Slashdot Mirror
Thirty Countries Use 'Armies of Opinion Shapers' To Manipulate Democracy (theguardian.com)
The governments of 30 countries around the globe are using armies of so called opinion shapers to meddle in elections, advance anti-democratic agendas and repress their citizens, a new report shows. From a report on The Guardian: Unlike widely reported Russian attempts to influence foreign elections, most of the offending countries use the internet to manipulate opinion domestically, says US NGO Freedom House. "Manipulation and disinformation tactics played an important role in elections in at least 17 other countries over the past year, damaging citizens' ability to choose their leaders based on factual news and authentic debate," the US government-funded charity said. "Although some governments sought to support their interests and expand their influence abroad, as with Russia's disinformation campaigns in the United States and Europe, in most cases they used these methods inside their own borders to maintain their hold on power."
Wait, people are getting paid to post on social media sites, and I've been giving it away to Slashdot for free? I feel so cheap.
back in my day we just called it propaganda. Folks do know the US Government does this every time we go to war, right? We did it before Iraq and we're starting to do it for North Korea.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Russia sells fossil fuels AND more land becomes usable with climate change. Climate change destabilizes the current world order, which is obviously the goal of Russia trying to nudge the US into an isolationist position and countries to withdraw from the EU.
The only reason one would have to doubt that climate change denialism is being promoted by foreign adversaries is the same reason one would doubt that our adversaries were trying to convince us Trump would be good: You don't like the implications and are too stupid to realize the damage will happen no matter what you believe.
If people didn't tend to be such stupid, fucking sheep, this wouldn't work - but it does.
So it is an easy push to villify them.
Those godless Democrats are trying to push an atheist addenda source with those few people who happen to be democrats and push an atheist adgenda.
Those idiot republicans who are trying to bring the country back a century. Reference by those few people pushing a racist agenda who have red trump hats.
If you are on the side of the Democrats you may be a god fearing individual and you realize that these people are not representative of you but a subset group.
If you are a Republican however you are very inclusive and tolerant, you see the racist as not representative of you and the republicans on whole.
We see the news headlines liberals/conservatives are doing something you don’t like. Not a subset of the group is doing something you don’t like. So it just reinforces tribalism tendencies that we have and bypass common sense and you make sure those other guys don’t get power, because they are far more dangerous then your side is.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Governments have always done this. Why is this news?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
That used to be anyone who had an opinion and shared it. Now we need a new phrase for it in order to generate clicks. I hate what the world is becoming....
.... we had our own little army of opinion shapers for decades, way before the advent of social medias, they are called pundits on cable news.
It is. Rush Limbaugh gets $50 Million a year to call it a "hoax" and tell lies about it. Sean Hannity only gets $29 Million a year to do the same.
No. There's science, and then there's the shit the right is peddling.
if you think the USA is all good and benevolent and honest then you are part of the problem because the USA has been meddling in politics in both the USA and worldwide for over a century
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
>> "factual news and authentic debate"
Where can I get this, so called, factual news?
All news sources have a slant. Some much worse than others...
--I like turtles...
I live in Argentina and I am astounded that the country is marked as "free". Specially since the government of Macri came to power in 2015, the situation with the media, both traditional and new, is truly dire. The government routinely operates thousands of so-called trolls--some bots, some human--to further its agenda. I personally know people involved in this, who have been involved in furthering the agenda of this center-right party even before they came to power (I first learned of this situation in 2011, when the scope of these operations were still comparatively small).
"Freedom House," like many other NGOs, operates to further U.S. interests in foreign countries; hence they tend to only include real or perceived "enemies" of the U.S. in their (useless) reports. A country like Argentina, whose government has about 50 officials listed in the Panama Papers (including the President himself) and which is one of the most corrupt and authoritarian since the end of the last dictatorship in 1983, is marked as "Free" simply because it opens its arms (or figuratively, its legs) to foreign capital. No matter if the major newspapers routinely engage in intoxication/disinformation campaigns in alliance with the state espionage services and in direct communication with high-ranking government officials, or if there are documented cases of tens of thousands of Facebook posts and tweets in favor of the government which could only originate in automated bots (such as a Twitter "user" sending a thousand tweets in an hour).
