Slashdot Mirror
Obama Appointee Sunstein Favors Infiltrating Online Groups
megamerican writes "President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated in a recent paper the 'cognitive infiltration' of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories' like the ones surrounding 9/11 via 'chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine' those groups. Sunstein admits that 'some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true' Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors' and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. You can find a PDF of his paper here. For decades (1956-1971), the FBI under COINTELPRO focused on disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents, most notably the Black Panthers. More recently CENTCOM announced it would be engaging bloggers 'who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information.' In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force.'"
Why fear Middle Eastern terrorists, when there are home-grown Americans so eager to utterly destroy freedom of expression...
Watch what you type friends, Big Brother O is watching.
What do you expect from the party of Barbara Streisand, than to institutionalize the "Streisand Effect"?
In before screeching about the Thought Police - who are apparently real. This sort of thing will only agitate paranoid netizens and make the rest of us even less trusting of the government (and information that appears to be supportive of it) than we already are.
Don't you merely confirm their conspiracy theories with this dunderheaded plan?
For decades (1956-1971), the FBI under COINTELPRO focused on disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents, most notably the Black Panthers. More recently CENTCOM announced it would be engaging bloggers 'who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information.' In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force.'"
The information above is totally inaccurate and untrue. You are advised to retract your statements and apologize, otherwise legal action will be brought against you. Thank you.
Have a nice day.
What better way to prove that there isn't a conspiracy
THAN TO TRY AND STOP PEOPLE FROM SPREADING IT.
This would have been a good article to write one of my 5 or 6 paragraph conspiracy theories that I whip up out of thin air, but I already did one of those today, and my brain hurts.
-- More of the Same, AND EVEN WORSE!
However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational. I am all for these people getting shut down, so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace.
The question is, who gets to decide which is which? It would be very easy for a government engaged in an unjust war to label peace protesters as "irresponsible dissenters" and have them shut up.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
the Obama administration has become very concerned with the situation in Azeroth and plan to spend 10 billion in on-line gold to help the cause.
The only reason, it would not be is if you believe the corporate news media, who got us into the situation that we are in right now. The only I
Really? And who is to be the just of "irresponsible dissent"?
This gets into "if the government deems it irresponsible, then it is", no matter what "it" is. This is tyranny and should be utterly squashed as such.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not qualify whether that speech is "responsible", "irresponsible" or any shade in between.
Those women and children had it coming. You could tell from their shifty eyes!
- A fellow blogger not representing the establishment.
The enemies of Democracy are
He's doing just about everything he can to help the GOP win every seat in Congress that's up for election this year. Between him and the Democrats in Congress, it's a wonder anyone's left to support the lot of them. Perhaps if the GOP made an effort to make itself more palatable (or distinguishable), they'd be the ones in a supermajority.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Who gets to determine the difference between responsible dissent and irresponsible dissent? A Conservative might claim that comparing George Bush to Hitler is "irresponsible", while a Liberal might say that claiming Obama is not a U.S. Citizen is "irresponsible."
It's best just to let people who are wrong keep talking, and simply ignore them. Shutting them up with the power of the government is a bad idea - because those same powers could be used against people trying to bring attention to government misdeeds, like the people in Boston who were arrested for recording what they saw as police brutality.
My blog
Yeah. Why focus on the global warming questioners. There's all those people making money selling supplements on TV. I think those people are more harmful to society than the (perhaps misguided) questioners of global warming. At least, I think it is worth keeping an open mind about the global warming debate since the behavioral changes required are so disruptive, as they would have to be, to counter global warming (especially if we are fighting a universe-caused matter of fact). The policies which grow from managing climate change, to distributing resources are going to be important.
But the supplement leeches and the spammers should definitely be infiltrated. Of course, since those are harder to stop, we're not focusing any efforts on those ;(
I guess the whole infiltration thing will convince the conspiracy theorists that they were right all along, and anyone who questions their theories can now be dismissed as a government infiltrator :/
I agree, it's OK for the government to shut down people I disagree with as long as they leave the people I agree with alone.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Lilly levered Democrats, the solution lies with cruise missiles.
The question is, who gets to decide which is which?
I dunno, who can yell the loudest? They usually win these days it seems.
Sent from your iPad.
By floating this, he's ensured that participants in these groups, who by definition are more suspicious than most, will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators. They'll be less open with each other, and may quit altogether. And the Man doesn't even have to follow through to have this effect-- it's totally free! Well played, fascist.
...ah, I trust you guys.
Of course, social interaction may be the last thing holding some of the target audience from going lone gunman, but you can't make an omelette without killing a few people. At least, I can't. And the more incidents we have, the more funding the security apparatus gets. There is no downside!
Wait... should I post this?
What on earth do you consider irresponsible dissent? Publicly asking for a birth certificate from the president of the US on your TV show? Or do you consider it something more disruptive, like the sit-ins and freedom rides that happened during the civil rights movement?
I can think of a lot of inane things out there, from birthers to truthers to GNAA, but those people are just annoying. A good moderation system like slashdot's can fix all of them.
This isn't talking about a moderation system, this is talking about sponsoring bloggers to try to influence public perception. This is like what Nixon did, he had a letter-writing organization that would write tens of thousands of letters to news agencies trying to get them to change their programming. The ONLY time infiltrative deception is acceptable is if the organization is criminal, like the mafia. You shouldn't be trying to infiltrate tea-partier groups, even if you disagree with their politics.
The only thing I can think of that would be irresponsible dissent would be something like starting your own militia and invading your neighboring town, and even that in some cases would be morally acceptable. I mean, we have people who are literally trying to secede from the union, and that is alright. But if that isn't irresponsible, what is?
Qxe4
I'd probably consider myself right of center, but I also don't think World Net Daily is a very unbiased source.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
First they came for the 9/11 truthers, and I said noth- well, actually, anything they can do to mess with *those* loons is OK by me. Can they eff up ther anti-vaxxers, too?
why does a Air Force poster have a gmail contact email address?
There was an unknown error in the submission.
He ought to be fired for being stupid enough to think the government should waste even a penny dealing with conspiracy theorists. Just ignore them. It works just fine. Sure, they pop up now and then, but really, think about it: Of all the various theories about the Kennedy assassination, what do any of them matter in the long run? How does it really affect the government? It doesn't.
All the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have accomplished what? Pretty much nothing.
The more important question is: Who gets to decide who is the conspiracy theorists? That's where the real danger is. Hard to believe Obama would hire such an idiot. Sounds like a George Bush kinda guy.
Now anyone who defends the administration online can immediately be accused of being a paid shill and marginalized.
Why not link in HuffingtonPost, FreeRepublic, and MichaelMoore.com while you're at it. ;)
For those who care about the actual paper rather than the right-wing spin of it:
--------
Abstract:
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.
------
Note how the Slashdot header linked to COINTELPRO, to imply that that's what's being talked about? Even in the *scenario* where infiltration is discussed, the paper explicitly states, "By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions." The paper is about how (or whether to) dispel conspiracy theories to prevent them from spreading, not to prosecute the individuals who promote them. Cognitive infiltration is discussed (again, in purely theoretical terms) in not just a covert manner, but also an overt manner. A lot (although not all) of the paper also is about overseas actions against muslim radical organizations, too, giving examples of tactics we're already employing to dispel conspiracy theories that help fuel terrorist organizations. Anyone who doesn't realize that our government actively employs propaganda even against non-conspiracy-theories isn't paying attention.
