Slashdot Mirror
China Is Perfecting a New Method For Suppressing Dissent On the Internet (vox.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Vox: The art of suppressing dissent has been perfected over the years by authoritarian governments. For most of human history, the solution was simple: force. Punish people severely enough when they step out of line and you deter potential protesters. But in the age of the internet and "fake news," there are easier ways to tame dissent. A new study by Gary King of Harvard University, Jennifer Pan of Stanford University, and Margaret Roberts of the University of California San Diego suggests that China is the leading innovator on this front. Their paper, titled "How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, Not Engaged Argument," shows how Beijing, with the help of a massive army of government-backed internet commentators, floods the web in China with pro-regime propaganda. What's different about China's approach is the content of the propaganda. The government doesn't refute critics or defend policies; instead, it overwhelms the population with positive news (what the researchers call "cheerleading" content) in order to eclipse bad news and divert attention away from actual problems. This has allowed the Chinese government to manipulate citizens without appearing to do so. It permits just enough criticism to maintain the illusion of dissent and only acts overtly when fears of mass protest or collective action arise.
George Orwell would have been proud.
Living in US, my concern is the fact-checking effort from Facebook, Google, Twitter.... https://www.usatoday.com/story... It sounds good on the surface. In the end, it won't be rosy. In a democratic society, the ultimate way to prevent fabricated facts is education. However, our public education system is ...?!
^(oo)^pig~
Orwell would've been amazed at the ingenuity of people and technology and the new ways of manipulating society he never thought of. He would admit that Huxley was closer to reality than him.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
In the age where commercial journalism is driven by profit into an ever deepening cycle of selling fear, positive news is a pretty darn good thing. I am not sure how to counterbalance that with the negative news properly, but I am sure that when left fully to "market forces", news cycle is not at all balanced or fair.
As a humorous aside, in a recent meetup in Shanghai I met a guy whose job is "social media censor". Pleasant fella, speaks good English, and assured everyone that "he's a bad censor and never actually suppresses any posts" :)
I kinda wish we had some of these guys here, though (but may be suppress posts based on authors's apparent IQ rather than content bias)
... errrm, wait, they are already. Ok, scratch that.
Basically we're all living in a bubble already, it's only getting bigger and thicker, and China only is ahead a little bit because they have huge amounts of expendable labour to do this sort of thing manually and are a little more on the "single party" side of things that, for instance, the US. But to think that the society of the US is any free'er than that of China (it may be for a privileged group but that's about it) is almost absurd. Same goes for the bubbling void or reality that is the intarweb and it's surroundings here in Europe. Someone at Google just has to turn a few knobs and 2 weeks in a new belief will spread throughout society. This isn't really news.
The interesting thing is that this just emphasiszes what we all know already: The internet isn't the real world and reality in society happens where people meet in RL and interact with one another. No amount of internent communication (manipulated or otherwise) will change that.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
...the Democrats and the institutional media in the US have been playing this game for years and frankly N. Korea has essentially made the Kim family gods using this strategy. It's not really novel to blow smoke up people's asses for the gain of political power, just the methodology has gone digital for the internet age.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Best internet dissent suppression possible: no internet at all. And btw, NK already perfected that cheerleading strat; the Chinese are just applying it to the internet in larger numbers.
And insidious, too.
Just make sure you have enough crackpots to spread bullshit about. The more insane the conspiracy theory, the better. From Chemtrails to Flat Earth, from Reptiloids to Hitler's base on the dark side of the moon, just make sure you flood everything that people could possibly use to get non-approved news with enough bullshit that nobody would want to wade through the pits of steaming shit in the vain search for tangible information.
It is way more efficient than trying to suppress non-approved information. Because if you try to suppress it, every little bit of leaked info can be scrutinized by the people wanting to see for themselves what the world has in store for them and what really happens. But when you make sure that anything that could threaten your narrative is drowned in the noise of utter bullshit, people will not even bother trying.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If there's anything the internet has shown us, is that Fake News has been occurring ever since there was a media, and especially since the media became operating arms of weapons manufacturers.
I think they did all their experimenting with Marxism on Reddit to make sure it would actually work.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
> overwhelms the population with positive news
The problem emerges is when there is no substance behind positive news. If you say the mini-plenty chocolate allowance (or whatever it's called in Orwell's english original) has been augmented to 25 grams per week, instead of the previous 30, few people will cheer.
