DoD Awards $1B Contract to Peraton to Counter Misinformation
fedscoop.com
fedscoop.com
> However, like the other ministries, the name is also apt because it decides what "truth" is in Oceania.
Low-effort, I know, but what was the point of everyone reading this book in High School English if not for this very moment?
Grade school needs to be rethought entirely. It's completely broken for the Information Age; no one needs to bother with memorizing minutia anymore, we need to focus on critical thinking.
Most kids nowadays can't even do basic single digit multiplication in their heads. Because they never memorized tables.
How they're going to work through complex higher math problems efficiently, when every multiplication (and therefore every division) is a trip to the calculator, is beyond me.
And furthermore, I can't believe all that memorization happened without changes in brain structure, especially at those ages.
IMHO, we need to re-evaluate what we're having them memorize, and probably reduce the amount in favor of more critical thinking, but there's still a requirement for it.
If nothing else, so that you're prepared for higher education, where one of the goals is to cram the fundamental information for your profession into imediate recall.
For example, I took a history exam where it asked “which of these books was not important to the civil rights movement?” listing three books explicitly mentioned in one sentence of the text and one that wasn’t. That’s the kind of memorization we need to get rid of- we need to be teaching people how to analyze concepts as a whole rather than simply being able to regurgitate the text.
How would this happen at meaningful scale without drawing a response like "CRT" is drawing now and "evolution/creation" did before and in some areas still does?
How do we prevent it from just deepening existing divides?
The misinformation age worries me more than any other current threat because it compounds every other problem and I don't really see a solution. I think it's actually just getting started. (And yes of course propaganda is not new, but the scale, effectiveness, and saturation of it has increased observably in my own lifetime. As a species we are getting better at it.)
If someone convinces me this is solvable or not a real problem you'll genuinely make my day; I really want to be super wrong about this...
What do you mean?
Some groups (in the US) are actively trying to ban teaching it (or some definition of it) in school and some groups think it's essential learning. I'm guessing most have no idea what actually was or wasn't being taught, but that's another issue. The point here isn't whether they're right or wrong to do so it's that obviously education isn't "neutral territory" or something the country is comfortable leaving to the education community. Creation/evolution is the "classic" example of this.
As soon as you try to do media studies or critical thinking at scale somewhere in K-12 someone is going to think that you're doing it maliciously to advance or attack a worldview and it's going to become a mess. Another commenter mentioned letting kids dissect Fox and CNN - how long before those kids say something to their parent that Really Believes one of those channels and that parent goes to the school board with a mob of other Believers? Or someone tries to get a class started or teach a class that claims to be critical thinking but focuses all its time on the flaws in a particular perspective?
wow, I didn't actually thought about it, but it kinda makes sense
it's hard to believe people would fight (at scale) those old and common topics like logical fallacies.
>Some groups (in the US) are actively trying to ban teaching it (or some definition of it) in school and some groups think it's essential learning. I'm guessing most have no idea what actually was or wasn't being taught, but that's another issue. The point here isn't whether they're right or wrong to do so it's that obviously education isn't "neutral territory" or something the country is comfortable leaving to the education community. Creation/evolution is the "classic" example of this.
I've heard people complaining that teachers are incompetent to teach this, is it true?
were they prepared well?
To wit, neither side is making arguments in support of their position in good faith. They're saying whatever they think will accomplish their goals, because they're Right (tm) and the other side is Wrong (tm), and thus anything is justified.
Which is the real tragedy of polarization, in that it reduces thinking, independent human beings into mindless ideological automatons.
On teacher competency, I would, on balance, trust the teachers I had growing up and the teachers I know now to handle CRT appropriately if they were teaching my children.
Then for a final, give them an hour of CNN commentary and an hour of Fox News commentary, and let them tear both to shreds.
Unfortunately, approximately 85% of the voting population will never benefit from these classes, because the idea of them being necessary or useful had not occurred to anyone when they were in school. It's the same reason nobody over 50 learned how to use a computer in grade school. They did not exist.