"Freedom House" even handed a "Freedom of Expression Award" to Hector Magnetto, owner of the largest media conglomerate who is very probably even implicated in crimes against humanity (the illegal acquisition of a paper manufacturing plant during the dictatorship, for which the plant's legitimate owners were kidnapped and tortured).
The previous government, not half as authoritarian and corrupt as this one (albeit still corrupt and authoritarian of course, this being South America) indulged in "left-wing" retoric, and so was treated as a demon by the likes of "Freedom House". In the seventies, the U.S. funded coups d'etat in Latin America; today they exert their influence by this kind of bullshit NGO.
Here's a relevant article by The Intercept which, while not listing "Freedom House", mentions several of the networks linked to it:
https://theintercept.com/2017/08/09/atlas-network-alejandro-chafuen-libertarian-think-tank-latin-america-brazil/
If nothing is done to stop the nations of the earth from talking, we're but a single crisis away from World Argument I. Imagine an entire generation of youth lost to the comment sections of the Western Front.
Eh, if it weren't for alarm clocks, I wouldn't wake up until all the butternut donuts had already been eaten.
Someone had to do it.
Every time you talk to someone, you "manipulate" him. Spending tax dollars on communicating with the tax payers is perfectly legal in most countries — including, since recently, the US.
I fail to see, how a country with anything like the First Amendment can possibly ban any entity, private, commercial, or governmental — except the country's own government — from performing such "opinion shaping".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Al Gore got it wrong some 20 years ago, so what makes you think we have it right now?
Al Gore was basically just shooting off his mouth, and was not representing the scientific thinking of the time. It was a big mistake that climate scientists didn't distance themselves from his alarmism and "alternative facts", and instead let a partisan politician become the figurehead for climate change. That pretty much destroyed the possibility of a bipartisan approach to policy.
Also, it was 12 years ago, not 20.
.. that disagrees with me is a paid shill. Got it. I feel smugger already!
This isn't news. Our own country does it (and has been doing it for decades -originally through carefully placed news stories and advertising) to our own people in order to keep us divided because, heaven forbid, if we were to actually unite as a nation, then the government would have no choice but to follow. As it is, they just keep us fighting over the crumbs that fall off the table we don't have and never will have a seat at.
Then there's engineering that can be done after the science, which those who say but science sometimes seem unaware of.
America uses volunteer armies. Thatâ(TM)s how you know we are better.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Human-fossil-fuel-burning-caused global warming/climate change, whatever YOU choose (I'm not gonna fall into your labels trap) to call it, is a FACT. Like evolution, it's simply a fact. The evidence is there. You (and people like you) can deny it all you like, but the evidence (like gravity == orbital mechanics) is irrefutably THERE. I don't have to explain myself, pointing at the evidence, you do, ignoring/denying it - it's right there, in front of your face. You're no different than the smokers, back in the 70's, spewing the company line, "No, no, no, smoking doesn't cause cancer, that's just a statistical correlation". You may choose to echo the petro-billionaires denials because it gives you a more comfortable, guilt-free lifestyle, but just like standing under a tree, claiming it's not raining, sooner or later -- you're gonna get wet. Meanwhile, when the petro-billionaires figure out how to monetize your serfdom/servitude without burning fossil fuels, they'll lead you by the nose to that new-found "truth".
I'm growing weary of the trumped up "the sky is falling" ("the temperature is going up") global Armageddon coming from the press and the obvious confirmation bias by the likes of you who claim "the science is settled" on this. No it's not, Actually the jury is still out on the big question on this whole thing and that is "What does this mean?" What's going to happen because of this? Apparently Al Gore got it wrong some 20 years ago, so what makes you think we have it right now? Are we somehow working with better models or data? Have the theories changed any? Nope, same data, generally the same models and the theories are the same. Al was wrong, why do you now think we understand this better now?
