Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I normally don't create threads but this seems to be a pretty relevant leak.
What are you guys' opinions on this? Let's try to keep the Snowden hero/villain debate out of it.
I find it pretty ridiculous that such lengths are gone to to insure that the American people subscribe to whatever agenda they happen to be selling, but I can't say I'm surprised, governments have been doing this in one way or another for centuries.
I don't believe it, mainly because the "official" slides were full of typos. On the alleged program, discrediting terrorist leaders is a pretty good strategy to prevent them from gaining followers. They use the Internet and social media, so should intelligence agencies not be able to rely on the same technology?
That's some real interesting stuff there. I can't believe how far the US and other Western Nations have fallen down the rabbit hole of deceit and scumbaggery.
I don't believe it, mainly because the "official" slides were full of typos. On the alleged program, discrediting terrorist leaders is a pretty good strategy to prevent them from gaining followers.
Except it's not aimed at only terrorists. Read the article at least.
Except it's not aimed at only terrorists. Read the article at least.
And the author of the article doesn't have an agenda here? The people that release these things have all the leverage to show what they want and what they don't want, just like they accuse the government or other media of doing.
Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable.
Point number two seems very realistic to me. I do believe that there are paid disinformation agents who participate in online forums and social media who work hard to steer conversations in desired directions and away from undesireable topics or outcomes. That one does not surprise me. The first objective though is far more sinister as it's tactics are much more covert and dangerous. It's almost like internet gangstalking.
Point number two seems very realistic to me. I do believe that there are paid disinformation agents who participate in online forums and social media who work hard to steer conversations in desired directions and away from undesireable topics or outcomes. That one does not surprise me. The first objective though is far more sinister as it's tactics are much more covert and dangerous. It's almost like internet gangstalking.
If this were legitimate, wouldn't the Internet be much kinder to Obama? I'm pretty sure we have ample evidence that isn't the case.
If this were legitimate, wouldn't the Internet be much kinder to Obama? I'm pretty sure we have ample evidence that isn't the case.
You do realize that things like this are not about politics right? They're about policy, and opposing governments or movements. If anything you'd see more of these sorts of things in negative attacks, not positive comments. Positives don't make everyone go rah rah, appealing to negative emotions is FAR more effective. Look at the political ads-vast majority of them are attack ads. Because those work.
And its hardly just the government doing this, Im 100% sure that the GOP and DNC fund this sort of thing.
If this were legitimate, wouldn't the Internet be much kinder to Obama? I'm pretty sure we have ample evidence that isn't the case.
I think it pertains to a wider variety of topics then the president himself or politicians. Complaining about who is in the white house causes no harm to those in power when you consider that the two major parties are both playing on the same team. I think whoever is really in charge loves that we bicker over partisan politics and completely miss the fact that when Obama leaves office he will just pass the baton onto the next president, Democrat or Republican to finish the job. Bush handed it to Clinton, Clinton handed it to GW, GW handed it to Obama. It's a distraction and having the people distracted keeps the people from looking more deeply into what is really going on.
I normally don't create threads but this seems to be a pretty relevant leak.
What are you guys' opinions on this? Let's try to keep the Snowden hero/villain debate out of it.
I find it pretty ridiculous that such lengths are gone to to insure that the American people subscribe to whatever agenda they happen to be selling, but I can't say I'm surprised, governments have been doing this in one way or another for centuries.
Thoughts?
Wouldn't surprise me a bit.
Here on this very forum, there's a thread where a bunch of people are advancing the silliest arguments you ever heard, pretending there is reason to believe the the 9/11 attacks were a hoax, perpetrated by the U.S. government itself, who blew up the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 people.
They made the "case" against the government sound so laughable and silly, that there's no way anyone would ever believe it.
They were clearly agents planted by the government, assigned to imitate "9/11 truthers" and make the truthers look like a bunch of complete fruitcakes.
And they succeeded 100%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