This is a problem that will become vastly less serious three generations from now.
All schools are local, etc., but with family in K-12 education, I haven't found great or numerous examples of it being taught.
Including "K-12" or "curriculum" will get you more resources that teachers might use.
With the atrocious behavior of teacher unions, ignorant government initiatives, and corruption of boards, the education sector is due to be burned, leveled, and completely reinvented at this point.
People have been demanding we teach critical thinking in education for decades. And it's not like teacher's haven't been trying to get people to think critically all this time.
The truth is, when we see information that conforms to our worldview, we naturally accept it. We only think critically when we see something we disagree with. Try it yourself, just start disagreeing with someone and watch how good they become at critiquing your arguments.
I don't think it is a hopeless cause, however, and it's good to teach critical thinking methods. But I look at this in a similar way to health education. We have been teaching people about good nutrition, healthy eating, and the benefits of an active lifestyle for years but most people don't apply the lessons. At some point more education on the same topics isn't going to help anymore because it's a different kind of problem than not having been taught.
Teachers want students who listen and believe what they say to be fundamental truth. Most teachers seek obedience they enjoy molding students.
Where might people who are long out of school receive such an education, if they are not seeking it? And what if it doesn't work as well as you hope it would?
To me it is seems worth the attempt, but I'm also not an expert in education policy
> To me it is seems worth the attempt, but I'm also not an expert in education policy
My point is that relying on an ill-specified "invest[ment] in education" with idealistic hopes for its effectiveness is pretty much equivalent to "doing nothing." The people who most need it will not seek it out. If it works (a big if) and it's incorporated into compulsory education, it'll take at least a decade to show any results at all, and whole generation or two to work its way through the population and have a chance to actually solve the problem. And like another commenter mentioned, it's not like our current educational system hasn't been trying to instill critical thinking since before any of us were born, so I have little hope that some new investment will solve that problem.
Relying on education in this case is like having window break during a rainstorm and deciding to fix the problem by ordering a new window from the manufacturer, with a lead time of a month. That might eventually fix the broken window, but it's not going to solve the problem of rain pouring through the broken window now. If you've got a rainy month ahead, the incomplete solution may even lead to more problems, like mold.
This is a problem that requires both long-term strategic and shorter-term tactical solutions.
Anyway, pretending that critical thinking is the same as vetting every piece of information you see is disingenuous. Like anything else, there is some severity vs ease of checking position that a given putative fact has. If you're going to die imminently, best to make sure you carefully understand. If it's today's urgent revelations on the news about ongoing issue x y or z, why worry too much how accurate it is.
I do agree it's not the same as "stupid or ignorant" and often these labels are applied to people challenging orthodoxy as opposed to those not thinking critically. It has more to do with credulity, need for acceptance/ belonging, and what I would call religious tendencies.
This perspective is popular among the intellectual crowd because it appeals to our shared love for learning, but also because it's self-congratulatory. It says "if people just had the skills I have, they wouldn't be taken in", but history shows that's not the case as a general statement. We're all affected by advertising, after all.
As for "outsourcing critical thinking to some trusted authority", that's one of the heuristics we all use, no matter how educated we are, and we all have a collection of trusted authorities. Educated people probably tend to have different trusted authorities and different ways of selecting them - they may produce a better outcome but the strategy is very similar.
For my part I think this problem needs to be addressed on the supply /distribution side as well. We need to work against the purveyors of lies and fraud, and that's how it's always been. That was how we cleaned up the patent medicine system and made the stock market more trustworthy, and in some form (probably not through the DoD) we as a society will need strategies to combat other kinds of misinformation as well.
- making data easily accessible and publishing our own narratives
- building better consensus mechanisms, which can be federated in nature
One of our problems in the US is the media spreading its own misinformation — eg, hyper focusing on a few dozen wrongfully killed black men, while ignoring the thousands dead from depolicing. That kind of misinformation for the sake of narrative has literally killed thousands of Americans.