And I have grown weary a long, long time ago of people that keep putting words in Al Gore's mouth and then declaring he was wrong. What exactly did he say, documented by a transcript or a video, that was so wrong? And don't come up with some tiny detail: was the overall message wrong?
The models were actually pretty good at the time, and the predicted effects have been observed. And yes, the models and data are better nowadays. Besides, some of the effects are basic physics: water gets hotter -> water expands -> sea levels rise. Unless you want to dispute that the ocean temperatures have risen, there is simply not much wiggle room there. Similarly, the greenhouse effect is also pretty difficult to argue against.
It's bad enough when it happens without people even conspiring to make it happen, but now people are actively (and openly enough to be caught?) conspiring to make it happen, too?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
A Russian here. I would say that these "opinion shapers", as they are called here, together with RT have much greater impact (and in a more general way) on public opinion than the current nothingburger (my favorite word indeed) of Russian "election meddling" using Facebook ads and microscopical investments at the level of 100s of thousands of dollars. These sockpuppets can be found everywhere in the comment sections of major media. They exist on Slashdot too, although I haven't seen many of them here.
Doesn't specify a 50 cents club per se, but https://xkcd.com/1019/ was the same idea.
From: It describes itself as a "clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world". The organization was 66–85% funded by grants from the U.S. government from 2006–15... Freedom House is a nonprofit organization. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., it has field offices in about a dozen countries, including Ukraine, Hungary, Serbia, Jordan, Mexico, and also countries in Central Asia.
So when they talk about government funded 'opinion shapers', they know the business.
Meanwhile, the Smith–Mundt Act has been repealed, and that 90% of the media is owned by just six major corporations allowing for near total consolidation of message. We're rife with super PACS that have millions for funding groups like Correct The Record and other astroturfing agencies. The major social media sites are deplatforming, shadow banning, and outright censoring anyone with an opinion they don't like under the guise of combating 'extremism'. Net Neutrality is being dismantled, to help ensure that competing platforms that actually support free speech can't compete.
But, Russian meddling!
Climate scientists don't get their science from CNN, though.
Deniers do get their science from AM radio and cable news!
None of that is happening at all. Fake news. Nothing here worth noting, comrade.
L'Idiot
Are you saying sea level rise is due to *expanding* water because it's warmer??? Hmm... I would point out that the thermal expansion of water is pretty small, being 2% over about 60 degrees C. Isn't global warming only showing up as 1 or 2 degrees over the last 10 years?
So a couple of Al's predictions which where wrong after 10 years: 1. Hurricanes stronger and more frequent. (false on both accounts) , 2. Sea Level rise predictions where overstated by an order of magnitude.
There is more.... But you are not interested. Let's keep this manageable by picking one or two things to discuss..
So I ask you.. What do you think is the most important negative primary affect of Global warming? (And I mean a direct affect of warming like Sea Level rise or Sea Surface temperature, something which is a primary effect of global warming.) I'm not discussing secondary effects, yet, things like damage from hurricanes, which may or may not be directly attributable to the effects of global warming. We will get to those later if we can agree on primary effects
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Excuse me... I'm not arguing that the earth isn't getting warmer...
My point is that the dire predictions being made are invalid being overstated alarmist over reactions to what we are seeing. Al Gore (and others) where wildly wrong with their predictions about what would happen. Why? Why did Al do this? To sell tickets, to sell his ideas for carbon credits (which would make him a load of money), not to save the earth from a fate worse than death. Where are those hurricanes he talked about being more frequent and stronger that he said would happen? He was wrong on that over the last 12 years at least.
