Public Documents Reveal How the Branches of the US Military Are Instructed To Harness Internet Culture To Advance Their Own Messaging (theoutline.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: It's common practice for brands or government agencies to use social media marketing tactics -- such as recognizing internet holidays like #WorldEmojiDay, #NationalDogDay, or #HumpDay using emojis, or generally speaking in a more conversational, down-to-earth tone -- in order to spread their messaging and communicate with the public. However, the stakes behind military Twitter accounts are fundamentally different than that of, say, the Department of the Interior. These accounts aren't just encouraging people to go to national parks; they're propagandizing and idealizing military valor in order to normalize their actions, elicit acceptance from the public, and recruit new members. The report adds that the government organizations maintain social media handbooks to encourage curators to "create a voice and be authentic." In the recent months, many branches of the military have been criticized for insensitive tweets.

Comments

Selective outrage

[MikeRT]

According to TFA, it's disturbing and outrageous that the military makes "dark jokes." This coming from the same "woke" camp that has had a spate of people making jokes about raping and murdering children. In the case of Rick and Morty, the creators are beyond sick to the point where their side projects should get them locked up on obscenity charges for a very long time.

But if you follow the outrage logic of the woke it makes sense:

* US military = white male patriarchy.
* Most of our wars are against countries full of People of Color.

Ergo, it's racist white men killing aspiring People of Color thus evil on its face.

But when we make "jokes" about raping little boys or carving their faces off, then murdering them... that's just "dark humor."

This sort of hypocrisy will not be sustainable for long going forward. You want to know why the center-right increasingly takes a reflexive "fuck you and fuck the horse you rode in on" attitude toward the left? This is why. Even most of the mainstream liberals I know refuse to call this out and try to suck the oxygen out of the room rather than admit most of the people to their left are grade A assholes.

Re:This is new?

[Wrath0fb0b]

Actually it is. Where else can an 18 year old kid with no experience, who has never had a job before, walk in and say "I want to be an aircraft mechanic. I want you to train me at your expense, and I want to be paid while I learn. I also demand free food and housing, and 30 days of vacation every year. Also, I plan to quit after 4 years, and then I want you to then pay my college tuition."

I don't know about you, but as a private employer I would gladly hire a ton of 18 year old kids for this deal, provided you also include the all important and the kid cannot quit until your 4 year term is up or else you will go to prison. Even with free food, housing and vacation, this is still an absolutely excellent deal for the employer, since training costs ebb out after 12-18 months (or, more likely, if you can't be even sort of useful after 18 months of training, it's not gonna happen). More generally, it's a well-known coordination/defection problem with employers in a free market offering training programs -- which is that there is no credible way to guarantee that the trainee will not quit and join a competitor before the investment is repaid. There are a number of workarounds and other bad solutions to this problem:

1. ** Make the trainee pay for the training up front (perhaps with loans) so the employer isn't in the red. Instead, pay increased wages to those with the training to compensate. This is most colleges, but also the civilian aviation industry, food industry and lots of other places where an employer-run-training program would just lead to poaching. Of course, this leads to massive advantages for family wealth and the profusion of expensive student loans. Also, there is a weaker feedback link, since students are getting loans to study what they think employers want, but often there is a mismatch. Certainly far more kids study video game design than could possibly be employed in that field.
2. ** Make the trainee join an apprenticeship program as a condition for some kind of exclusionary credential. It's understood that the program is longer than educationally necessary and during the latter part of the apprenticeship, the trainee is already generating a surplus which pays back the training put into in the beginning. The trainee cannot leave halfway because they cannot practice the trade without the credential. Common in some technical European fields and in US medicine. This solves some problems, but often leaves an exclusionary cartel in charge of the credential and tends to under-produce it to extract higher rents. It can also lead to 'good-ole-boy' networks in which limited apprenticeship slots are allocated subjectively to those with political connections.
3. ** Make the trainee sign a contract to fork over X% of wages for Y years up to $Z. This is a variant of the loan concept where repayment is scaled to success, newly popular in the Bay Area. It does lead to higher accessibility of the training at lower economic scales, but is quite expensive (there is an implicit interest rate here and it's high, very high). It's also questionable how enforceable these contracts are, and whether they are dischargeable in bankruptcy.
4. ** The government directly pays for the training, not expecting an immediate return through labor but rather through lifetime taxes. This can work well, but often doesn't pay for itself. It also suffers the mismatch problem and cost inflation problem (public universities have ballooning per-student costs for no appreciable gain in output).

All in all, it's a gnarly problem without any clear and good solutions. More likely, we'll muddle along with some combination of mandatory-apprenticeship in areas where it makes sense and trainee-pays for the rest. Better solutions always welcome, but do keep the constraints in mind :-P

Re:Outraged!

[hey!]

It's not so surprising that they tried. What's surprising is that they failed so miserably. Maybe it's not such a good idea to market the defense of the nation like it was soda pop. Maybe it's not such a great idea to position the Army in the public consciousness as "edgy".

If you look at successful social media campaigns, they don't look alike, because the organizations behind them have different needs; it's not enough to get attention, it's what you *do* with that attention that matters. You wouldn't use the same campaign for a financial management firm that you would for Mountain Dew; or promote the Make-a-wish foundation the way would Kentucky Fried Chicken.

The military needs to inspire confidence, trust, and respect. This kind of thing is great for them when it is genuinely viral, but it's stupid to push it from an official channel.

"Edginess" is just a kind of disguised condescension. People behind "edgy" media don't really respect the people they're pitching to. So who are they trying to connect with? Potential recruits? For decades now the military's biggest recruiting problem isn't warm bodies, it's getting volunteers with the brains needed to do the demanding things that will be asked of them. This kind of thing would appeal to kids who are too dumb to realize they're being disrespected.