Contrarily, Russian “misinformation” tends to focus on actual but inconvenient facts — such as US institutions suppressing negative coverage of the Bidens, emphasizing Bidens racist/sexist policies, emphasizing the hypocrisy of the wealthy, etc.
We can’t fight foreign influence operations by way of selective truth telling by bolstering the domestic propaganda — as these programs tend to suggest.
We must innovate better tools for an informed citizenry.
Right speech is a natural outcome of free speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
Edit: This could be as simple as something that someone heard once and genuinely believes, passing on old wives' tales. Trying to combat a dedicated disinformation adversary is even more difficult.
So, do we have that kind of population? Examine the empirical evidence. Do we?
I'm not in favor of censorship, but your position here doesn't work.
1. People get stressed out.
2. People clutch their favorite bullshit in an unbreakable deathgrip.
3. People dictate their bullshit to everybody within earshot.
OTOH, truth tastes better than bullshit. Clearly. Given the freedom to experiment people will come around eventually.
So let's provide the people that freedom.
If your stated goal, however, is indoctrination, then yes indeed you need a $1B contract to "fight misinformation with misinformation"
I thought you were looking for a way to teach others without using partisan examples/current events because that would imply taking a stand on the issue. And, if you took a stand that might turn people off.
Perhaps people could use various examples from history on now 'settled issues' like prohibition and free-silver. Show them what kind of underhanded techniques they used and ask them to try a modern digital campaign.
These sorts of ideas are precisely what I was inquiring about. You seem to be implying that any claim that's involved in partisan politics is either impervious to critical thinking, or that we ought to avoid thinking about such a claim critically because it might upset some people. In either case, that would be the extreme opposite of what any class that teaches critical thinking ought to be teaching.
I wasn't trying to imply that, but I do see how what I wrote was viewed that way. I was looking at this from the angle of the class being an elective. From that perspective, you would be hard-pressed to present modern issues in a way that doesn't alienate half (presumably) of the prospective students. I'm not saying it can't be done but I don't know how to design such a curriculum.
I feel like you'd have to ease in to examining current partisan issues, otherwise the cognitive dissonance would be too strong. Otherwise I think half of the students would just shut down and not take any lessons to heart.
It is probably easier for them to dump 1B into something like this initiative than restore trust in those institutions.
Do you know how many anti-vaxxers talk about Biden and Harris saying they'd never take the vaccine last year until it was fully FDA certified, or how masks likely don't work because the CDC and FDA said they were mostly worthless to anyone who wasn't a trained professional (before changing their viewpoint, without explanation, last summer)?
How many newspapers, online, and tv presenters either don't even bother with corrections, or run them on page 11 in small font at the bottom? If it hurts the ax they are grinding, they'll never admit a mistake.
Here's an example that includes Climate Change.
On the right they deny its existence (they used to believe in it, then didn't as Obama came in, and are turning around again albeit slowly). News and politicians say the scientists are lying and taking money from "Big Green." They then promote coal, oil, and their interest groups. The right is too easy to pick on here because it is just so blatantly anti-science.
On the left there's definitely a significantly closer resemblance to what the scientists are saying, but they ignore what is convenient. There's only really discussions about what is popular. There's minor talk about carbon taxes. There's little to no talk about carbon capture, and when there is they only talk about reforestation (reforestation is great but suspected to not be enough, specifically fast enough) (scientists actually want us to be carbon negative, not zero carbon). There is little discussion outside of electricity and vehicles (which is only 54% of contributions from America). The idea that the crisis is purely political and can be solved politically is still perpetuated, not recognizing we need major scientific advancements (e.g. better batteries, smarter grids, new zero carbon energy sources, inventions in heating, significant reduction in clean energy production that can be exported to developing countries and be cheaper than coal for them --this one is huge actually--, etc). Politicians here blame Republicans for not being able to pass any bill but still are not united on their own front. They still aren't acting with anywhere near the same concern the scientific community has about the issue.
