How has "your side" been subverted by propaganda? (1 Viewer)

https://youtu.be/bX3EZCVj2XA

Fascinating video from a former KGB agent who defected to the United states at the height of the cold war.  Some of the things he suggested sound eerily true, others don't seem to have come to fruition.  But maybe they have. 

I suspect that this thread will not be that popular, and that there will be a lot of "of course the other guys are victims of propaganda". But I'm not interested in more finger pointing. 

I would love to see some introspection.  Where do you think you personally have been demoralized by Russian (or other)  propaganda? What has been normalized that we should know is not normal? 

Everyone should be required to watch "The Great Hack" on netflix.  It is very specific and crystal clear on how this stuff works and how it worked in 2016 and how it continues to work around the world.

I think it has been going around us for a long time by both sides.

By Evan Halper Staff Writer  Reporting from Washington — 

The idea that Google is subtly pushing masses of voters to the left has the ring of conspiracy,  Epstein believes bias built into Google’s processes could have cost Republicans three California congressional districts in the last election — have started paying attention to his detailed work on how voters respond to tens of thousands of search results.

At a moment when misinformation about search engines and social media bias is rampant, with both the left and the right amplifying unsupported claims, Epstein is asking the right questions, they say, about the unseen power of algorithms and how little most Americans understand about the way they work.

Facebook, Twitter and Google have become political footballs for the left and right.

The saga of the persistent San Diego psychologist versus the tech giant is a long-running one, full of twists. As Big Data shapes our opinions in ways scholars are only beginning to comprehend, his work has increasingly caught attention.

“The larger issue he is looking at is extremely important,” said Ramesh Srinivasan, a professor of information studies at UCLA who focuses on the relationships between technology and politics. Srinivasan is not convinced by the claims from conservatives that the GOP is being victimized, but he argues scholars need to look more deeply at how search engines can shape the views of those who use them.

“We turn to these efficient technologies,” he said, “to do almost everything these days without knowing why we see what we see from them or what data is collected about us and how it is being used.”

Epstein, a former Psychology Today editor in chief who runs a nonprofit institute in California, calls the phenomenon he has explored the Search Engine Manipulation Effect.

“These are new forms of manipulation people can’t see,” he said. The technologies “can have an enormous impact on voters who are undecided. … People have no awareness the influence is being exerted.”

Summer Wheat said:

I think it has been going around us for a long time by both sides.

Click to expand...

That's a good one.

There aren't two sides. How did that become normal?  There's been a deliberate campaign to make people on the right hate government intervention of virtually all kinds.  What's the equivalent on the left? 

bostonfred said:

That's a good one.

There aren't two sides. How did that become normal?  There's been a deliberate campaign to make people on the right hate government intervention of virtually all kinds.  What's the equivalent on the left? 

Click to expand...

The equivalent -- if I may so posit -- on the left was that paternalism and nannyism, regardless of the procedures involved, was a good thing so long as it brought just results. That safety and security were positive rights enjoyed by all as opposed to imagining the individual in a state of nature.  

It is what made the right saying that the left wanted to interfere, interfere, interfere a common catch phrase in the political science lexicon. 

I was mystified, after 9/11, why Al-Qaeda didn't follow the horrible success of its attack on the WTC with other large-scale terrorism, especially bio-warfare. I credit some of that to American intelligence successes but, more & more, i've come to believe Osama bin Laden had a theory and we proved him right, so he stopped.

"America is corrupt", i can imagine he and/or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed saying. "Bring horror to their shores and they will destroy themselves."

How could we not react to 9/11 as we did, but we ended up institutionalizing a great many needless & heedless aspects to our response. Adventurism, surveillance, licensing war & other governmental functions to corporate supervision - all of which have been well and over discussed.

But institutionalization of our reactivity itself was worst of all. Legitimizing victim culture, militancy, partisanship, elevation of the kneejerk response, paranoia, xenophobia, hero worship & gun culture, all rooted in the wake of our shame & vulnerability felt since that terrible time but, most importantly, giving feeling greater sway than fact, to the point that lies have become our better mousetraps, our national industry, the base of our identity.

The KGB defector is a little grandiose & self-congratulating, but America's greatest strength is its biggest vulnerability. Our awesome self-belief has been the world's best chance at very important times, but it has also been exploited by enemies, media & thieves, from without & within our ranks, and is making us a more embarrassing entity by the day.

Part of the problem we face in our current political climate is many see this as there being 2 sides and we are supposed to identify as one or the other.  I reject that idea.

Not really directed at you Fred, I'm just tired of other people talking about sides like this is some kind of damn game.

rockaction said:

The equivalent -- if I may so posit -- on the left was that paternalism and nannyism, regardless of the procedures involved, was a good thing so long as it brought just results. That safety and security were positive rights enjoyed by all as opposed to imagining the individual in a state of nature.  