Now, all of that said, Sunstein does come across in the end as as supporting debunking conspiracy theories which can "create or fuel violence" by "rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cogitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks." Which form of cognitive infiltration discussed -- covert or overt -- is not mentioned, nor is whether this is a reference to domestic, international, or both kinds of conspiracy theories.
I disagree, but it's not as radical of a paper as it's being made out to be.
I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
See? This is the perfect example. It is about the dumbest thing I have read today. And yet, I will defend to the death your right to say it. Where does this person even get off thinking this is a good idea?
Qxe4
To me this reads like a complete admission that government has little or nothing to fear from standard media, which is something I've felt for a long time. And they think I should be giving them my money or that Google should be paying them for their worthless prattling of the establishment line.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
online groups?
Sarah Palin's Facebook followers? better off going to the circus.
E.L.F.? do they post their plans for world domination to their forums?
this is an appointee for Obama, but i have to wonder who actually proposed this person for Obama to nominate. someone left over from the Bush regime, like Gates? is he contracting work out to John Yoo? anyway, it's not like the C.I.A. or N.S.A. isn't already doing this.
"To stop the terrorists."
In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force.'"
Dear government. Do you want a tip to improve the efficiency of these counter bloggers ? Identify them as "official bloggers" and feed them with true and real information. If your goal is really to fight fake information, this should work like a charm. And despite my sarcastic tone, I really think it would work. Give someone (a journalist or an administrator, or anyone really) an insight on public files and a freedom of speech so that s/he can use informal speech to rant on internet and you will have your counter-blogging force. Lies and disguise rarely serve the cause of truth, don't believe people who try to sell such solutions.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
... and this is my Second Amendment Gun.
ANY QUESTIONS?
In Liberty, Rene
Woooooooshhhhhh!!!!!
That is all.
In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
you have a fine argument, but the details are less interesting than the pattern. And just looking at this weeks headlines with respect to AIG, the new york fed, and the sec, it seems pretty clear legality is not the first priority:-)
Perhaps we will manage to do something about some of this. but long term i favor reduced civil rights for politicians and public servants. make it hard to stonewall. make it easy to convict them
It's not April 1 yet, is it? This is so bizarre that I think it might be a counter-counter conspiracy that is perpetrated on the easy to blame government. Very convincing, Truthers, but you failed to cover-up the evidence of this mock-up to your "news release" by removing the joke name of one of the characters in your grand scheme... to wit; from the wired article "It's all part of an Air Force push to "counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force," Captain David Faggard says."
I mean, come on, can't you come up with a more realistic name that that? Very funny, but we're on to you, matey.
-An ordinary citizen and part-time software pirate and NOT an agent of the Air Force Cyber-Posting Army. Go, Flying Nerds! Woot!!1!
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
Is that what the Constitution is for? The framework for deciding who is responsible and who is not has been written, and it's simply a matter of interpretation to decide which is which.
The key is to define one's liberty, and take action against those who restrict the daily freedom of Americans in the name of dissent. A simple negative opinion on a blog should be left as is, while someone who decides that burning down a ski lodge in the name of animal rights should be targeted.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
The question is, who gets to decide which is which? It would be very easy for a government engaged in an unjust war to label peace protesters as "irresponsible dissenters" and have them shut up.
That concept isn't nearly as scary as what they are actually proposing.
The actual plan, in the document, would be better described as taking key peace protesters and replacing them with pro-war government employees.
If you read the damn paper, you will learn that a banning of such sites is listed as one of many responses that could be taken, but the author pointedly did not suggest that actually be done. The bulk of the paper focuses on when and how the govt. should attempt to counter conspiracy theories.
As far as the govt. infiltrating groups that propound conspiracy theories: This is stated as a mechanism for the govt. to sow its own views into the groups, not as a law-enforcement mechanism. I view this as nothing more than speech. Just as citizens can speak, so can the government. If Joe Random Citizen can join a group and talk about random B.S., why can Joe Random PR-Flack not do the same?
SirWired
Post anything negative to a Twitter-aware company like Comcast, and they connect you with somebody from corporate who will set right whatever you're complaining about. What's the difference between that and the Air Force wanting to debate people spreading inaccurate information about them?
If you allow comments on your blog... that's something who disagree with you can use.
World Net Daily is a few fries short of a happy meal. This is the same news organization that claims that Obama worked to fund terrorists, that 9/11 was caused by the New Yorkers who had it coming, and that the Russian spy poisoned by the KGB using polonium was actually a muslim terrorist trying to sneak radioactive materials into the US. They are basically a forum for conspiracy theories wrapped up in nice packaging.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Just don't friend Cass Sunstein on Facebook.
Try shooting someone who's done nothing physical against you, even a provocateur, and we'll see how long you get to keep your "Second Amendment" Gun. BTW, Rene, are you making an implicit threat against some future government agent who might just want to talk?
That is all.
I agree, it's OK for the government to shut down people I disagree with as long as they leave the people I agree with alone.
I disagree. Someone shut this guy down!
that put out incomplete and/or incorrect information.
http://nwbagpipes.com/
I would welcome a Fed listening in. After a while maybe, just maybe, he'll start to see things from the other side.
Any asshole can mount a one man attack an have everyone hate him. But to get the folks on the inside to see it you way? Brilliance.
Start comparing the Fed with the Stazi? Sure, at first he's drunk the Kool-Aid and is all gung-ho - out to catch some terrorists - USA! USA! USA!
But then, one day, he goes online and reads the Stazi link that someone posted. Now, the Fed is USA! Yeah.
Later on, maybe he starts to realize that the Constitution he's sworn to uphold is eroded ever so slightly when he spies on citizens.
Then maybe, he wonders, if the Constitution is being eroded and eventually it becomes more of a meaningless symbol, then exactly what is he defending? America? The values of America are in the Constitution that he may be violating. So, what's he fighting for? Our way of life? Our way of life is the life specified in the Constitution - of course, lately, our "way of life" == cheap oil but that's another rant.
Hah! Who am I kidding! He's going to spy, fuck the Constitution, go home and watch '24' while polishing his gun.
I can't help but recall : http://xkcd.com/386/
Keep Doing Good.
Why is our tax money being used for this?
I mean, I don't care about people who think the moon landing is fake. Let them spend their time thinking that. It doesn't hurt me. What does hurt me is _my_ hard earned money being used for a useless cause.
It even states in TFA that "some conspiracy theories, under [their] definition, have turned out to be true." So why spend time and energy arguing potentially the wrong side?
"Intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"
-Londo Mollari
Don't let yourself get bent out of shape over this. Read the paper which is being quoted by the article before you start believing nonsense and posting your own. The Klein article misrepresents and quotes out of context. For example, here is the Cass Sunstein quote that Aaron Klein picks and edits to his liking:
"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."
