source).
When I got a suspect piece of news on Facebook I returned it with a polite notification that it is fake.
The Russians have plenty of people learning about American mass culture and how to use it against Americans. It may be ironic that they love American ways. They speak and write English better than many Americans do. They can dress like Americans and even know such things as sports affiliations. They watch American movies and TV, and ... don't for a moment believe that they are listening to Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, or Shostakovich. And they even look much like typical white Americans. Or they find some exchange students from Africa or Latin America to serve other communities.
...And there are people in the Russian secret services who use such people to supply black propaganda. Thus "Jenna Abrams".
OK. I haven't explained "black propaganda".
propaganda is categorized based on the methods it uses to shape its argument. These categories are traditionally labelled as white, black, and gray propaganda. While there are discrepancies in the way these terms are defined, Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell (Propaganda and Persuasion) use the following labels:
“White propaganda comes from a source that is identified correctly, and the information in the message tends to be accurate…Although what listeners hear is reasonably close to the truth, it is presented in a manner that attempts to convince the audience that the sender is the ‘good guy’ with the best ideas and political ideology.”
“Black propaganda is credited to a false source, and it spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions.”
“Gray propaganda is somewhere between white and black propaganda. The source may or may not be correctly identified, and the accuracy of information is uncertain.”
https://thepropagandaproject.wordpress.com/types-of-propaganda/
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.