If the alarmists where wrong 12 years ago, starting with Al G, how do we know that the alarmist prophesy we get in the headlines today is right? What's changed? Do we have better data? Better models? Better theories? Proof that our dire predictions are getting better? Um.. No on all accounts.
Maybe you have some information I don't? Please share if you do.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
They are on /. to the extent that it's challenging to find the actual discussion.
Requiem for the American Dream
I know. It would be tempting to assign most of the blame for climate change denialism on them, because that would at least be logical. But nope, it's mainly people who just like fossil fuel industries and hate liberals.
This reads like one of those lousy patent applications for something that has always been done with the words "using the internet" added on to make it patentable. Wasn't there always voice of america, BBC world service, RT etc. not to mention all the state run TV stations in tinpot nations. This isn't suddenly much worse just because it's on facebook. If that were true Kim Jong Unhinged would let his people have internet.
Nullius in verba
No, no, I understand the argument, fatuous though it may be. I'm just hoping that the industries you're shilling for pay well.
The rest of us have Rupert Murdoch telling us what to think.
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
Murdoch - News Limited has always affected elections in Australia
Go well
I'm not really fond of politically correct speech, I'm fond of calling stupid behavior "stupid behavior."
Plus I doubt bending over backwards to reach out to rednecks is going to do anything. Progressives have done fuck all against them. We haven't made serious attempts to ban guns or make our votes for president count as much as theirs have. Yet they act like us not wanting to live in buttfuck alabama means we're the bad guy.
"Endear people on the fence?" The warning lights and alarms on that fence have been sounding for a decade. If they're still on the fence, they're fucking morons who deserve to get electrocuted.
Its not fair! Only mainstream media is allowed to manipulate opinion domestically.
There will always be alarmists. There may be some specific statements made by Al Gore that were exaggerated (I don't know, and you haven't provided any examples, but I would say it's at least broadly correct). But to claim that because there have been some unrealistic dire predictions, all dire predictions are false, is so obviously fallacious that I'm surprised deniers even bother to make that claim at all.
It's also to be noted that Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist, and of course his work was written to be as exciting as possible, because that's simply the only way to get the attention of the masses. If you want more accuracy, try the IPCC reports - if you can find any genuine inaccuracies in those, that aren't corrected in later editions, then I'll start listening to you.
Average ocean depth = 3.7Km.
3.7Km times volumetric thermal expansion coefficient of water (@20c), 0.000207 = 0.0007659Km, or 0.77m/degC.
Just a very rough back-of-the-envelope calculation - it doesn't account for ice sheet/permafrost melt and the warming of the ocean wouldn't be uniform, it ignores that the ocean is not a pit of constant depth, and even with circulation it takes decades for the deep ocean to change temperature. But it should be in the ballpark, and shows that the effect on sea level of even a small bulk temperature change is potentially large enough to be damaging to coastal settlements.
thermal expansion of water is pretty small, being 2% over about 60 degrees C. Isn't global warming only showing up as 1 or 2 degrees over the last 10 years?
The average depth of the ocean is 12,100 feet, and the thermal expansion of water is 0.000207. So a 2C rise in ocean temp will result in a rise of 2*12100*0.000207 = 5 feet. This is in addition to any rise from melting ice.
Yes. Climate change does not exist in the US as per Trump's decree that it is a Chinese hoax. Case closed! And now let's burn some more dirty coal and tar sand oil.
'The governments of 30 countries around the globe are using armies of so called opinion shapers to meddle in elections, advance anti-democratic agendas and repress their citizens' ..
... and water is wet ..
"It’s only a matter of time before the new behavioural economics and so-called science of nudging decision-making is applied to influencing the population’s voting behaviour as well." ref
Is climate change one of the topics being manipulated in this way?
Yes, but by the fossil fuel industry. I find it really ironic that those working to sow doubt about the reality of climate change have convinced so many people that the conspiracy actually exists among the scientists.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Where are those hurricanes he talked about being more frequent and stronger that he said would happen?