On the other hand, in a country where the guvmint can sincerely announce that 5 new hospitals have been built last quarter, 10 panda families saved, three more counties are getting linked by autobahn and HST until end of the year, materinity leave option is extended by further 4 months, inflation and unemplyoment are both at 3% and GDP has been steadily growing 5-6% per annum during the last decade - well, in such a place there is no need to quell dissent, because any dissent will be just mild creative criticism, rather than opposition or resistance.
Look at Yelp or Glassdoor or any place that allows for "open reviewing and commenting"
Both my apartment complex AND my company regularly spam review sites with "good newz everyone!" reviews. Like multiple 5 star ratings in a day after weeks of bad reviews.
Even on Amazon the review system is notoriously gamed - so it shouldn't be surprising that nations have adopted the same strategies.
You can probably even point to early newspapers that were funded by political cronies as an aspect of the same thing
On the bright side at least the dissenting voices are being heard in China instead of the usual state-run monolithic media.
Trump is not happy being president. He apparently wants to be a dictator. ...
So, you were happy when Obama unilaterally changed ACA deadline dates, despite the laws mandated dates?
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/06/23/1442206/chinese-government-fabricates-social-media-posts-for-strategic-distraction-not-engaged-argument
In contrast to prior claims, we show that the Chinese regime's strategy is to avoid arguing with skeptics of the party and the government, and to not even discuss controversial issues.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
This is exactly the approach that the present Indian government is also using. Their intent is to use propaganda, lies and an army of trolls to control dissent, distract people from what is really happening and also to suppress any hint of an opposition.
One of the former members of this huge paid army even released a book on it:
http://www.amazon.in/Am-Troll-...
The Prime Minister Modi himself follows some of the worst members of this troll army who use rape threats, murder threats and whatever else against anyone engaging in any form of dissent.
The BJP party which is in power is the primary backers and the ones who run this troll army:
http://mashable.com/2016/12/27...
Ah yes, moderate levels of compassion for immigrants, a hallmark of dictatorships...
Why would you use such a stupid argument when there's so many better choices for examples? We've got the highest prison population in the world, extensive state surveillance, and the ability to throw away all rights if we shout the word terrorism loud and often enough.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've seen Valerian, so I know how this ends.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not a stupid argument. At least I don't think so.
We have laws and they ought to be followed. The hallmark of dictatorships is not following the laws or making them up as they go along. So. We have immigration laws. Change them or follow them. We the people can petition it to be changed. Federal agencies need to follow these laws until changed.
Re prison. Yes. Let's get rid of war on drugs and use imprisonment only for violent offenders.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
B'cos he's not a Leftist. Doesn't look at prison population as a function of a dictatorship, but rather, a function of the amount of crime. And who doesn't suddenly scream 'civil liberties' when people have sane reactions to Muslims being Muslims
OMG, a tiny dot moves across the screen. UFOs confirmed!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I am reminded of this passage from Neal Stephenson's novel Anathem:
Source
-kgj
It changed the U.S. presidential election. Where the rubber meets the road is the voting booth. If people are voting based on bad information, then bad candidates are elected to bad things with the public weal.
However, our public education system is ...?!
"His name was James Damore."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Fair and balanced" is a euphemism for state-propaganda machine!
...run by Homer Simpson?!?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
The internet isn't the real world and reality in society happens where people meet in RL and interact with one another. No amount of internent communication (manipulated or otherwise) will change that.
Fortunately they invented safe spaces to prevent that. You can't let all those years of carefully manipulated student thought get destroyed too easily.
But to think that the society of the US is any free'er than that of China (it may be for a privileged group but that's about it) is almost absurd.
This is absolutely not correct. In the US, there is indeed constant propaganda that overwhelms our senses, but there are multiple, conflicting streams from a diverse range of sources covering the entire spectrum, and many of those streams directly attack and criticize the government and specific leaders with impunity. This situation does not exist in China. The actual set of ideas that flow through the US system may not be any more true or desirable than the in the Chinese system, but the US is absolutely much more free than the Chinese system solely due to the practical ability of anyone to inject their two-cent's worth of opinions and have those opinions reach the masses.
