Catapult the propaganda: DOD Social media

[revelarts]

Pentagon Wants a Social Media Propaganda Machine

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/darpa-wants-social-media-sensor-for-propaganda-ops/


July 16, 2011
Print Version

Source: Wired

You don’t need to have 5,000 friends of Facebook to know that social media can have a notorious mix of rumor, gossip and just plain disinformation. The Pentagon is looking to build a tool to sniff out social media propaganda campaigns and spit some counter-spin right back at it.

On Thursday, Defense Department extreme technology arm Darpa unveiled its Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program. It’s an attempt to get better at both detecting and conducting propaganda campaigns on social media. SMISC has two goals. First, the program needs to help the military better understand what’s going on in social media in real time — particularly in areas where troops are deployed. Second, Darpa wants SMISC to help the military play the social media propaganda game itself.

This is more than just checking the trending topics on Twitter. The Defense Department wants to deeply grok social media dynamics. So SMISC algorithms will be aimed at discovering and tracking the “formation, development and spread of ideas and concepts (memes)” on social media, according to Darpa’s announcement.

Not all memes, of course. Darpa’s not looking to track the latest twists on foul bachelor frog or see if the Taliban is making propaganda versions of courage wolf. Instead, it wants to see what ideas are bubbling up in among social media users in a particular area — say, where American troops are deployed.

More specifically, SMISC needs to be able to seek out “persuasion campaign structures and influence operations” developing across the social sphere. SMISC is supposed to quickly flag rumors and emerging themes on social media, figure out who’s behind it and what. Moreover, Darpa wants SMISC to be able to actually figure out whether this is a random product of the hivemind or a propaganda operation by an adversary nation or group.

If we ever needed Posse Comitatus before , we Shore do need it now
We shooore do need it Now how how
We shoore do need it now.

[Gunny]

Pentagon Wants a Social Media Propaganda Machine

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/darpa-wants-social-media-sensor-for-propaganda-ops/


If we ever needed Posse Comitatus before , we Shore do need it now
We shooore do need it Now how how
We shoore do need it now.

So let's see. You think a government that can't even handle a budget/the economy is knee deep in conspiracy where drugs/drug wars are concerned; yet,

you choose to not believe there are not coordinated, concerted efforts to disseminate misinformation over the internet?

Last I checked, the individual; right to freedom of expression does not cover intentionally spread misinformation that suits organizational desires; especially, if it harmful or potentially harmful to this nation and/or its people.

Even if you DO want to go there and claim it does, why does it make the government worse for wanting to get a handle on what misinformation is being spread about it?

You need to figure out which side of the fence you want to fall off of onto your head.

[J.T]

MOCKINGBIRD coming home?

[J.T]

Last I checked, the individual; right to freedom of expression does not cover intentionally spread misinformation that suits organizational desires
Yes, it does. FOX went to court over that some years ago. See, if you were right, they'd have had no right to lie about public health concerns to benefit Monsanto, with whom they had a business relationship. That would have made The Investigators whistleblowers. You might recall we covered this on the other board on multiple occasions.

[Gunny]

Yes, it does. FOX went to court over that some years ago. See, if you were right, they'd have had no right to lie about public health concerns to benefit Monsanto, with whom they had a business relationship. That would have made The Investigators whistleblowers. You might recall we covered this on the other board on multiple occasions.

Fox did not win a suit that said they could lie. End of story. That Fox even does lie is your opinion, nothing more ... except for misuse of the word "lie"; which, appears to be quite a phenomenon on the net.

A difference of opinion is not a lie just because you don't like it.

Now, how do you like your news? News is and always has been presented in accordance with the message the journalist and/or his/her company wish to convey. The reader is purposefully led to the conclusion desired.

To say any one US media outlet is more honest or dishonest than another is the actual lie; although, it seems mostly just ignorance and willful partisan blindness.

Anyone who thinks there is integrity towards honesty in journalism obviously missed those 4 years in school I didn't.

[J.T]

Fox did not win a suit that said they could lie.

They were sued in accordance with the whistleblower laws because the reporters were fired for refusing to lie. The entire issue before the court was whether the news media has a right to lie. Is fo, then the plaintiffs were not whistleblowers, as the actions they refused to comply with were not illegal. If no, then the parties, when their contracts were not renewed, were illegally fired for refusing to be complicit in a crime.

The FOX affiliate's entire defense was: We have a right to lie. Therefore what we did was okay and these persons are not protected under whistleblower states.

The first court sided with the plaintiffs. The appellate court sided with FOX.


An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.<sup multilinks-noscroll="true" id="cite_ref-law.onecle.com_7-0" class="reference">[8] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_note-law.onecle.com-7)</sup> ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,<sup multilinks-noscroll="true" id="cite_ref-law.onecle.com_7-1" class="reference">[8] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_note-law.onecle.com-7)</sup>


That Fox even does lie is your opinion
Then why'd they go to court to fight for their right to lie? That was their entire premise- they have a right to lie, hence the plaintiffs were not whistleblowers.

They didn't deny the charges of falsification. They just insisted they weren't in violation of any law, rule, or regulation when they lie.

[Gunny]

They were sued in accordance with the whistleblower laws because the reporters were fired for refusing to lie. The entire issue before the court was whether the news media has a right to lie. Is fo, then the plaintiffs were not whistleblowers, as the actions they refused to comply with were not illegal. If no, then the parties, when their contracts were not renewed, were illegally fired for refusing to be complicit in a crime.

