

“Cuban Twitter” Scam Is a Drop in the Internet Propaganda Bucket - ttctciyf
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/04/04/cuban-twitter-scam-social-media-tool-disseminating-government-propaganda/

======
spenvo
Surreptitiously affecting online discourse (especially through the deceitful
practice of mocking identities) constitutes propaganda and a manner of
censorship (in that it prevents sentiments from forming organically).

This story is a corollary argument for why identity on the web is important --
and why it should not be solved by government (as it has been in places like
South Korea). Because, who can trust a government with representing
identities, if they are known to mock identities under _any_ circumstances?

The capacity to "change the conversation" on a societal level (in this
remarkably nefarious manner) represents a tool of which there is ostensibly no
oversight -- at least no oversight the People of any democracy should trust.

IMHO, there is great naiveté in the assumption that these tools (which are
immensely powerful) will continue to be used in an ethical (or legal) manner
(without proper oversight).

So how can there be proper oversight of a program such as this without ruining
its efficacy? It seems impossible--here we have a catch-22 -- one that draws
parallels to the lawsuits filed against metadata collection which couldn't
proceed because of the lack of legal standing. In this case, we have an
enormously powerful program that can't have proper oversight, because then:
"how does the government wreck everybody's shit?" That's power trip logic, but
it seems to be the leading rationale in the justification of policy, as well
as its advocation. That. Is. Some. Scary. Shit. Hopefully, in light of the
Snowden revelations, the public is more suspicious of the way programs like
this will be spun/argued-for.

The 'will' has always existed in government (in fact its pursuit is
ubiquitous) to control the public conversation for political purposes--
purposes sometimes tangential to the best interests of the democracy. What
happens when entities have access to tools which can be used to propagandize?
They find ways to use them. History is bound to repeat itself.

Take the Red Peril or Red Scare (McCarthyism/J Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI)
-- periods spanning several years of Fear-Uncertainty-and-Doubt where the
'societal narrative' was affected by state propaganda. One of the greatest
casualties of the two periods was: Freedom of Speech--strangely, the same
cross which is carried by the fighters for an open and uncensored internet.

However - these are just the most well known periods of propaganda -- I
encourage you read up on Edward Bernays [0], if you're interested in the
topic. This US government has a long (and official) interest in changing the
course of the public conversation through unabashed deceit -- from Woodrow
Wilson's plight to overcome Isolationism to the pro-Vietnam war-statistics
propaganda, and literally countless other incidents.

Moral of the story: the desire for state propaganda has shown to be ever-
present in the United States, at least over the course of the past century.

Is it wise to simply hope to avoid "bad apple" (McCarthy, J Edgar Hoover)
scenarios in the NSA/GHCQ/ETC? Can we risk having such powerful programs
operating in complete secrecy.... in perpetuity?

"The greatest instrument used in the societal tragedies of the last century
has (undoubtedly) been state delivered propaganda." \- The first line of my
most upvoted comment on HN. State propaganda of any kind is the most dangerous
medium known to the survival of the enlightened man.

Another note on 'capacity': while I was not surprised by the 'will' of
intelligence communities to have tools such as these -- the very nature of its
operational status (and future development) sheds more light on the vast scope
of the programs which have been "realized."

[0] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays)

~~~
tanon500
Given the revelations of the past couple of years, especially these, it's very
difficult to attempt to cap the scope of these operations. Combine that with a
heavy case of impostor syndrome and I find myself questioning everything.

Gay marriage? Can such a large portion of the country actually be against gay
marriage and homosexuality? I can count perhaps 1 in 20 or 1 in 30. Is that
just because I don't associate with those who are against it, or was the
entire debate a construct of a group of insiders with immensely powerful tools
such as this to keep us busy?

Presidential elections? Grow up with a president personally? Oh, you grew up
with the Senator? Sure he's not part of some secret club that's running the
elections and simply putting whoever they want into power? You are? Well, I
don't know them personally, nor can I unequivocally prove that they or any of
the operations we feel are part of a legit democracy are actually _real_. Yep,
just tap on that screen and your voice will be heard. Pinky swear.

I spent some time in Iran during an election cycle there - at least it's
obvious the president is hand selected by the supreme leader. There's some
sense of comfort in that. All we've done in this country is prove that our
paranoia might not be so out of line, and that's a ridiculously frightening
concept. _It 's time for some fucking real transparency_. The cost of which is
a lot less than the cost of this secrecy.

~~~
buzzybee
I also favor extreme transparency for government activities. Ramp down secrecy
everywhere, publish more activities online as they happen. I don't expect
something as utopian as "all our military intelligence is now public", but I
fully believe that every little bit of progress is a way to check power
structures and reduce existential threats.

And this is not just a matter of keeping the domestic population safe - when
information is public, potential allies and enemies have less to fear about
the government's "true intentions," and can safely engage in a more
cooperative stance.

------
scalene
While I agree with the sentiment of this article and usually I agree with
Glenn Greenwald, I find the times he publishes articles at strange. The
Intercept hasn't published anything since Monday, and then he decides to post
this at 6:15pm on a Friday night? You'd think he would publish at a time that
his articles would likely get the most views, rather than most peoples'
busiest time of the week...