Sounds really scary right? Okay, here is the full paragraph from Sunstein's paper, available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585 :
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).
Note the last sentence. Sunstein leaves the 2 points quoted by Klein out of the recommendation. The paper itself is somewhat insightful and worth a skim. There are things to disagree with perhaps, but this isn't some civil liberty crushing maniac.
... to see these HEY THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY bots auto-responding to anything mentioned about $conspiracy, amongst the webcam bots, in the handful of remaining Yahoo! Chat rooms which remain until Yahoo! gives up and shuts down chat altogether. See also the Israeli "MegaPhone" application.
Automated comments, emails, robodialers, blog posts, and messages: making humans more distrustful of human communication year by year.
I'm sorry sir but I must inform you that you are using an inaccurate information source and I must also ask you to refrain from propagating this incorrect information. There is no second amendment and your interpretation of the first amendment is not correct.
-Minitruth
However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational.
You're absolutely right. If the Republicans win the next election, I hope they vote to silence irresponsible dissenters who say things like:
Any time you wish your buddies had a power, imagine what it would be like if the other team had that same ability.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Will this post will be considered a reason to spy on Slashdot? Its really too bad Glenn Beck is such a wanker, because he gets put down for bring things like this up. He outed Sunstein months ago. Half of the people Obama has appointed have similar views. I am beginning to regret voting for the guy.
Remember when the left-wingers merely suspected GWB of thinking about possibly doing something similar and how apeshit crazy they went over that slim possibility?
Where are those people now?
Now that someone is actually proposing these CHILLING suggestions, because they are against "right wing nutjobs" it is okay?
Hypocrites. It wasn't right then, it isn't right now. It doesn't matter what you "agree" with; that which needs protection is that which you DON'T agree with.
Obama Administrator is no friend of Liberty, and he is making GWB look angelic at this point. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans aren't any better, and I'm not defending them either.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Time to refer this person to miniluv for room 101 treatment.
Anyone interested in giving these orginizations control over which network providers are being free, open and impartial just chime in now.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
Other Airforce or Ex-Airforce, please jump in and share your experiences.
I find this truly disturbing. We have almost lost the free press, due to the demise of many newspapers, the network news has become infotainment, at best, and now we are limiting or undermining freedom of expression. It is a sad commentary that the 'government' and fear mongering special interests keep telling us how they are protecting us by gradually eroding our freedoms. Like ancient Rome, we are rotting from the inside out, and have become a timid, petty and hateful nation where fear and intolerance seem to have won out over discussion, compromise, and compassion. Obviously, reasonable people no longer seem able to agree to disagree, they must discredit those with whom they disagree. Has the nation become so polarized that we can no longer discuss issues, or tolerate minority opinions or questions about how things are run, or who really benefits from changes to our economy and laws? We seem to be so preoccupied hating each other that we fail to notice the government taking away our freedoms and our economic well being while we become a nation of uneducated automatons mindlessly playing with our communication devices saying nothing important to everyone we know. How the mighty have fallen, and how sad to watch today's youth believe they are entitled to everything, and willing to do nothing to achieve it.
I haven't read the paper yet, as I'm just about the step out the door (I will read it), but the "ban on conspiracy websites" outlined in the linked article concerns me greatly. Conspiracies on the internet can look VERY similar to actual information about malpractice and corruption also found on the internet. The power to "ban" conspiracies would give a simultaneous power to ban leaks of information on corruption, which is a violation of the First Amendment for the EXACT motivations it was put in place to prevent.
Which is why I really doubt the article's validity, and hopefully reading the paper will confirm my doubts.
Whooooosh Indeed!, it was just a pathetic attempt at humour. Its funny that he felt it was real. Below is my favorite bit.
About the only person boneheaded enough to think this would be a good idea is George Bush.
PS I am not a left winger, Democrats can be much more effective in oppression than republicans. They convince people they have their best interests at heart.
Try shooting someone who's done nothing physical against you, even a provocateur, and we'll see how long you get to keep your "Second Amendment" Gun. BTW, Rene, are you making an implicit threat against some future government agent who might just want to talk?
Nothing physical? Like enter my home without a warrant through an unlocked door and refuse to leave when asked?
Your point might be that I might be deprived of my gun dare I use it to protect my liberty, and you might be right. In fact, I might even be deprived of my life before I get to fire off a shot. But, it's the whole "die on my feet instead of live on my knees" thing.
Until I act in a manner contrary to the constitution, don't tread on me.
In Liberty, Rene
for providing a forum for right wing FUD*
*please note, i am also against left wing FUD. i am against Fear Uncertainty and Denial. i am against any form of partisan hysteria, demagoguery, and propaganda. this "story" is clearly only that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational. I am all for these people getting shut down, so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace.
It would be insane to allow the government to shut down people who engage in "irresponsible" dissent. The government has no business getting involved unless the conduct crosses the line into criminality. Irresponsible is so vague that it could be applied to just about any form of dissent. Indeed, the time when it's most important to engage in dissent is when the powers that be claim it's most irresponsible to do so. For example: "It's irresponsible to question the President's decisions while we're at war."
ANY QUESTIONS?
Yes, just one. Have you been asleep since 2001?
The USA PATRIOT Act section 802 defines domestic terrorism so broadly that it could apply to an individual exercising his or her freedom of speech, expression, and assembly through acts of civil disobedience. The Department of Justice has not revealed how it is using section 802.
In June 2004, Buffalo, New York, artist Steve Kurtz was detained by law enforcement and had his home searched by FBI agents. Despite finding only harmless substances, which Kurtz uses in his politically motivated art projects, the FBI proceeded with a Grand Jury hearing to decide whether to indict Kurtz under the USA PATRIOT Act’s biological agents provision. On June 29th, Kurtz’s bio-terrorism related charges (USA PATRIOT Act section 817) were dropped.
Also pitting the USA PATRIOT Act against the First Amendment, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a Saudi computer science doctoral student in Idaho, was charged with providing material support to terrorist groups (USA PATRIOT Act section 805) by being a webmaster. A jury acquitted al-Hussayen of all terrorism-related charges in June of 2004, and prosecutors subsequently dropped all remaining charges.
http://www.bordc.org/threats/speech.php
To follow up: I view an agent of the government such a potential threat, that I don't believe an imminent threat to life is necessary to justify responding with deadly force if such an agent has already violated my rights. I think any "reasonable person" would agree.
In Liberty, Rene
Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'
That WND article links to, err, umm, the paper in question. If you download the paper by clicking the "Download" link and opening the PDF, the precise quote is
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
which doesn't directly speak of "banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors'", although it does speak of "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" as something that "will have a place under imaginable conditions" without bothering to speak of the imaginable conditions under which "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" would "have a place" - or, for that matter, explaining what "[banning] conspiracy theorizing" means.
There's no direct reference to "right-wing rumors" in the paper; the authors speak of various conspiracy theories, at least some of which have supporters some of whom one might consider "left-wing", such as "the view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy", "[the view] that Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed by federal agents", and "[the view] that the plane crash that killed Democrat Paul Wellstone was engineered by Republican politicians", as well as those that have supporters some of whom one might consider "right-wing", such as "[the view] that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud" and the "complex of conspiratorial beliefs about the federal government" held by "the perpetrators" of "the Oklahoma City bombing". (And, yes, each of those sets of theories might have other supporters who would be considered to be on the other side of the political spectrum from the side I mentioned.)
