Vietnam Admits Deploying Bloggers

New submitter jespada writes "BBC News reports the Vietnamese Communist Party is approaching its internet image in a more sophisticated manner by hiring shill bloggers to argue its case. From the article: 'Hanoi Propaganda and Education Department head Ho Quang Loi said that the authorities had hired hundreds of so-called "internet polemists" in the fight against "online hostile forces." While the exact number of these activists is unknown, Mr Loi revealed that his organisation is running at least 400 online accounts and 20 microblogs. Regular visitors on popular social media networks in Vietnam such as Facebook have long noticed the existence of a number of pro-regime bloggers, who frequently post comments and articles supportive of the Communist Party. The bloggers also take part in online discussions, where they fiercely attack anybody who they see as critical of the regime.'"

Comments

And

[Phrogman]

Do you really think our western democratic political parties are not doing the exact same thing - even if they refer to them as marketing consultants or something similar?
I have sure noticed that some topics on various news sites and forums attract *immediate* right-wing commentary denigrating whatever the article is about.
I expect every political party out there is doing something similar. After all politics is more about appearance than substance these days.

Re:And

[ohnocitizen]

What is YOUR point? It is good to call out tactics like this no matter who is pulling them, whether its one kind of government or another, or a corporation. That Hanoi occupies so weak a PR position they need to hire people to attack critics says a lot about their strength as a country. Don't get me wrong, where we find these tactics being deployed at home - the very same conclusions apply. That shouldn't stop us from calling them out. I *would* stop short of saying everyone out there does the same, sans evidence.

Re:And

[icebike]

I like how you mention "right-wing commentary denigrating whatever the article is about" then make a half hearted effort to affect fairness with the whimpy "expect every political party out there is doing something similar" line.

Well played sir. You have a promising career in astroturfing.

Re:And

[Phrogman]

Well, ok, what I posted was slanted. I am sure that left-wing political parties and interest groups are just as likely to be doing the same thing.
The problem is I am left-wing generally, so I don't notice much of the commentary that I agree with or which seems sensible to me, as much as I notice the stuff that I *personally* consider to be right-wing batshit crazy.
I was not however being even handed in my response, you are correct.

My point was that this article is pointing out the Vietnamese Communist party is using these tactics, and this seems to suggest an air of "oh how low-down and despicable" of them, when I am fairly certain that either our western political parties - or "advocacy groups" on their behalf are doing the same thing.

It seems particularly noticeable on CNN to me. Whenever Obama is mentioned, a ton of posts seem to try to redirect the readers to a different but unrelated topic, usually by massive trolling and racial insults. Now, perhaps this is just reflective of the readership on CNN, or the American people in general but it seems very consisten and very immediate.

Caveat: I am Canadian, and I am *absolutely* sure that our current Prime Minister's Conservative party would do this, they have already been caught cheating with their finances in multiple ridings and elections, and we had a huge robo-call scandal in the last election where people pretending to represent the Liberal Part (that's middle of the road politically mind you, not left wing) and the New Democratic party (they are also pretty middle of the road these days but used to be more left-wing) called voters to tell them that their poling stations had moved (to addresses that didn't exist, were the wrong location etc), deliberately trying to ensure that those supporting their opposition parties had less chances to vote. It all got blamed on 1 unauthorized staffer of course, but since it involved thousands of phone calls this seems rather unlikely.

Astroturfing articles that are critical of your political belief seems almost guaranteed as a tactic these days, here in the west, not just in foreign communist countries.

This is NO TRUTH

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialist Republic of Vietnam has no need for so called propaganda campaign. Evidence of lies from Western capitalist press. Socialist Republic of Vietnam for peace and friendship for all peoples but above all for workers. Slashdot.com part of technics to attack Socialist Republic of Vietnam in public opinion courts.

Vietnamese Communist Party....

[blind biker]

...more candid than Microsoft!? Wow...

Communists and Corporation Have This in Common

[cervesaebraciator]

If you have spare time, go to the Wikipedia page of your favorite (however defined) corporation. Click "View history". Find the top five contributors and do a WHOIS on their IPs. Now, compare this to the locations of offices owned by your favorite corporation. It can be rather entertaining.

In expected things, entertainment's in the details

[cervesaebraciator]

I didn't say it was either unusual or unexpected; I said it was entertaining. Regardless, the criticism you offer applies equally well to TFA as well. That doesn't make how they do it uninteresting.

Let me give an example to illustrate. I once looked up a certain Fortune 500 company on Wikipedia. I'll call it Jonesing for Capital Industries, or JCI for short, to protect its identity. (Full disclosure: I looked at their page quite some time ago, and it looks like much of it has been changed since then--who knows what has transpired since?) Back when I checked JCI's page, most of it clearly read as corporate propaganda, the kind of thing that isn't remotely unusual or unexpected. Frankly, I don't really find the encomia corporations write about themselves all that troubling. They're perfectly transparent and, as you say, what else would you expect? What was unexpected was the section that appeared on the page about controversies JCI had been involved in. Not that I didn't know the corporation had been involved in controversies--most have--but what impressed me was that this wasn't removed wholesale from their Wiki page.

As I looked more carefully, however, I noticed that anytime a claim was made against them an edit would be made by the same anon IP, or another IP from the same town. The edit, if I recall correctly, would come during regular working hours. Most often it wouldn't remove note of the controversy (many of these things are too public) but would change the wording around. Problems with activities the company engaged in became things people said the company did. Simple factual claims in the indicative were made into hearsay. An article cited against the company would be accompanied by another article cited in favor of the company as though both claims were equal. Of course, it's always good to give both sides of the story but that's not quite what was going on here. What was going on is a journalistic tactic/fallacy called false equivalence. It's often employed to great effect by climate change skeptics.

In my view, this is quite interesting because it makes us aware some broader risks with Wikipedia's model. Companies have full-time staff to edit their pages and control their image. But because of Wikipedia's neutrality standards, equivalence, even if it is false, will always be favored over journalistic discrimination. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia should do otherwise--it isn't a newspaper editorial board after all and those who write for it aren't journalists. What I do suggest, however, is that we pay attention to these seemingly mundane facts, not merely dismissing them as expected, and use them to encourage ourselves to look critically even when we're presented with 'two sides' to a story.