But the real kicker is: why are we listening to politicians about science anyways? I also don't want Bill Nye talking about climate change on TV I want climate scientists. I don't care if it is boring and an unfamiliar face (Fauci was unfamiliar not long ago).
I wouldn't say that in the past they have been as polarized. In fact you can actually measure this by looking at node connections.[0] But we need to hold politicians accountable. That's the mechanism to keep them in check but we're also failing at that.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stu...
So what is different now?
My pet theories for suspects are: social media algorithmically enhancing negative emotions and behaviors, a relative lack of enforcement of white-collar crime (especially amongst the rich), large media conglomorates (not a new phenomenon really, but the current ones are a bit different than past) and wealth inequality.
No one is claiming they were. This isn't a binary thing, it is a spectrum. So what's different now? Where they lie on that spectrum.
> My pet theories for suspects are:
You and pretty much everyone else. This is extremely common. But these are also pretty common things in history. Though again, spectrum. We're in one of the most unequal times in America. Rich rarely got persecuted, ever (hell, remember the Pinkertons?). Rumors and misinformation used to spread faster than horses could travel. So let's instead look at what similarities there are to historical examples.
A lot of these things change slowly (and are decades in the making), but aren't apparent until they have changed too much to easily fix so they require a lot of collective work to restore, which is extremely difficult because it often works against the incentives laid out by the environment that caused them to be this way. Using the news example, media sources could simply try to become more rigorous in their pursuit of being trustworthy again, but clearly society has incentivized them to move in the way they have. Running against those incentives runs the risk that it just makes them unprofitable again and then unable to report news all together when they go out of business (or become bought out by wealthy interests with an agenda). So the 'solution' would have to come in some sort of innovation in how people consume media that aligns journalistic rigor and being profitable, which nobody has really figured out how to do yet.
A war on "misinformation" is about as likely to succeed as a war on drugs. The negative effects of it are surely to be even worse. At least "what is a drug?" can be defined fairly easily.
go on...
If you want more people like me keep thinking you can stifle speech on the internet.
Collect that fucking .25cents tho bro
I think we can agree that misinformation on the internet by state and private actors is causing damage to society.
How would you recommend we protect against that damage or prevent it from happening? Or are you saying we should just put up with it?
This is going to do far more harm than it could every possibly do good. Mostly by disenfranchising Americans from participating in the public debate, something I'm pretty sure the US government is expressly forbidden from doing to anyone, even non-citizens.
EDIT: At some point we need some kind of factual moderation. We can't have the US turn into 4chan, it needs a DanG to stay like HN. I don't buy all your slippery slope paranoia, right now the US is turning into a shit-show because half the country is running around saying "well nothing is really true borkborkbork" and electing autocratic criminals. Fuck. That.
Thing is, flat earth is easy to point at and yell “lies!”
How about the Trump/Russia collusion? Pushed by powerful interests with an axe to grind, and in the end debunked. But there are many who believe there is more there than meets the eye. Perhaps they are right.
Frankly, “disinformation” labels, given by any authority, can and will be manipulated. People calling for that are idiots who can’t understand second order effects of their choices.
You act like there is one objective reality, and you know it and others don’t. This is false. “Alternative facts” are differences of opinion on things that 99% of people have no personal knowledge of.
Does Hilary Clinton eat babies? Hell, I don’t know. I’d say probably not. But one of her top donors, Ed Buck, did just get charged with tying up homeless black men and injecting them with meth to OD them while He got off. Who knows? Not you, not me.
TLDR: None of us have the proper insight to truly discern “misinformation” despite what we think. I may get downvoted to hell, but this is the truth. Our world is shaped by narratives outside of our control.
> You act like there is one objective reality, ... This is false.
They got you. Because you just contradicted yourself. Why did you do that? On top of it, you are reciting a certain political party's claims. That's a dead giveaway.