Note also that, in the paper, they don't dismiss all conspiracy theories:
Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect).13 In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up. (Well, maybe not.) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones. Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined.
Also, note that when they speak of "cognitive infiltration", they explicitly acknowledge programs such as COINTELPRO, and say that's not what they have in mind:
By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.
Read the paper and draw your own conclusions.
Perhaps the document is from an outside agency, one that deals with corporate responses to blogging and responding to conspiracy theories and misinformation.
I can see this type of thing as being useful to counter misinformation created by conspiracy types.
Of course, trying to counter the hard core conspiracy types is like talking to rocks and trees. They don't listen very well.
The USA PATRIOT Act S. 802 is largely unconstitutional in my opinion.
I am willing to die before I agree to arrest for simply and peacefully expressing an opinion. And, if I am willing to die, I am surely willing to kill.
You think those who believe "Give me Liberty, or give me Death" had in mind quietly painting targets on their bodies?
The tricky part is separating mere bluster from an actual threat to one's liberty. If large numbers of S 802 cases resulted in execution for "sedition" my trigger finger would be a hell of a lot twitchier.
Governments are largely stupid. People don't like clear wrongdoers getting off on technicalities. So, laws are passed that are overbroad. But, like my speech, such laws, without actions consistent with applying them, are also just words.
This creates a dilema: do we wait for the jackbooted thugs to march into our homes, or just our neighborhoods, or to the outskirts of our cities, before we act against them, or do we preemptively strike only because of their words. In revolution, timing is everything: you need an uncoordinated, but relatively synchronized uprising to be effective.
In Liberty, Rene
... protecting government infrastructure from computer attacks. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122203789.html) ... preventing leaks on blue prints/details of military hardware (prototype or otherwise) (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-02-marineone_N.htm)
Fellow ./ readers may be able to add a few more venues that need attention.
So long as people have a right to say what they want to, I see no problem at all with government agencies stepping in and actively promoting their version of the truth as well, or ensuring that other versions get their fair share. It is incumbent upon us to sift through it all, that's the burden of freedom.
"Men willingly believe what they wish." - Julius Caesar
They're known as WorldNutDaily for a reason. For lots of reasons.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
You know, I've read some of Sunsteins's books, and followed his blogging some, and I've found him to be a pretty reasonable, intelligent guy. So I took this with a grain of salt. The article isn't quite what Slashdot or WND claim (e.g., the authors don't seriously consider banning conspiracy theories), but it definitely undermines some of the respect I had for Sunstein.
For those who can't be bothered to read it, but also don't want to hear screeds about the end of civilization, the article's main point is trying to say that conspiracy theories can have a detrimental impact on society. (E.g., the Oklahoma City bombings) The authors think that therefore the government should take a role in correcting misinformation, in 3 ways.
1) Swift denials of a greater number of conspiracy theories.
2) Enlisting independent experts (while attempting to maintain enough distance so as not to infringe on said experts' credibility)
3) Sending people into conspiracy theorist groups in order to introduce what they call "cognitive diversity"---i.e., getting the Mythbusters guys to crash moon-landing-hoax parties.
Obviously #3 is the controversial point. The authors insist that this would not resemble "1960s-style infiltration" in that it wouldn't be a matter of intelligence-gathering, but supposedly merely a mechanism by which agents could provide counterarguments via social networks.
For my own part, I must say, I think that's a terrible idea, and seems incongruent in what is otherwise a fairly reasonable assessment of conspiracy theory. First of all, because one cannot trust the agents in question, once charged with infiltration, to refrain from doing the exact same things that COINTELPRO did (or does, depending on how paranoid you are). And second, of course, is the article's biggest oversight: that a government program to surreptitiously disseminate truthful information impugns both the government and the truth.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
Paranoia is not part of my being. I'm not even paranoid in situations where I probably should be paranoid. But this government stuff is beginning to worry me. Now the government wants to take actions against people who simply don't like the government. The snooping is bad. Torturing prisoners is beyond awful. Controlling news releases is frightening. But this stuff seems to be more and more part of our government.
Justification for this nonsense simply doesn't seem to be part of my world either. I have only met one person in my entire life who claimed to be a communist and I doubt that he really was one. I've certainly never met anyone likely to wear a bomb in their underwear. And despite a number of loud mouths on line I really know of no person who seriously advocates revolution in the violent sense of the term.
I am 65 years old and must have know tens of thousands of people. Just how is it that we all must fear these supposed bad people among us? Too me the really bad people are those who might try to take my wallet or steal my car or the like. These are the folks the government needs to be hunting down. I'm willing to take my chances that no creep will detonate his boxer shorts in my proximity.
In answer to your question, it would probably be the Supreme Court. This sort of First Amendment issue has been explored fairly thoroughly, so the cases would likely be predictable with regard to the censure of a person related to their speech.
/.ers have heard of software companies doing this sort of thing to advance their products. /. boards), but the reasoning for why an individual's communications should be monitored is the place of real concern.
You're more likely to find the interesting bits surrounding the various press offices of government orginizations. They have a responsibility to engage and inform the people regarding their work and to clarify matters that are widely misunderstood. I'm not aware of any legal obstacle to an agent of the government logging on to a website under a nom-de-plume and posting the agency's party line. I'm sure
We expect our leaders and institutions to engage the public on matters of concern. They take polls, review focus groups and consult experts. The President is expected to speak on behalf of his policies and party, as are other political figures. I expect the Surgeon General to put forth informaiton on the latest health buzz.
The first difference in this case is that you could be speaking to an agent of the government online, and not be aware. This starts to get pretty creepy. You think it's bad not knowing if KittenPrincess22 is a dude or not, imagine wondering if she's actually an EPA plant. It's the sort of thing people mean when they talk about a "chilling effect on public discourse".
The second worrisome point is that an individual citizen or group could be targetted by federal agencies for their speech. Again, we expect the FBI to keep an ear to the ground when an orginization has violent history or current criminal connections, but those investigations should be driven by criminal concerns, not concerns of disruptive speech. Sending a federal employee to monitor someone's communications because they say something you don't like is not a good thing. It would be hard to prevent monitornig of communications in a public space (like
We want our government to be where we can see it. We want to be able to keep an eye on it. We want to know if it's keeping an eye on us as individuals.
Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
yeah, what the fuck are you going to do with yuor gun against a tank and 50 FBI agents?
Seriously, do you think you gun can protect you from the government? Don't be stupid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh darn, you mean someone is daring to counter the troofers and other nuts with facts? Oh the horror.
"Banning websites which post right wing rumors"
I don't think that is the right approach. Rather, I'd like to see libel and slander laws broadened to include things like scientific theories, and history itself. Big, well funded news agencies (or "think tanks) on the left and right are not held accountable for anything they say.
The only accounting is if another news agency with as much viewers challenges the assertions by the other news agency. But by that time, the damage is done, and often the viewers of one news agency are not the audience for the other.