Maybe you should ask the residents of Houston, Puerto Rico and Barbuda.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-season-2017-maria-irma-harvey-2017-9
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Obviously the US is now using such opinion shapers for its own nefarious purposes. It is all pretty sick and i fear it may get worse. We can not trust one word that Trump utters and many are willing to back up his chronic lies. Trump mumbles about making deals but no nation in its right mind would have any kind of deal with Trump as Trump will surely lie to them just like he lies to everyone else. Our nation is sick as a dog with these types of politicians allowed to exist.
They all work and reside in Langley, VA. Although they don't strictly bother about writing anything, they simply hack their way in and deploy a writing bot.
The volume of crap is different. Where you used to have a few news sources that were widely distributed and heavily vetted (more people to vet less news) you now have piles of sources and many, notably Fox, only care about who is paying and who they can manipulate and not about the information. The volume of propaganda and distortion vastly outweighs the truth, and people can easily find other people who agree with them and avoid listening to other viewpoints.
I had a friend tell me NASA didn't believe in global warming. I did a google search with him and there were dozens of entries, most looking sort of like official sources and containing nothing factual. The NASA entry was midway down the first page and, obviously, said that global warming is real and stop misquoting us. The truth is obvious if you are looking for it, but if you are looking to win an argument and prove that educated people and liberals are all idiots it's pretty easy to ignore the correct options and go with the many, many other ones. My friend is not an idiot, he's bright and capable, but he dropped out of school early and he's hostile to mainstream "book learning" so he gets manipulated by a lot of these sites that play to his biases.
Problem is a lot of the manipulation is harmful. Not just global warming, but all the crap about taxes. Check the new budget, poor people get "double the tax deductions" so twice zero. Rich people get real money. Once the deficit balloons who do you thing is going to pay it back? The guys who pay off the politicians and the news sources or the guys who got twice zero?
The whole "small government" thing is sort of insidious as well. All those think tank slogans, but the middle class is pretty much a government creation via taxes. Everyone thinks that they are special and they got where they are because of how good they are, but the goal in the US is Putin's Russia, a kleptocratic dictatorship. In Russia there is not much of a middle class, mostly people working for other countries, not many taxes. Just rich friends of the leader, vairous connections, and lots and lots of people who don't have much.
Funny about "the good old days." I suppose they were from 1952-1978 with some exclusions, and the relatively high taxes are a figment of our collective imaginations. Or maybe the real goal is to go back to the middle ages when leaders really had control?
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
Democracy is worth nothing if the 'demos' is gullible and dumb as fuck and get their 'news' from social media.
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
One hurricane season in 13. Excellent work pointing the the exception as if it is the rule.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
So.. ONE year out of 12 since has a couple of bad storms since Al Gore predicted higher and more intense hurricanes and you think he was right?
We are running WAY below average for 11 out of 12 years since Al, made his wrong prediction. I think he was wrong, even with 2017's season (which seemed about normal to me.) Do you have any better information than Al had 12 years ago?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Just on the paper napkin calculation, I can already see a flaw in it. You're assuming (without facts in evidence) that the thermal expansion is based on uniform 2 degree increase in Temperature. Please show me the calculation for how much energy it would take to increase the entire mass of ocean by 2 degrees, and then show me where that energy came from.
Until you do that, then you're back of the napkin calculation is not "science" but "sciency".
And my point is showing just how stupid the AGW debate is, because if I, (smart guy, without any background in climatology) can see the huge flaw in your basic calculation, and can dismiss it as being fanciful at best (at worst, a lie you knowingly told), then how is someone like me supposed to believe anything coming from non-experts like yourself? And if you are an expert, I'll challenge your expertise.