WE could start simple.
1. The earth is not flat
But you already believe this not to be true, or you do, I can't tell because you're reply is mishmash Bannon-esque nonsense.
My point about the flat earth comment, is there are low hanging fruit of obvious lies that are used to push for labels of misinformation on non-objective opinions.
I know, for a fact, the earth is not flat. As a submarine radioman, I relied on this fact for everything from navigation to satcomms.
I do not know HRC or Trump personally, so I only have my views that were fed to me through the distorted lens of the media, my own experiences, and personal biases.
Try reading again for comprehension, and not deceptively editing my quotes next time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Wa...
The DoW became the departments of the army and air force, inside the DoD.
See third paragraph in that Wiki link, and second paragraph in this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_th...
What's even more worrying is if one of the 'adversaries' gains control of this system. Maybe Russia or China is deliberating sowing division and dysfunction in the country, and has bought off a few key officials. How would we know? Anyone investigating the topic would be silenced by the same mechanism.
If you block RT, don't be surprised to see BBC, NPR, CBC and other (govt funded) news outlets banned as well in many territories. People have a distrust for their own governments - because its their own government that spies on them and has the ability to oppress them.
A Russian will trust US media more than his countries own media because they are heavily influenced by the government. Same goes for many US consumers. Media/News company owners have a close relationship with the government.
I feel like I get equally slanted stuff from Fox and MSNBC etc.
[1] https://www.ng.ru/cis/2014-07-01/1_dnr.html ( i challenge you to find any mentioning of that story in West media :)
I'll wait and see, though, I guess. It will be interesting to see what "misinformation" they decide to go after first. It's not liking choosing their target could be easily abused or anything.
Not yet.
Developing a technology, if it's not kept strictly contained (and honestly, who thinks that's really possible), means that it can be uses by others and for purposes not originally intended.
This isn't a "don't make it, it will only lead to problems" stance, as I think it's going to come about no matter what, but I think it's naive of us to assume it won't make it's way into use in some way against us as well. In this case it's fairly simple to see happening. Company that develops this creates separate division with talent from this program (or they leave to form separate company), and they market this in a way that it is used by some company/state against US citizens. We should just assume that at this point.
God forbid saying something anti-war or anti-oil you will be labeled as communist immediately
I feel like you have a gross misinterpretation of what the DoD's mandate is...
2.) Since this is paid for by the Gov't it does fall under the 1st amendment and I have a heard time believing that if it was systematically abused that it would go unnoticed or unchallenged.
3.) Do you suggest that no countermeasures be taken against weaponized misinformation and recruiting? Particularly given how well demonstrated its (foreign propaganda's) efficacy is?
Its Area of Responsibility (AOR) includes the Middle East, including Egypt in Africa, and Central Asia and parts of South Asia. The command has been the main American presence in many military operations, including the Persian Gulf War's Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War from 2003 to 2011. As of 2015, CENTCOM forces are deployed primarily in Afghanistan under the auspices of Operation Freedom's Sentinel, which is itself part of NATO's Resolute Support Mission (from 2015 to the present), and in Iraq and Syria as part of Operation Inherent Resolve since 2014 in supporting and advise-and-assist roles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Central_Command
The U.S. Army Central area of responsibility (AOR) spans more than 4 million square miles, stretching from Northeast Africa, across the Middle East, to Central and South Asia.
The 20 nations of the AOR include: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.
I have a feeling these people aren't fighting us simply because of bad information somewhere. I also highly doubt spending $1 billion in this way isn't going to simply harden their resolve or drive them further underground.
Who thinks the DoD is going to really target “misinformation”?
WMDs in Iraq anyone?
Im legitimately horrified that anyone thinks this is even a remotely good idea.
Open browsers -> first web malware
Open infospheres -> first organized disinformation campaigns
Our digital history has essentially been a recurring chapter of why humans can't have nice things.