The only way that we can start getting more truth in reporting, and accurate pictures of reality on complex issues, is to hold organizations accountable. I think anyone, a citizen, the government, a scientist, etc.., should be able to sue, say, Fox News, over their coverage of issue X, and let a jury decide if Fox reporting is libel or slander against the truth behind issue X.
I do not know what ramifications extending the definitions of libel and slander to concepts/ideas/theories would have (not a laywer), but there has to be something we can do to reign in reporting when it is blatantly false beyond all measure.
Instead of adding more noise to conspiracy theorists why not go full disclosure like making available all info on aliens, 9/11, etc ? Remember the 9/11 pentagon tapes ? why not release it ASAP ? something to hide uhm ? No need to use FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), just make the stuff available. People want the truth of course ! and while they do not have it with they'll make that into a holy quest.
They already believe the FBI and CIA are infiltrating their movement, with the likes of Alex Jones, now they have some hard evidence.
Honestly, I too believe Alex Jones is not who he makes out to be. He's all show, no substance. If you want conspiracy theories, look to the smaller broadcasters such as Lee Rogers. Now there's a paranoid individual.
Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
It's OK, his goal is simply to create a better world. Or, it's "for the children". Or some other excuse favored by fascists.
[Insert pithy quote here]
There shouldn't even be an Air Force. The Army Air Corps were some ballsy sons of bitches, innovative, and part of the entire team. That Army Air Corps invented close in ground support for the grunts fighting on the ground, among other things. Their pilots would often come back to base with mud, grass, and blood and gore on their windshields.
The Air Force? What the HELL do they do, that the Army and the Navy can't do better? (Lest anyone get upset that I've "forgotten" the Marines - they are part of the Department of the Navy. Marine Corps, Medical Corps, Supply Corps - I don't forget my brothers.)
Oh - the Air Force is good at flying nukes around the country that someone forgot to unload and secure properly.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html
Maybe if those flyboys mingled with real troops now and then, they wouldn't be such lame fuckups. Maybe.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Silencing speech is indeed a bad thing, but the govt. practices speech all the time, and uses your tax dollars to do so.
If the government starts spending my tax money to at best argue global warming or at worst silence people who don't think there's enough evidence to support it, I'd feel both ripped off / used and controlled.
It sounds like you are saying you are wary of the govt. practicing speech with which you do not agree.
Lets take an example of govt. speech against conspiracy theories that you likely have no problem with... Holocaust Deniers. The U.S. and state/local governments spend your tax dollars making sure that every schoolchild across the country is told about the horrors of the holocaust. I doubt there is a public-school World History class anywhere in the country that does not make at least some mention of it. Most sane people would regard the holocaust as an absolute fact; but since some people disagree, does that mean the govt. (through the school system) should remain silent on the subject?
If the govt. scientists believe in global warming, why should they NOT say so? Why can they not relay their understanding of the truth? It is their job to do so, and indeed it would be a waste of tax dollars for them to study something and be silent. It doesn't mean they are correct, but no political principle requires them to not argue for their conclusions. The govt. is not required to remain silent about a topic, just because it is a matter of controversy.
I, as most citizens, would have a real problem with active disinformation. Stating something the speaker knows not to be true certainly is dishonest and poisons the public discourse. But, on matters of controversy, as long as the speaker (the govt. included) is not simply inventing facts out of whole cloth, then the speech should be allowed. If the govt. happens to be making the speech, so be it.
SirWired
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Although there is plenty that is disturbing in the paper, Sunstein and his co-author at no place recommend banning websites. The list a bunch of possible responses (including banning), most of which (including banning websites) they immediately reject.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Well I think the government should try to shut down everyone. Natural selection will weed out the irresponsible dissenters.
And you're real lucky I'm out of mod points, budy.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Seriously, do you think you gun can protect you from the government? Don't be stupid.
No, of course not. At least not mine alone. It would be certain suicide to shoot at an agent of the state.
But, living isn't the point. Liberty is, and a large number of people believe that life without liberty is not worth living. This is the whole point behind Patrick Henry's cry:
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
In Liberty, Rene
The idea of using government agents here sounds pretty much like the lines being spouted by the Chinese government over the Google hack: media in China are expected to actively create a "positive environment" for the government and "guide" public opinion.
Those women and children aren't innocent, they knew what was coming to them when they signed up for the UK or Canadian armed forces.
The government can, does, and should, have opinions.
As I pointed out in another reply, the govt. is by no means required to remain silent about matters of controversy, nor would we wish it to do so.
We pay our public servants to have opinions. When the govt. prosecutes somebody for a crime, they are publicly stating their belief that the defendant is guilty. When we pay govt. scientists to study something, the money is wasted unless they can publicize their conclusions.
The specific article was about govt. counters to conspiracy theorists. Are you saying that because some people express the opinion the holocaust never happened, the govt. should omit all mention of it from schoolbooks? Are you saying that it is tyranny for the govt. to publicly disagree with Truthers or Birthers?
I hope not.
SirWired
If these theories are so nutball and baseless then why does the Government need to spend so much time and effort to infiltrate and undermine/marginalize them??
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not qualify whether that speech is "responsible", "irresponsible" or any shade in between.
The courts are really confused on many free speech point. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is apparently "irresponsible," and is therefore not covered under free speech. On the other hand, getting paid to lie while simultaneously calling your lies "news" is apparently protected free speech. Attempting to call attention to these lies, on the other hand, is apparently not free speech. Demonstrating outside of a designated "free speech" zone is apparently "irresponsible" and therefore is not protected speech. Handing your congressperson a pile of cash in an attempt to affect the legislative process, on the other hand, is protected free speech.
I'd just be happy if libel and slander laws applied equally to the government and those making accusations against the government.
For example, Mr. Asspimple Oxycontin was on the radio yesterday accusing people in the White House of diverting funds donated to the Haiti relief efforts towards the Obama campaign. That's a pretty serious accusation of a crime. I think Asspimple should be held responsible for making such an accusation of criminal activity, unless he can back it up.
Support SETI@home
health-care and national security all in one! it's perfect.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_is_the_government
Who gets to determine the difference between responsible dissent and irresponsible dissent? A Conservative might claim that comparing George Bush to Hitler is "irresponsible", while a Liberal might say that claiming Obama is not a U.S. Citizen is "irresponsible."
There is a difference. One of those statements is demonstrably false. If the NFL can get fined because too much breast was visible during the halftime show, why can't we fine people for telling lies on the public airwaves?
Support SETI@home
What's up with the front page troll post? Worldnutdaily and Rawstory as sources? Really?
> In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."
If you actually held people to that standard, you'd find that very few people actually support free speech.
I agree - that is of course a bullshit reason. On one of the many tapes of Nixon's conversations you can hear Kissenger talking him out of an idea to set off a nuke on the China/Vietnam border to "send a message" to the USSR. On the British side there was Churchill getting talked out of using anthrax during WWII. It's the time when a nations leader needs the best advice they can get.