It is what made the right saying that the left wanted to interfere, interfere, interfere a common catch phrase in the political science lexicon. 

Click to expand...

Probably true.  

I remember some great discussions we used to have here before it got overgrown by tribalism.

One of my favorites was about healthcare. 

Liberals were explaining the problems with our current healthcare model, how the costs of having hospitals treat sick uninsured people in the emergency room were higher than the cost of just paying for preventative care, and how insurance companies were denying claims from people who actually paid for insurance. 

A conservative explained that universal healthcare might be a better option, but it should still be the last option, because once a government entitlement was established it was almost impossible to remove.  

Liberals argued that it cost more to get less under private care. 

Conservatives argued that it was government intervention that created that problem in the first place, by tying healthcare to your job benefits.  

It felt like we discussed the policies we actually wanted, instead of defending our side and attacking the other. Now it feels like i could post any news article and immediately know who would feel attacked by it and who would immediately agree with it.

AAABatteries said:

Part of the problem we face in our current political climate is many see this as there being 2 sides and we are supposed to identify as one or the other.  I reject that idea.

Not really directed at you Fred, I'm just tired of other people talking about sides like this is some kind of damn game.

Click to expand...

bostonfred said:

That's a good one.

There aren't two sides. How did that become normal?  There's been a deliberate campaign to make people on the right hate government intervention of virtually all kinds.  What's the equivalent on the left? 

Click to expand...

Totally agree

bostonfred said:

I remember some great discussions we used to have here before it got overgrown by tribalism.

Click to expand...

I think that might have happened here (at this site) late from what I've read and been reading. (I've often spent time reading those old threads.) I certainly agree with you that points are scored and won here, and that one would know who agreed with a news story or opinion beforehand. I'd like to think I personally don't, but some of my positions don't necessarily flow from each other other than to be part of me being influenced by social psychology in a way.

That said, tribalism, IMHO, was happening for quite a while, the modern version manifesting the serious electoral divide in 2000 with its attendant tribalism about decisions concerning counting votes heavily based upon whose party the judge had been appointed by or whose secretary of state had which letter at the beginning of their name in the paper. At the end of the day, party favors came home to roost, and a weird sense of civic tribalism took root in places heretofore unknown, like suburbia, back then. I'm in my mid-forties and had already been involved in politics before this, so it's not like that election was kindling tinder, either. It showed a steep divide that hadn't really be seen up until then.

That's kind of a tangent, but somewhat relevant. And the tribalism has gotten pretty defined under Trump with its own sets of insular pro- and con- and the like. 

I'd also like to say that I have friends in the policy world, and conservatives are twenty years behind in creating policy and in getting that policy creativity to solving fiscal and social programs. They also have antiquated ways of getting the right message for the most responsive audience. I can't go too far into it, nor do I know how much worse it's gotten, but it was considered bad back in the aughts and keeps trucking.

Think of school choice: How on earth are conservatives losing this issue and to whom? There was a moment to be had of synergy with this policy being drummed up as not just an economic issue but a civil rights one and so far the right has sunk their money into charters and other for-profit ventures whenever they've gotten the chance. Instead of settling with the gains they've made and redistributing taxation publicly, they're a mish-mash of ideas. They're trying to satisfy the fiscal conservatives along with the religious right and parochial and private religious instruction-based aspect of it, and somehow they're also looking to cut costs drastically. It's a mess. That's where the "propaganda" has hit the right in one way. Often a fiscal conservative's bed is made by a social conservative, and the two are tenuous at best when fused. 

It was very easy.  First I was hooked in by Russia Today.  I thought I liked some of their personalities because I disliked war and wasting resources on cruise missiles and recklessly killing innocent people, but it turns out I just hated America and want to sow discord by any means possible.  

Before long, I realized I was falling for the Kremlin propaganda line: I wanted the wars to end, and for Americans to live in an equitable society.  

Soon I started seeing Yosemite Sam and nofap memes in my timeline, which were really just subliminal messaging for the Kremlin, and I was further reeled in.  By the time Putin sent sonic mindbeam crickets to my house to cement the brainwashing, the damage was already done.  

These days I just carry water for Trump and the Kremlin.  It’s not clear whether I just want to America to fall or for Russia to reign supreme- certainly there is no viable outcome where both countries coexist peacefully, both do well, and everyone is just ok with that. 

Let my fall serve as a warning to others: listen to everything Neera Tanden and Bill Kristol tell you!   

ren hoek said:

It was very easy.  First I was hooked in by Russia Today.  I thought I liked some of their personalities because I disliked war and wasting resources on cruise missiles and recklessly killing innocent people, but it turns out I just hated America and want to sow discord by any means possible.  