The hallmark of dictatorships is concentration of unchecked power. Sanctuary cities are undermining the power of the federal government, which makes the US less like a dictatorship. Likewise, Obama not enforcing immigration laws is prudent discretion in enforcement, which is again, a less powerful government, and thus further away from a dictatorship. Some degree of discretion in enforcement is necessary, otherwise the system would collapse, and I'm far more concerned that he didn't jail bankers who crashed the global economy than not shipping out enough brown people.
Now, you could have a dictatorship in regards to immigration law, but it would be the very opposite of what Obama did. If they were deporting without due process or a legal justification, that would indicate a dictatorship.
That's why I'm so confused. Our government has tons of authoritarian tendencies, but lax enforcement of immigration is about the weakest argument I can think of.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It is in your best interests to find new friends. Your current ones are filling you with misinformation.
It's exactly what the MNM did during the Obama administration to cover up its dozen scandals, and the exact opposite of what they are doing now to the Trump administration with fake news.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
In other news, Trump decides what is neus (sp is correct) using the China Model
Tyrants of a feather and all that
??? Are YOU a plebe pouring out "crap"?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Please reconsider. To outsiders, that actually makes America look worse.
If you were "just" a carceral state where non-violent crimes draw long sentences, that could be fixed with a change of leaders and a some legal reforms.
But if you have the highest incarceration rate in the world *legitimately*, it means that Americans *as a people* are criminal, violent, lying, untrustworthy scum. If that much of the population needs to be in concrete boxes, your whole bell curve must be left-shifted. Everybody must be relatively more-criminal than those of other, more honest nations.
Would you like to argue that's not true, that while America has a lot more bad apples that other countries, the rest of the barrel is somehow not spoiled? How about your top-level businessmen, the richest financiers? It looks a LOT to the rest of the world like they did great amounts of lying about asset values to enrich themselves while others lost; and it looks a LOT to everybody in America itself (the rest of us are watching kind of stunned) like your highest levels of politicians accuse each other of constant, and criminal, levels of lying and theft.
What are we SUPPOSED to think but that America is a bunch of crooks? We're trying not to do that, but you, sir, are not helping.
Sorry. Rule of Law.
... then I don't believe that you're serious about your stated goal.
We have a constitution which has delegated some powers to the Federal Government and left the rest for the state along with individual rights.
Immigration is within the province of the Federal government. Not the states.
Undermining the rule of law is the first step to tyranny as at that point the only standard is force.
You want to role back Imperial Washington? Good. Roll back its powers.
You want government provided health care? Good. Do it at the state level.
You want government funding for the roads? Good. Do it at the state level.
You want government provided education? Good. Do it at the state level.
Whatever you do don't do it at the Federal level if your goal is to limited Imperial Washington.
If you want to limit Washington and you aren't limiting its powers as mentioned above
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Hey man, if it avoids civil unrest of a billion people it might be justified.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Free speech is a great idea. But too many people confuse the right to speak the truth with the obligation to do so. Just because the media have the right to tell you something doesn't mean that it has to be right.
What you need for this to work out are highly educated people, but why would anyone that has the power to provide this want that?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The only difference is that they use the "hate speech" smear to silence people.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Obama was part of the federal government, and he exercised completely sane discretion in immigration enforcement (in that particular area). Sanctuary cities are just NOT helping the federal government, the same as states are not helping the DEA. This is government INACTION, which is the polar opposite of what tyranny entails.
For goddamn fucking sakes, Obama signed a law (NDAA) that overturned the MAGNA MOTHERFUCKING CARTA, and your stupid ass is whining about him not wasting money catering to fear of brown people. If our government was otherwise a paragon, you might have a decent point, but the goddamn house is on fire, and you're whining about the soup being cold.
If you want to argue that Obama was a tyrant, I will heartily agree, but you are picking the most bullshit point for no clear reason.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I didn't say Obama was a tyrant. Not at all. But, if you're scared of the US going down the road of tyranny then having an Executive Branch that is willfully not enforcing Constitutional laws passed by Congress then yes ... that is one small step down the path of tyranny.