I have a distinct warning to all frothy-mouthed Liberals that love the idea of a "Fairness Doctrine" which was used in the past to remove Communist influences in the media
[citation needed]
When was the "Fairness Doctrine" ever specifically used to remove any influences in the media, much less "Communist" influences, as opposed to, for example, give an author the chance to reply to an attack by a right-wing broadcaster who had accused the author of "[having] been fired by a newspaper for making false charges against city officials; [having] then worked for a Communist-affiliated publication; [having] defended Alger Hiss and attacked J. Edgar Hoover and the Central Intelligence Agency, and [having] now written a "book to smear and destroy Barry Goldwater.""
Now, in practice, there were concerns raised that enforcing the "Fairness Doctrine" might cause stations to avoid saying anything that might trigger "Fairness Doctrine" enforcement, having a "chilling effect" on free speech.
Which has been done, in a way; though usually in a form of members of law "enforcement" acting in irresponsible fashion and under false flag, on the side of protesters.
One that hath name thou can not otter
We certainly do ban speech all the time, such as the iconic "fire" example.
As far as banning conspiracy theories, the only thing I can think of that would be even remotely constitutional would be during the formal suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and even that is highly controversial.
The point I was making in my post, as you appear to have noticed, was that merely offering a hypothetical is not the same as advocacy.
SirWired
All this time I thought slashdot had already been infiltrated by propagandists!
fox news
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
I like my little checks from here and there.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
Why is anyone surprised by this? I just assumed it already happens.
The actual plan, in the document, would be better described as taking key peace protesters and replacing them with pro-war government employees.
The actual plan, in the document, would be better described, in that particular situation, as adding to groups of peace protesters pro-war government employees; there's nothing that amounts to "replacing" peace protesters, "key" or otherwise:
How might this tactic work? Recall that extremist networks and groups, including the groups that purvey conspiracy theories, typically suffer from a kind of crippled epistemology. Hearing only conspiratorial accounts of government behavior, their members become ever more prone to believe and generate such accounts. Informational and reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest that the generation of ever-more-extreme views within these groups can be dampened or reversed by the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.
Seen another way for the program to be working; he and every other fringe nutcase would be there with the three parties every time they got public air wave time.
I'm not that familiar with UK politics...quick Google...
I assume the three other parties receiving implicit endorsements were Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat. On further reading perhaps not the Liberal Democrats.
[Willie]It's blatant discrimination against the Scottish National Party![/Willie]
Personally I think it's blatant discrimination against the Monster Raving Loonies.
IMHO Best to let the airwaves sort themselves out as the entertainment media they are. Better then having the government decree who's opinions are worthy.
Your example provides exactly what is wrong with the 'fairness doctrine'.
Ben Franklin said (para): 'Why would you want to silence you opposition? They being wrong and you being correct you want them to speak and publish as much as possible such that everybody will hear how wrong they are.'
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
...criminalizing organizations. That's the biggest potential of such infiltration. Actually manufacturing unlawful dissent, in direct opposition to the official policy.
Because, as it clearly states, the goal is to place infiltrators in key positions of organization...meaning they effectively try to take it over.
And we know how that ends; few years ago German courts dismissed cases against neonazis because there was so much infiltration - the agents were basically the ones running the show!
It was similar in communist Poland, when SB (security agency) had many agents in Solidarity movement (I guess Stasi did so too), especially in very useful factions already lending towards radicalism.
When your agents start to influence the policy of given organization, it's not only easy to make sure the members aren't misinformed, but also to radicalize them. Manufacturing in this way convenient scapegoats.
One that hath name thou can not otter
I watched that entire 6 minute and 24 second youtube clip. Not once did he say or elude to that statement. What gives? Why did you make such a public and false statement here on Slashdot?
Care to explain yourself, or are you that much of a coward?
Life is not for the lazy.
Since we all know the Government has been infiltrated by Scientology at all levels, it is safe to assume this infiltration of government liars and apologists will be like any Scientology run scam on the people.
Anyone have any insight into Sunsteins relationship with Xenu?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
It'll have to come out.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
According to the article (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121884),
"He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.
"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes. "
So all viewpoint discrimination would be out of bounds. Except that the government could disrupt people promulgating rumors that high government officials were responsible for some coverup or other. Like maybe that the White House was behind a break-in at a hotel room used by political rivals. Certainly THAT should have been suppressed by the government and nobody should have been allowed to print it or talk about it. I'm very much afraid that in many respects the Obama administration is turning out to be a severe disappointment to civil libertarians who had HOPED that they would offer us a respite from things like the Imperial Presidency stance we saw in the past from things like Jewel v. NSA.
Nineteen eighty four was ****NOT**** SUPPOSED TO BE A FUCKING GUIDEBOOK!
What was Orwell thinking, he only gave them ideas!
But... the future refused to change.
advocated in a recent paper the 'cognitive infiltration' of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories'[first link]... Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors' and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.[second link]
What's interesting about these two bits of the summary is that both are based on the same article by Sunstein, summarized differently by different wingnut websites. I have to conclude that the submitter didn't read the article. At all. Hey, I can quote out of context as well as the next guy:
government may do best to ignore conspiracy theories and theorists even if it justifiably fears that they will have
harmful effects, because government action may make things worse.
Does that quote misrepresent the article? Yes, it does. But actually, less than the summary does, since Sunstein actually advocates 'ignore' in some circumstances. However - bans? If you read the article you'd see that banning is an option he explicitly rejects!! (clue: its option 1 of 5, where only 3, 4, 5 make the cut; its the only time the word 'ban' appears in the paper...). There might be something interesting to say about this article. But the stuff you've linked to in the summary, and the summary itself? That's just so far off target, its not even a decent starting point for a conversation.
Can we get back to the news for nerds, where someone claims Knuth advocates using O(n^2) algorithms, just because he mentions them (rolls eyes)
Any time you wish your buddies had a power, imagine what it would be like if the other team had that same ability.
That maybe why some of the things Obama supporters disapproved of and wanted Obama to shut down didn't get shut down. All the powers and abilities they really didn't like and felt no one should have.
"Hey! This Gitmo place, seems it actually serves a useful purpose. Those are some real bad guys they got there. The wiretapping... uh yeah... did you read the reports on the shit they got from that? Just imagine if they hadn't overheard those motherfuckers and stopped them."
I'm sorry, but no discussion of the merits of World Net Daily is complete without mentioning their six-part series on how soy is making your kids gay.
What happens when you conspire to infiltrate groups with conspiracy theories?
Echo!
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
This guy wants to disrupt, discredit and distract chat groups, message boards and blogs dealing with stuff like 9/11 being an inside job and other "conspiracy theory's".
...
Makes me wonder what they are trying to hide
6. Profit?
You must be new here. Spun is a known political flamebaiter.
Psyops is something the US military does to its citizens. We are now officially a side in the shittiest, most boring, and most one-sided war ever fought. :|
So do Ford, GM, and your local water and power utilities. What's there to counter?
There is a difference. One of those statements is demonstrably false.
True. Bush clearly doesn't have a mustache.