Humans evolved -> first human problems
There will always be people who don't play nice. Doesn't mean we can't have nice things, just that it takes extra effort.
Anonymity. Freedom. Access to weapons of mass destruction. Access to precursors of weapons of mass destruction. Access to bulk amounts of precursors that can be used to synthesize controlled substances.
If everyone played nice, we could have the absolute form of all of these things. In reality, we can't.
Also known as the Streisand effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
But I'd guess there are some subtle differences? If a debate is being had about a thing, it's hard to say "they" don't want you to know.
Censorship happens.
Censorship attempts happen.
The Streisand Effect is a backlash to the failed attempt at censoring something which a minority wants to keep information from a majority.
---
I think there are some higher-level Streisand-Effects that we have yet to experience.
Of which, it will always, ultimately, manifest as a violent act against those who are publishing (regardless of medium), information which the opposing elite(^Citation Needed) - want to quell...
I mean, this reads a bit like "don't kill rabbits or else those people who say you kill rabbits will be further validated with their conspiracy theories!"
But no we're going to spend it on propaganda.
When the only voices allowed to speak are a very specific set of voices, that is some scary shit.
Do you know what would restore that trust? Transparently telling people that no matter what medical issue, they won't have to pay or go into debt.
The "US government" isn't a monolithic block. If you want change, vote and convince others to do the same. But to complain that the DoD should be spending their money elsewhere is just not how it works.
I feel like someone missed highschool civics class...
I don't get to pick and choose where my taxes go, so for all intents and purposes, all of the government is fair to criticize.
> "I feel like someone missed highschool civics class... "
A high school civics class is not, and should not be necessary to criticize the government. Stop gatekeeping how criticism has to work.
Elect better politicians, pretty simple.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-...
Deception and corruption and cover ups lead to mistrust. Mistrust leads to misinformation. You can't try to put the toothpaste back in the tube at that point. You must be trustworthy from the beginning, even if it's easier to deceive, even if "people are too dumb to get it", even if none of the choices are politically nice sounding, even if really bad mistakes have been made in the past.
The people who are falling victim to "misinformation" will see this as validating. And, honestly, in a way it is.
Absolutely short sighted.
Plato's Five Regimes - we're basically skipping straight to the end.
There is no going back once we are there, so I hope you have all your ducks in a row and have enjoyed everything you wanted to before we arrive. Once were there, it's over; for everyone.
The days of billions is long gone it seems
Its hilarious that rhis level of corruption goes on completely out in the open.
But I agree with your take. The wording in the linked text makes it seem to have much more to do with counter-messaging than preventing or stifling speech in the first place.
Do you really think the US government should have the power to force you to "debunk" something? Do they decide what gets debunked and what does not?
You're the only one suggesting that the government might be forcing anyone to do anything.
Calling this a blatant first amendment violation is an over the top knee-jerk reaction to the headline; it's a hot take that is completely unsubstantiated in the article itself.
>This is blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Uh. Maybe inside US borders, re: speech by US nationals. I don't see how this could be unconstitutional if we're talking about 'speech' in say the form of blog, news, video posts by non-US nationals, hosted outside of the US.
> Supreme Court has already ruled in the past that it is unconstitutional for the government to punt to the private sector infringements on the constitution that it is prevented from doing itself.
That may be, but that also seems to be remarkably underenforced in any case.
Countering it? If an employee of a government contractor shows up here, says "Actually AnimalMuppet is a Russian disinformation operator, don't believe anything he says", is that a violation of my constitutional rights? IANAL, but I would say no, not if my original post isn't removed. (It might still be libel, though.)
Saying that someone else is wrong is not censorship.
If that contractor then says to HN - you must ban them, or you must put a user flair saying they are a spy. Then yes, it is a violation of the first amendment.
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
If the government wants to fight a cyberwar on civilian property, it needs to put into law exactly what abilities it is giving itself, and actually declare such a war so we know who the supposed enemies are.