The FOX affiliate's entire defense was: We have a right to lie. Therefore what we did was okay and these persons are not protected under whistleblower states.

The first court sided with the plaintiffs. The appellate court sided with FOX.



Then why'd they go to court to fight for their right to lie? That was their entire premise- they have a right to lie, hence the plaintiffs were not whistleblowers.

They didn't deny the charges of falsification. They just insisted they weren't in violation of any law, rule, or regulation when they lie.

A less than convincing argument. The journalists were fired for not doing what they were told by their employer. That they tried to turn it into a moral issue cloaked in legality just shows the lengths some people will go to try and get a frivolous lawsuit through.

Fox has the right to report what they want. Just as does every other media outlet, and politician for that matter. Obama's entire election is based on nothing but lies.

Based on the accusation, all they have left to defend themselves is that it is not against the law to lie. Try doing it to a cop though.

I also don't see what two journalists being fired by a private corporation has to do with the whistleblower program. I wasn't aware employees of private corporations qualified for the government whistleblower program.

Otherwise, they're just disgruntled employees who didn't get their way trying to strike back and make a buck at the same time, IMO.

And of course, just as you accuse Fox, editorialized/tailored to suit your agenda.

[J.T]

A less than convincing argument. The journalists were fired for not doing what they were told by their employer.

And? Do you understand what whistleblower laws are?


Fox has the right to report what they want.

And to lie about it if they wish. They went to the courts over it.


Obama's entire election is based on nothing but lies.

Actually, it's based on him not being an old white man...

[revelarts]

Of Course FOX isn't the only one but
I guess what Gunny is saying is that it's not a lie if the right people believe it.

[fj1200]

We have a right to lie.

:rolleyes: You oppose fair and balanced?


WTVT later ran a report about Monsanto and rBGH in 1998, and the report included defenses from Monsanto.

[Kathianne]

Hmmm, JT often sounds a lot like Truthmatters...

[Gunny]

And? Do you understand what whistleblower laws are?


And to lie about it if they wish. They went to the courts over it.



Actually, it's based on him not being an old white man...

Sure. They're laws that enable disgruntled employees to throw shit all over their former employers as a means of payback.

I remain unconvinced on your "lie" story. If it was illegal for the media to print whatever spin it wants to, the ENTIRE media would be indicted. And slinging "Fox News" around as the worst is just a buzz word for the left and ITS lies.

Again, Fox is no better nor worse than any other media outlet. The worst by far in this country is NPR. It's only not the worst in the world because al Jazeera is.

[Gunny]

Of Course FOX isn't the only one but
I guess what Gunny is saying is that it's not a lie if the right people believe it.

Assume much?

You are incorrect. What Gunny is saying is it's not a lie just because YOU don't believe it. I get sick of seeing the word used incorrectly.

A lie is KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY spreading misinformation. It isn't believing something contrary to (an)other(s).

For all your one-sided, cherry-picking arguments, have I called you a liar? Willfully blind or words to that effect perhaps, but not a liar. I just believe you to be delusional enough to believe some of the junk you spew forth.

[Gunny]

Hmmm, JT often sounds a lot like Truthmatters...

Talk about a low blow.:laugh:

He's not TM.

[Kathianne]

Talk about a low blow.:laugh:

He's not TM.

Oh I know that, just that her persona sometimes seems to inhabit his. ;)

[J.T]

. If it was illegal for the media to print whatever spin it wants to

Who's claiming it is? They have a legal right to lie. the FOX affiliate went to court over it and the appellate court agreed with them on that.

[fj1200]

Who's claiming it is? They have a legal right to lie. the FOX affiliate went to court over it and the appellate court agreed with them on that.

No.

The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute,"
That wasn't the question the court faced.


The first court sided with the plaintiffs. The appellate court sided with FOX.

No.

The trial commenced in summer 2000 with a jury dismissing all of the claims brought to trial by Wilson, but siding with one aspect of Akre's complaint,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre
And the last? overturned, see above.

You could at least be honest ;) about what the court said.

[logroller]

Honestly, Fox kowtowed to monsanto's big bucks. Monsanto and their GMO patents are the worst ruling to come out of SCOTUS since the New Deal was upheld.

[Gunny]

Who's claiming it is? They have a legal right to lie. the FOX affiliate went to court over it and the appellate court agreed with them on that.

Again, they have a legal right to print what they wish. A precedent that encompasses ALL media outlets, not just Fox News.

I will again use the same example I posted previously: Just because YOU don't agree, doesn't make something a lie. Otherwise, YOU would be called a liar quite a lot.

We can start with YOUR spin on the outcome of this court case ......

[J.T]

Again, they have a legal right to print what they wish.
Yes, including lies. It's how FOX and the National Enquirer (among others) do business.

It's like you keep re-realizing and forgetting this every time you post.

[Wind Song]

Of Course FOX isn't the only one but
I guess what Gunny is saying is that it's not a lie if the right people believe it.
Bingo.

[revelarts]

I'd just like to say, completely aside from the actual comments JT V Gunny.
That the image of BAPHOMET vs DEATH is very intriguing and kinda disturbing.