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If bu$h ran the country this way, all of Obama's admin (short those who were in bu$h's admin) would be dead or in jail by now. All I know is knowing that they would never be able to get away with it federally, they are trying to bring back the Brady assualt weapons ban up here in Washington (you know, that little slippery slope Clinton tried to toboggan the country down before the LA riots put us all back into perspective?) . For all of you schmucks who voted for Obama, we were right, he is going to try to take our guns away. If they ever succeed, you will come to hate gun owners for not shooting every last one of them! They have no love for your ideals of peace and justice, only for the execution of every last visage of what made America not Mexico.
-Oz
If they just made the government an open operation, as they promised to, they wouldn't have to waste time tracking down untrue shit and correcting conspiracy theories, because people would already have easy access to the information debunking the nutters. Privacy gets lots of attention as being super important, but frankly, it's the root of most evil. When you go open, you diffuse a lot of drama.
When there is Obama et al?
Exactly. Better to take a page out of Swordfish and strap some C-4 and ball bearings to your chest - at least that way you're guaranteed to take some of the fuckers out.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
There is an well funded and coordinated campaign of disinformation on climate change from the likes of the CEI and the Heartland institute, these are the same people who actively campainged to discredit the notion that smoking causes cancer. I think like the medical scams these kind of campaingns are motivated by greed and are demonstratably harmfull to society.
However I think they are better fought out in the open with facts and humour rather than in the dark with astroturfers and infiltrators. I would much rather see CEO's charged with negligence when the shit hits the fan than have them censored just in case something goes wrong.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Look, I'm in favor of the 2nd amendment. I don't personally own a firearm and truthfully I'd rather have fewer than more guns. But I'm a civil liberties absolutist and I believe that the Bill of Rights should be treated like the crown jewels that they are. All of them, including the 2nd (I just wish that more gun nuts were as concerned with the other nine as they are with their pet amendment.)
But seriously, stop claiming that guns can solve all of our problems. We're a pretty fucking well armed society compared to most other countries so I don't think that it's lack of guns that's leading to all of our other problems.
You're claiming that more guns would save us from the hands of our uncaring, oppressive government and the corporations that own it. If they even bothered to consider the idea they'd laugh. They have guns too you know. And cruise missiles, jet fighters, UAVs, and god knows what else that we don't know about considering the trillions of dollars that have been pumped into "defense." So stop with the macho nonsense that a few shotguns and hunting rifles is all it takes to get back control of our government.
I couldn't stand either of the main candidates; I voted Libertarian this time around. I the Republicans as an example because I got the impression that the OP was in favor of the Democrats having such powers.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."
Wow, even when he has the right idea, Noam Chomsky is wrong, as always. I am not certain about Goebbels, but I know Stalin frequently had those who agreed with him killed if he felt they were too passionate, so as to prevent any political threats from usurping him. Being outspoken without Stalin's instruction, even if you were supporting Stalin, was a death sentence.
The Gospel according to lolcat
How should he be held responsible? Removal from the radio?
While we're playing the if game, what do you think should happen if it were shown to be true that the White House was diverting funds? How should they be held responsible? Removal from office?
(Not trying to start a flameware, just testing SETIGuy's bias here.)
The government can't save you.
First off, that was an EPIC FAIL on your part. Pulling MSNBC for commentary? You might as well have quoted Media Matters.
No need. I have it right here.
RUSH: Here’s President Obama speaking about Haiti this morning in Washington at the White House. He held a press conference. Now, I want you to remember, it took him three days to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn’t want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti.
Where in the hell did you get the idea he was courting blacks from that comment? Sounds like Rush was explaining the potential politicization of the issue. Why? Who the hell knows from that sound-bite. For all we know, it was to not make the same (proceved or otherwise) that GWB did with Katrina.
Life is not for the lazy.
Seems like the kind of thing a jury would be good for, as a representation of the broader society.
Chomsky's quote would have more of an impact if he included George Creel before Goebbels - I think Goebbels had Creel in mind with respect to the "Big Lie".
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
The flowchart has deplorable tactics such as telling people to cite their sources and disclose their connection to the Air Force if they decide to respond to an online post about the Air Force. If only the people that really assassinated JFK would have had this flow chart to go by...
is that the part where WND takes hysterical fearful conclusions and projects them onto people to feed the foregone conclusions of its hysterical fearful readership?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The "pro-Obama" media doesn't respond to World Net Daily's rantings* because that would only give them what they crave most - attention, and the taint of legitimacy. It's exactly the same reason why many legitimate historians refuse to debate holocaust deniers.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
that so called defenders of freedoms actually knew what those freedoms actually were. they aren't low iq slogans
additionally, i wish these so-called defenders of our freedoms had a little more faith in them as substantial legal, political and cultural investments. something that do not go *POOF* in one day everytime a few paranoid schizophrenics imagine dark conspiracies are finally closing in
yu and the other spastic idiots like you are no defenders of freedom. you're flaky, hysterical, dimwits on a constant freakout. i can see your adrenal glands in hyperdrive from the other end of this comment. jesus, what is it like to have so much cortisol coursing through your veins all the time? what is it like to live in such melodramatic fear?
life is not a low grade hollywood movie plot, you sad, small little man. "Totenglocke". lol. overcompensating for what i wonder
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually, I'd think that broadcasting Voice Of America domestically would be far more honest and healthier for society than making American citizens the targets of a covert propaganda machine.
'Conspiracy theorist' can be reasonably used to describe a crackpot, or it can be (and often is, IMHO) used to marginalize people who refuse to buy into an official reading of history... perhaps with good reasons that are ignored because of the derogatory label.
Problem is, ignoring issues and facts in the old channels doesn't work so well anymore (just look at how poorly the lies about Iraq were propagated this time around) which is why authorities are now attacking the ability of individuals and small groups to share info on so many levels. And people are starting to tire of the 'conspiracy theorist' smear being applied wherever the group dynamics of the powerful and wealthy are portrayed in an unflattering light.
I agree that WND was a really bad link for this article, but it's not the first time here and just look at how much lip service Slashdot gave to the anti-AGW crowd when so-called "climate-gate" broke. The editors here could be more discerning, and the page hits they are getting in these cases are from a corrosive form of controversy... false controversy. Regardless, such oversights do not make the government's plan for domestic propaganda any less nefarious.
You all voted for this guy, so whose fault is it when he picks Sunstein etal. to expand the regulatory reach of government into areas you never though possible or desirable? He has never really hidden his beliefs, motives, or goals.
If you're not going to rock the boat, why even call it free speech?
"Freedom defined is freedom denied" - from the Illuminatus! Trilogy.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
I can see that the usual knee-jerk reactions are already rolling in in the comments, Any question touching on free speech and human rights always gets people up in arms, and rightly so, but I think there is a lot more to it than simply screaming "Free Speech!!!!" and foaming at the corners of the mouth.
I fear that I have already lost contact with the larger part of /. readers by saying so, but I think it is necessary that at least one stands up for the more calmly thoughtful approach. Lets attempt to analyse the problem:
There is a large number of groups that advocate something irrational - not just conspiracy theories, but extreme, religious viewpoints etc. They sometimes have a large influence on society, in some cases much larger than their numbers justify, and they do arguably exert a harmful influence on society.
Would it be right if those who are meant to protect us were to just ignore them? Of course not; in my opinion the state has a clear duty to do what it can, within the law, to protect its citizens. And I can see some good arguments in favour of infiltrating and influencing those groups; just as I can see that there are some inherent dangers in such a scheme.
