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.
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.
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
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.
I'm not sure it was that much "easier" years ago. There were a lot more newspapers and in many cities they actually competed with each other, plus there were a lot of ethnic group centric newspapers, often published in a non-English language (although this is probably pre-WWII). You might swing some plurality getting Hearst on your side, but there were still a lot of people who weren't reading his papers or outright didn't trust them.
Plus I think in less media saturated times, people were more influenced by actual real people opinion leaders -- ministers, union bosses, ward boss, local individuals who had real-world local influence. And a lot of those locals had their hands out, too.
I think back in those days it took more effort because you had to influence more actual people with vested interests in what control they had and get them to spread your message. And in many cases the message had to be spread by word of actual mouth -- at the church, at the local tavern, in the union hall, and so on.
Despite the so-called diversity of the Internet, I think it's actually easier now because so much of it can be automated across a handful of electronic networks and people are so much more invested in the value of electronic media. Nobody gives a shit what their minister says, they don't have a union rep and little connection to local political figures. They care what their friends say, but their "friends" are on Facebook or Instagram and are sharing the chosen electronic message.
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.
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.
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!
Stop oppressing me with your violent words. Call the thought police! I think I'm bleeding.
Reminds me of a story. Stevie Wonder was given a cheese grater for Christmas. He said it was the most violent book he's ever read.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.