Politics of the Free - It’s because Democrats, stupid.
-
LarryDavid wrote:Yossarian wrote:I’m not aware of any people in the old days going door to door pretending to be representing groups or individuals that they’re not (sometimes even different races or nationalities entirely) spreading entirely false and inflammatory information designed specifically to appeal to potentially tiny demographics.
Not door to door, that intelligence agencies spread propaganda in targeted ways is old hat. Look at IRD (Information Research Department) in Northern Ireland in the 70’s (and various colonies before then), the CIA etc.
That’s why the concept of ‘fake news’ is such bullshit, it’s always been there to some degree. This whole idea of ‘ooooh, it’s a new era of underhand tactics’ is nonsense. It’s standard procedure, it’s just been outsourced and in some cases hi-jacked for private non-State purposes.
This is precisely why it is a new era. The mere fact that anyone can now run these disinformation and propaganda campaigns means that the entire concept of truth itself is under attack. It’s one thing if there is a state actor trying to advance its aims, that’s fairly simple to unpick, when you have dozens of competing voices all offering differing versions of reality, then the centre itself cannot hold. -
Excellent work, Stoph. Keep it up. -
Yossarian wrote:… when you have dozens of competing voices all offering differing versions of reality, then the centre itself cannot hold.
You mean like having different newspapers with different political agendas?
I do understand what’s new with modern (data-driven, social media enabled) propaganda. But I’m also well aware it’s an evolution of established tactics for any marketing, not some new magical thing.
As Stoph has alluded to, education seems like our best way forward. Teaching media savviness and building strong bullshit detectors – because the law will not adapt quickly enough to stamp this out globally. -
Stopharage wrote:
I do.GurtTractor wrote:They really really need to be teaching about manipulative advertising and media in schools IMO, if they aren't already. Fucking horrible scary stuff.
Forgive the Comic Sans. It’s there to help a student with dyslexia.
Nice one
Wasn't aware of the use of Comic Sans for helping with dyslexia either. -
That part’s debatable, but whatever works.
-
poprock wrote:Yossarian wrote:… when you have dozens of competing voices all offering differing versions of reality, then the centre itself cannot hold.
You mean like having different newspapers with different political agendas?
No, not even slightly.
Different newspapers have different takes on situations, certainly, but the basic facts that underpin those situations weren’t generally up for debate.
Now they are. -
Yossarian wrote:
No, not even slightly. Different newspapers have different takes on situations, certainly, but the basic facts that underpin those situations weren’t generally up for debate. Now they are.poprock wrote:
You mean like having different newspapers with different political agendas?Yossarian wrote:… when you have dozens of competing voices all offering differing versions of reality, then the centre itself cannot hold.
Information was presumably being tampered with before no doubt, but I think that now we all know it's happening that leads to the toxic general distrust and bewilderment towards the reality of events around the world. That coupled with the many resonant echo chambers of social media means that any random arsehole can be as effective as a political PR team at disseminating their (lack of) understanding about a situation. -
?Yossarian wrote:No, not even slightly. Different newspapers have different takes on situations, certainly, but the basic facts that underpin those situations weren’t generally up for debate. Now they are.
Lies and propaganda aren't new things.
The reach/targetability is compounded in this digital connected age, but I don't see any kind of category difference. -
The connectedness feedback loop is the major difference now I think, which is why I would probably agree with Yoss about this being a 'new era'.
-
Yossarian wrote:Different newspapers have different takes on situations, certainly, but the basic facts that underpin those situations weren’t generally up for debate. Now they are.
Bollocks.
-
For me, the difference here is like the difference between the effect of computers on society now versus the 50s.
-
The Sport is not an effective counter-argument here as nobody took it seriously. The misinformation being pumped out now is believed by large numbers of people.
-
Their credibility is damaged by the fact ‘topless Melissa’ is clearly wearing a top (albeit barely).
-
Yossarian wrote:The Sport is not an effective counter-argument here as nobody took it seriously. The misinformation being pumped out now is believed by large numbers of people.
The misinformation pumped out by the Sun, the Daily Mail, and the rest for decades has been believed by large numbers of people. It’s why we’re going through this Brexit shite for a start. You can’t claim that UK tabloids are bastions of fact-based reporting when they sell primarily on editorial opinion and pride themselves on ‘campaigning’. -
I’m not claiming any such thing, but they are incomparable to places like Infowars and Fox News which pump out insane conspiracy theories with no basis in fact whatsoever.
Compared to outlets like that, UK tabloids look like the BBC. -
"We have always been at war with Eastasia".
Lies are nothing new.