We all know that when the government comes out and issues a statement that is meant to correct some misunderstanding or misinformation, it is generally met with skepticism by the public, to say the least, not to mention the more blinkered opinionators. The government would have no chance at all reaching the members of conpiracy theory groups and the like, if all they try is to issue factual statements; the only way is to meet them at their home turf, ie infiltration.
The fear is of course that it can be misused to "control opinion", but I think that fear is exaggerated - even in East Germany, where the government controlled all media, they still couldn't control public opinion. To my mind, this kind of scheme is no different from the schemes where the police or social services engage in a dialog with youth gangs in order to change their attitudes and get them away from crime.
This man has obviously never attempted to 'reason' with a troll on the internet.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
I'm just having trouble deciding whether the guy is a deep thinker or a fool and it revolves around whether the internet is "media". From a cynical viewpoint, the purpose of every culture's mass media is to promote a collective story that creates an identity around that culture. Seriously, we're _way_ past investigative journalism by now, right? So it makes sense that the government would take efforts to blunt extremist views on the internet if the internet is yet another manifestation of mass media.
But is it media? Or is it the minds of private citizens interacting in cyberspace. Abbie Hoffmann used to say in the sixties that a narc would smoke grass with you but he sure as hell wouldn't drop acid [based on the meme at the time that it made you crazy forever], so every radical group should hold an acid party. How would online groups discourage "narcs" today?
The problem comes from the definition of HARM. Someone like Locke equates "HARM" to broken legs, trampled bodies and stab wounds. The enemies of free speech in contemporary society (most of the power elite in government and academia) consider it "harm" when you hurt someone's feelings or question official government propaganda.
is false. I read the linked pdf and banning websites is explicitly _not_ a part of Sunstein and Vermeule's policy recommendations (page 14, paragraph 3). RTFA before you make false and inflammatory statements.
Building a better ribosome since 1997
"The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper."
When the official narratives promulgated by central governments, mainstream media, historians, etc. are so obviously deficient in their facts and offer less than satisfying explanations, it lends an inherent credibility to alternative theories which might be largely baseless, but nevertheless "fill the voids" that "mainstream" sources fail to address. Furthermore, a history filled with numerous examples of government story lines which have later been proven false by the revelation of a complete set of relevant facts create natural doubts as to the authenticity or comprehensiveness of ANY official narrative. Additionally, the attempts by governments and other "official" sources to marginalize or stifle such alternative viewpoints, up to and including the use of violence, sanction and/or threat of legal penalty strongly suggest that such dissenting opinions represent a "threat" to the established power structure above and beyond that posed by a simple falsehood or unstubstantiated suggestion.
If you want it easier to digest for yourself, here's a nice link to get you started. I know, if you visit mediamatters.org, your head will explode. As a self-professed dittohead, you must have already written them off as irrelevant. But the clip is quite clear -- Rush did exactly what spun claimed he did.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The government CLAIMS that it wants to undermine people and groups spreading "conspiracy theories" because these theories are not true and are somehow "harmful to society".
If the ideas that such groups express are really so demonstrably wrong and devoid of facts, why would the government advocate using covert means to undermine them? Why not set up an open forum where these theories are exposed, confronted, and refuted in front of the whole world? I propose that we have nationally televised debates where the government puts forth a group of their "experts", and they have an open discussion with the so-called "conspiracy theorists" they are proposing to infiltrate and undermine.
Episode #1 will feature representatives of the people who came up with the 9-11 commission report and anybody else the government wants to dig up vs. Alex Jones (noted conspiracy theorist), Dr. Steven Jones(no relation, Physicist at S&J Scientific Co.) and Maybe Webster Tarpley (author and lecturer).
What's the government so afraid of?
http://xkcd.com/386/
I'm pretty confident that 4chan alone will deplet their budget, so why care?
The point isn't to intentionally commit suicide and hope one "takes out enough of the enemy".
The point is to fight back in a manner that would ensure your survival if you were left alone. No, this might not be as effective as other suicidal options, but it places your death (as inevitable as it might me) in the hands of the state instead of your own.
Perhaps you are too young to remember this.
In Liberty, Rene
From Time Magazine:
"As one of the pro-democracy movement's leaders said, the heroes of the tank picture are two: the unknown figure who risked his life by standing in front of the juggernaut and the driver who rose to the moral challenge by refusing to mow down his compatriot."
In Liberty, Rene
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well I'm not Setiguy, but if there's no evidence relieve funds were diverted to the campaign, that sounds like a strong slander case. There's no need for any new laws, this sort of thing is taken care of in the legal system all the time.
>There shouldn't even be an Air Force. The Army Air Corps were some ballsy sons of bitches, innovative, and part of the entire team. That Army Air Corps invented close in ground support for the grunts fighting on the ground, among other things.
What the hell? And in the same paragraph claiming not to be forgetting the Marines? Come on...
Sure, everyone did some of that in WWI. But the French and Germans were the first to think of coming up with real tactics specifically for that purpose, and the Germans built the first aircraft designed for it.
But the Marines were the ones who really developed the concept of coordinated air-ground support as we know it today. Putting it into practice and refining it (for better or worse) during the Banana Wars. When WWII rolled around, they were prepared to use it. (The island hopping campaign relied heavily on Marine Aviator support.)
Meanwhile the Army Aviators wanted to focus on large bombers and air-air fighters... both easier than ground support, and "more efficient", and they WANTED to be separate from the Army. WWII taught them that yes, air-ground support was neccessary, and they learned (the hard way) how to do it to some extent. But then after the war they went off on their old ways and ideas again, forgetting how to do close ground support soon after getting their way. (To become a separate Air Force.)
The Marines started using helicopters first, too. Though I think the Army may have been the first to use them as gunships.
the modern 'Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda'?? Seriously, he more or less wants State control of the the media and heaven forbid if the message isn't approved by the Equal Access Board. If it smells like Fascism (even handed out with a smile) chances are it is the real thing. Not some proto-Bush wanna-be-a-dictator crap, either. This guy really is a bit scary.
I can think of a lot of inane things out there, from birthers to truthers to GNAA, but those people are just annoying. A good moderation system like slashdot's can fix all of them.
Are you kidding? It can't even fix slashdot.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Lilly levered Democrats, the solution lies with cruise missiles.
Lilly levered? Is that what they're calling the inability to get it up these days?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Interesting...well, Limbaugh has a history of not losing slander lawsuits. I don't know if that's because he can afford crack lawyers, or because cases like this aren't brought because he's right.
I know little about his internal workings, but I'd bet he's far more careful about what he says than casual observation would suggest. Just listen critically to how he phrases his sentences. He makes them hard to clip apart and take out of context.
The government can't save you.
P.S. Godwin' law was inevitable on this one.
I don't think so. Nothing so far has been Godwin-invoking.
Godwin's Law doesn't apply to any mention of Nazism, it only applies when one person calls another a Nazi or Hitler.
The grandparent simply said "here were some very restrictive people who liked 'free speech' when it suited them."
No need to invoke Godwin yet; hopefully it won't happen!