Before long, I realized I was falling for the Kremlin propaganda line: I wanted the wars to end, and for Americans to live in an equitable society.  

Soon I started seeing Yosemite Sam and nofap memes in my timeline, which were really just subliminal messaging for the Kremlin, and I was further reeled in.  By the time Putin sent sonic mindbeam crickets to my house to cement the brainwashing, the damage was already done.  

These days I just carry water for Trump and the Kremlin.  It’s not clear whether I just want to America to fall or for Russia to reign supreme- certainly there is no viable outcome where both countries coexist peacefully, both do well, and everyone is just ok with that. 

Let my fall serve as a warning to others: listen to everything Neera Tanden and Bill Kristol tell you!   

Click to expand...

Thank you for your honesty!

bostonfred said:

That's a good one.

There aren't two sides. How did that become normal?  There's been a deliberate campaign to make people on the right hate government intervention of virtually all kinds.  What's the equivalent on the left? 

Click to expand...

Lots for the right and the left.  A couple on the left include:

1. That being offended affords you some rights;

2. Purity tests for candidates and voters, as though "my candidate is a warrior for justice, and your candidate is just masquerading as one!"

Here's an explicit, low level example. At a party this weekend a friend gave me a personal anecdote of how he got taken in by a meme being pushed by bots targeting liberals. It was something like "Little known fact, there are more gun shops in the U.S. than Starbucks stores." It struck home, he had an immediate visceral reaction to it and clicked the like button, not sure if he sent it on to friends. Shortly after he tried to verify that "fact" and of course found it was false. He felt absolutely used, which caused him to then seek out more information about how the bot propaganda farms work, and he's become much more skeptical of what he sees on social media since.

It's a good illustration of how most people are susceptible to this kind of manipulation, how powerful it is, and how ubiquitous it has become. For most humans, our psychological capabilities are no where near ready for and not developing as quickly as the technology we use, and it's causing us problems. The opportunists among us are taking advantage of that.

@Gr00vus

Business Insider says that there are indeed more gun shops than Starbucks

https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-dealers-stores-mcdonalds-las-vegas-shooting-2017-10

the moops said:

@Gr00vus

Business Insider says that there are indeed more gun shops than Starbucks

https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-dealers-stores-mcdonalds-las-vegas-shooting-2017-10

Click to expand...

It seems like they play a bit fast and loose with the definition of gun store/shop. In the comparisons they use the term "gun store," but then give a definition for "gun dealer":

We define gun dealers according to two ATF classifications: "Dealer in firearms other than destructive devices (including gunsmiths)" and "pawnbroker in firearms other than destructive devices." If we were to include gun manufacturers, collectors, and importers, the national figure would be higher (132,799). Gun dealers would outnumber public schools (98,000 as of 2014).

Click to expand...

At which point we have a semantic debate. Does a guy selling their private collection count as a gun store? I believe they'd fit the definition of gun dealer here, but that doesn't seem like the same thing as "gun store" to me.

And this is exactly the kind of vagueness and nuance that propagandists take advantage of to sensationalize and drive wedges.

Gr00vus said:

It seems like they play a bit fast and loose with the definition of gun store/shop. In the comparisons they use the term "gun store," but then give a definition for "gun dealer":

At which point we have a semantic debate. Does a guy selling their private collection count as a gun store? I believe they'd fit the definition of gun dealer here, but that doesn't seem like the same thing as "gun store" to me.

And this is exactly the kind of vagueness and nuance that propagandists take advantage of to sensationalize and drive wedges.

Click to expand...

A guy selling their private collection isn't required to be a licensed firearm dealer, and isn't counted in that statistic.  It's firearm dealer's licenses that count.

IMO this isn't a "sides" issue unless the "sides" are those trying to influence and those to be influenced.  Framing this particular problem that way is WAY off the mark.

Henry Ford said:

A guy selling their private collection isn't required to be a licensed firearm dealer, and isn't counted in that statistic.  It's firearm dealer's licenses that count.

Click to expand...

Good to know.

In the article, it appears they're including all type 1 and type 2 licenses. In 2017 there were 64,170 of those. Type 1's title explicitly states "dealer", type 2's title states "pawnbroker". The article refers to both as "dealers". The article then also refers to both as "shops" when making their comparison and for their headline. Is it accurate to have a 1 to 1 correlation between "dealer or pawnbroker license holder" and "gun shop" (this question is not directed solely at @Henry Ford)?

Also why make the comparison between a single burger vendor (McDonald's) and the entirety of the type 1 and 2 license holders, even if such a correlation was accurate? Shouldn't the comparison be between everyone who could sell you a burger and the entirety of the type 1 and 2 license holders?

These kinds of semantic games are illustrative of the ways in which our perception gets manipulated.