He did not exercise sane discretion he did not follow said law. In this case the President is like a contractor who has discretion about whether to paint the molding first or the walls. He doesn't have the discretion to say that he will not paint the walls because of x, y or z.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I would agree that enforcing an unconstitutional law would be tyranny, but not enforcing a constitutional law is not the same thing. Obama also did something similar in regards to federal marijuana enforcement in states with legal weed. That was "willfully not enforcing Constitutional laws pass by Congress," and yet, you'd be an idiot to call that a precursor to tyranny.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
1. A law is passed by Congress.
2. It was not vetoed by the President.
3. It was not challenged in court (or if it was it was upheld by the courts)
It is now the Executive Branch's responsibility to execute said law. It is not up to the President whether or not to act on this law. By not enforcing the law he is, in effect, vetoing the law and abrogating his constitutional responsibilities. Imagine if Eisenhower did not enforce Brown v Board of Ed?
Unlike Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower possessed, at most, a tepid commitment to human rights, ... ...
The real problem for the administration came in the form of the civil rights movement domestically
A clearly distressed Eisenhower was compelled to call in the National Guard to enforce the court's decision and to protect from mob violence the African American students who were scheduled to attend the high school.
Read more: http://www.americanforeignrela...
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
So, by your rules, Obama needs to enforce our marijuana laws to avoid tyranny?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It's not Obama - it's the executive branch. (And the US isn't tyranny - I was arguing against the OP who was talking about tyranny) By substituting Whim and Power over Rule of Law you slowly are walking down the path towards tyranny. The US isn't a tyranny now. Not by a long shot.
If the Legislative Branch passes a law then the law needs to be followed. If one disagrees with the law then change it, or persuade others to change it by voting people out of / into office (as the case may be).
I am for the legalization of drugs. But if I was President and the law of the land required the Federal (not State) Government to consider drug procession a crime then it is my obligation, as head of the Executive Branch, to execute said laws. I would endeavor to persuade Congress and the citizenry to change their mind but I cannot chose to ignore said law because I disagreed with it.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I will at least applaud your consistency, but when it comes to enforcement, it's not a bug, it's a feature. Our system has many checks against tyranny, and separation of powers is one of the biggest. The executive branch can choose to not enforce laws, provided there isn't some kind of systematic selective enforcement of the law. However, the executive branch cannot enforce laws that Congress did not pass. Thus, the net result is that laws are only carried out when there is support from all three branches of government. If one branch does not support it, then that branch neuters the ability for the others to act.
The above is framed in constitutional terms, so it's what the government CAN do. By contrast, what the government SHOULD do is often drastically different. Without the law being unjust, it should be enforced fairly and consistently.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It is my understanding that the President CANNOT chose which law to act on and which law to ignore.
Haven't time to do an in depth search proving why not - but here is a series of answers to that very question:
https://politics.stackexchange...
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
However, our public education system is ...?!
...run by Democrats?
Seriously? The current head of the DoE is a god-bothering, slack-jawed, single-digit IQ, cuntsack of a Republican. And the Republicans have made no secret at all of wanting to destroy public education in this country in order to continue spreading unquestioning religious idiocy. So yeah... there's that.
I don't care much for the Democrats either, but at least they see the value in a decent, secular educated population.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
After all, the majority of people who read comments on this site will only ever encounter paid trolls employed by US corporations, or the US government... or maybe Israel. And tons of them, at that. Weird how /. almost never has articles about American-paid trolling, when it is perhaps the most damaging variety for americans.
The president doesn't have a hard power to prevent the enforcement of the law. But he's got plenty of soft influence, and all law enforcement agencies have enough work to prioritize. As long as those in other powerful positions are cooperative, they can basically set the priority of a particular law or scenario low enough that it's never enforced. Other than a few things explicitly mentioned in the constitution, the government doesn't really HAVE to do very much. So, in practice, an executive branch in agreement can NOT do just about anything.
Again, the separation of powers specifically exists to limit the power of the government to act.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
From what I see, the people of China are happier than the people in the U.S. They can't vote and they're spied on but of the two, the first is the only difference between the U.S. and China. Besides, look who got voted in as President. That's what giving the vote to idiots gets you, doesn't it? As for happy news, isn't that what every State of the Union Address in living memory has put out to the public? Forget about the crumbling infrastructure and the endless poverty across the country, let's talk about the good things we've done. China isn't perfect, I know that very well, but neither is the U.S. The saying about the pot and the kettle comes to mind. As for human rights, the U.S. uses solitary confinement as torture plus they have GITMO for all the sickos who want to torture prisoners with their hands. Is that better than what we hear coming out of China?