Next up, you'll offer "consensus" as science (Thousands of experts agree!!!) . Sorry, but the moment you say "consensus" is science, I'll know you're not an expert or even scientific.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Oh, and by the way.. 2017 was only the 7th most active season recorded with EVERY other season which is more active except two (2005 and 2004), being years BEFORE Al made his ill fated prediction. And another By the Way... The WORST year recorded so far was 1933... I'm laughing about this.. I didn't realize exactly how wrong Mr. Gore actually was...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So your antivirus program once had a false positive and you disabled the whole thing? Who gives a fuck what happened in the past? The data is incontrovertible.
You're assuming (without facts in evidence) that the thermal expansion is based on uniform 2 degree increase in Temperature.
No I'm not. I assuming an average increase of 2C. Whether it is uniform or not would not make a big difference.
If my antivirus program falsely triggered a remediation effort that cost me boatloads of money replacing hardware and software in the past and had a history of making false claims of serious virus infections which turned out to be untrue, you bet I'd be asking the same kinds of questions.
So, Mr. Virus Software Vendor, what makes you think the software is correct this time? What have you done to make the product produce fewer false positives?
So, Mr. Climate Change Alarmist, what makes you think your dire predictions are correct now when your predecessors where so obviously wrong when they made the same kinds of forecasts? How are you doing your predictions differently?
In both cases, if the answer is "We are doing the same thing we did before" then I'm not believing the forecasts they make because their methods are provably wrong. This is especially true given the high financial costs of the purposed fixes for the "problem".
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So.. ONE year out of 12 since has a couple of bad storms since Al Gore predicted higher and more intense hurricanes and you think he was right?
We are running WAY below average for 11 out of 12 years since Al, made his wrong prediction. I think he was wrong, even with 2017's season (which seemed about normal to me.) Do you have any better information than Al had 12 years ago?
How did I know this would be your answer? You asked about more powerful hurricanes, I show you that there have been more powerful hurricanes, and you move the goalposts. There is a trend of more powerful storms since the 1970's. https://earthobservatory.nasa.... Storms have been getting more frequent and more powerful. It's not just one year..
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
One hurricane season in 13. Excellent work pointing the the exception as if it is the rule.
You AGW deniers are so predictable.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php
It is a trend, not just one year. You could find that out yourself if you cared to look.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Good point, my doctor said if I didn't stop smoking, i'd die of lung cancer, but lol, I died of emphysema.
Specific predictions are vain attempts to get morons to care. The general prediction that gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to have effects we don't like is unambiguously true. That the specific predictions haven't come true is only comfort if you're a fucking moron.
Average increase is the same thing as I asked. Same amount of energy required. Or is your understanding of average different than mine?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
your post itself is a classic KGB technique used to shut down discussion of an issue by introducing doubt. I'm not even sure you're aware you're doing it. John Oliver just did a nice piece on it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Or is your understanding of average different than mine?
Perhaps. You said I was assuming a "uniform 2 degree increase", which is not the same as an "average increase of 2 degrees". If you think they are the same, then your understanding is different than mine.
Most climate projections forecast more ocean warming near the poles, and less in tropical seas.
30 countries? What about _ALL_ countries.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
"the dire predictions being made are invalid being overstated alarmist over reactions to what we are seeing."
Are they?
So far the worst case stuff that was being predicted is happening 20 years earlier than expected and if the Leptav Sea clathrate methane emissions(*) destabilise the Siberian continental shelf as it looks increasingly likely to be the case, we could see a Storegga-style outgassing which will result in much worse things than simple climate change(**)
(*) Which are cause by incursions of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean
(**) Look up "Anoxic oceanic events" and ponder that more than half our breathable oxygen comes from the oceans.
On top of this average, there can be marked local increases in sea level.
If the Atlantic conveyor (Gulf stream) is interrupted, one of the effects would be an _immediate_ mean sea level rise along the North American eastern seaboard of around 3 feet, with the greatest rise in the Chesapeake Bay area.
Changes in prevailing winds also affect regional sea levels quite markedly.