No True Scotsman.Yossarian wrote:The Sport is not an effective counter-argument here as nobody took it seriously. ... -
They’re quite clever actually, in that lots of them are influenced by known real life conspiracies, only twisted to portray the world as somekind of lefty, PC, feminist, Islamanist conspiracy against the gammon-faced middle-aged white man.
Of course you could argue that successive US governments repeatedly lying to their electorate paved the way for ingrained mistrust of official sources and mainstream media. -
Seriously? Have you looked at the polls coming out of the states around what Fox News viewers (the largest cable news station in the country, remember?) believe about the Mueller investigation? Are you seriously comparing this to the effect of the Daily Sport?
Edit: Chump. -
Poprock posted the Sport, not me, but the point still stands - some people believe the bullshit in the Sport, some people believe the bullshit on InfoWars, some people believe the bullshit on Fox. So yes, in that the lies are believed by some, in that sense they are directly comparable. You can argue that the scale is different, but you can't deny that they're the same mechanism.Yossarian wrote:Seriously? Have you looked at the polls coming out of the states around what Fox News viewers (the largest cable news station in the country, remember?) believe about the Mueller investigation? Are you seriously comparing this to the effect of the Daily Sport? Edit: Chump.
Do you think Hitler/Stalin/etc told all facts? Do you think that the current epidemic of lies is something new?
The only new factor is the speed and efficiency of the medium. -
Again, I believe that this is qualitatively different because of scale, not speed.
-
The proliferation and ease of creating misinformation and fake news has risen. Thankfully organisations like FullFact have sprung up to address this although their impact is akin to a plaster on a severed limb.
The Sun weren’t particularly subtle with their muck-spreading in the past - it’s been 15 years since their ‘Asylum Seeker eat Queen’s swans’ nonsense. At least now there are far more avenues for people to highlight these utter bollocks. -
"Scale" makes it a qualitative/category difference? Quantitative, surely, by definition.Yossarian wrote:Again, I believe that this is qualitatively different because of scale, not speed.
Also how does the scale of this "modern phenomena" compare to the likes of the scale during systemic state propaganda e.g. ye olde nazis and commies? (and also ye currente daye North Korea).
Your idea that "but the basic facts that underpin those situations weren’t generally up for debate" is nonsense. "Truth has always been the first casualty of War". -
The scale prevents there being a single agreed notion of truth within a certain society, something that there always was before, even if that notion of truth was itself untrue.
-
I think that’s the point I disagree with, Yoss. There’s never been a single agreed notion of truth within UK or US society. We’ve never been a North Korea. We’ve never had state-run media, however much our media and our state might have to make deals with each other to cling onto their personal power.
-
Maybe not a single notion of truth, no, but a notion of truth that was accepted by a majority of the population. That’s what is currently being lost.
-
I agree with Yoss mostly.
Make no mistake, fake news and internet propaganda in combination with social network targeting is a new era.
Why exactly? Because this is politics learning to hone and abuse a new medium for propaganda purposes. And the one who controls the stream of information (fake or otherwise) is the one who rules them all.
Yes we've had newspapers, the radio and television as the main medium for propaganda. Political parties have mastered these media and those channels are now regulated to even campaigning odds, spending budgets and blocking out foreign interference. Not so with the internet; it's totally unregulated and political propaganda flourishes there. Not only that its reach is unprecedented and due to social media and personal targeting infinitely more effective especially combined with stuff like gerrymandering. It's a dirty (illegal?) tactic but that's how the new right is winning elections. And the combo of Trump, Bannon and Putin aren't planning on pulling punches.Steam: Ruffnekk
Windows Live: mr of unlocking
Fightcade2: mrofunlocking -
-
djchump wrote:
"Scale" makes it a qualitative/category difference? Quantitative, surely, by definition. Also how does the scale of this "modern phenomena" compare to the likes of the scale during systemic state propaganda e.g. ye olde nazis and commies? (and also ye currente daye North Korea). Your idea that "but the basic facts that underpin those situations weren’t generally up for debate" is nonsense. "Truth has always been the first casualty of War".Yossarian wrote:Again, I believe that this is qualitatively different because of scale, not speed.
Oh I see, you don't mean "scale" as in how widespread the lies are, but "scale" as in the variety of lies being spread - in that "nonlinear warfare" style, where you bamboozle the proles with conflicting lies/disinformation to the point where they don't know which way is up.Yossarian wrote:The scale prevents there being a single agreed notion of truth within a certain society, something that there always was before, even if that notion of truth was itself untrue.
I suppose gaslighting a nation might be a new technique/phenomenon, but I bet that it was well-used in the past as well.
Also, I don't really buy into this "post-truth" bollocks. -
I mean scale in both senses, TBH.
And you may not believe this, but there’s a huge body of evidence behind it. Pew research are worth checking out.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836