Psychological Operations

The most interesting stuff falls into the “almost!” category.

My experiences in Afghanistan were almost entirely on-ground, working directly with local village leaders and OGAs (i.e. other governmental organizations, such as USAID). Perhaps unsurprisingly, direct communication with people provides the best avenue for learning / sharing / influencing. Most of the media we disseminated (whether print or radio) was purpose-made for various objectives like decreasing the prevalence of IEDs.

That said, I think our intelligence community and executive branch did an incredible job of establishing themselves as a high-credibility source from even before the invasion, allowing them to easily counter propaganda sponsored by Russia or whomever else. In my opinion, honest communication and appeals to morality / humanity will always remain effective.

Absolutely it is. From a historical perspective, the tactic has known many names: Psychological Warfare, Psychological Operations, Military Information Support Operations, etc. By definition, however, only 37-series (e.g. MOS 37F, MOS 37A) folks trained out at Ft. Bragg are able to conduct PsyOp.

Political groups, private sector companies, etc. certainly conduct influence operations - sometimes at the direction of former PsyOp personnel - but there are legal distinctions and differences. It's one reason I enjoy limiting how much television I watch: advertisements are just watered-down influence operations with the goal of "spend money on X".

I think it's safe to assume that there are a non-trivial amount of psyops happening on those platforms, since those sites are among the main sources of information for almost all people. It would be foolish to not target such low hanging fruit to manufacture consent if you are trying to influence populations.

I would go further and add wikipedia and google results to the list. Conflict of interest edits on wikipedia by companies and legislatures are nothing new. Check out CongressEdits[0] and the slew of bots that it inspired, which enabled monitoring of IP address ranges that edit wikipedia.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CongressEdits

Plenty. Likely more than you or even I realize. That said...

> Are sites like 4chan, facebook, reddit or twitter very influenced by governmental PsyOp operations, national or foreign?

Foreign gov't, certainly. Ours? As honestly as I can claim, I never knew of any Psyop folks conducting operations on those sites, nor did I ever hear of any directives for Psyop folks to use those platforms as viable mediums.

US citizens are eternally out of scope for Army psychological operations, but I have almost no experience with influence operations conducted by a few Virginia-based agencies. Not saying CIA or NSA do such things, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were.

> one of the most successful PsyOp propaganda tactics is that of controlled dissent

I would mildly disagree here. Personally, in-group / out-group mentality is the easiest to manufacture and exploit, and serves as a fantastic emotional distraction from other areas.

Short answer is that PsyOp is not used domestically.

There are a number of criteria for something to be considered actual factual psyop activity, and a private company attempting to influence US citizens would automatically fall short of those criteria. My work was done exclusively and entirely in Afghanistan.

Information should be freely accessible. I held that belief long before I joined the military. If you're interested in the SCAME approach, check it out. Baseless accusations about my integrity are uncalled for, though.

edit - for what it's worth, my calling it "PsyOp" versus "PsyOps" is a good indicator that I am what I say to be.

We worked to build schools, teach farmers about modern agricultural practices, provided medical services, and let women vote or shop by themselves in the local bazaar without fear. We helped reduce IEDs placed in the area to prevent civilian casualties, encouraged safe driving practices, and worked to convince young kids to stop fighting.

I cried when I read that the city in which I lived for a year was recently retaken by the Taliban after we left. I could only hope that the people with which I shared hot tea on cold desert mornings, or potluck style meals, or laughs around a hookah, were able to stay safe.

Does any of that sound evil to you?

Manipulation and influence can look very similar, and naturally skilled manipulators tend to go elsewhere (I think there's enough research about career preference and correlation of "dark triad" traits to substantiate this).

In my experience, most of the enlisted folks doing PsyOp had little idea of what it truly involved when they first began; however, the Army remains eager to redirect the passion of 20 year olds into counterinsurgency / foreign policy tactics.

All too often, great ideas are communicated poorly and end up going nowhere, I think. Knowing how to frame something for a particular audience, or helping people feel like they're heard / acknowledged / part of a team, or seeing through pervasive political fogs, and a bunch of other little skills that really boil down to "good communication" and "psychology" have undeniably helped.

Somewhat unfortunately, I'm working on convincing myself that not all persuasive communication is bad!

It’s not that local media is paid to shut up, it’s that many of the viewers and advertisers directly benefit from the big entity and will become angry at the news unless it has irrefutable and overwhelming evidence of some wrong doing.

but in all seriousness, no. don't join the Army unless you truly want to dedicate a chunk of your life to an organization like that.

be a good neighbor, stay politically informed, vote, take care of your friends, help others in need, create art and support artists, etc.

eh? probably much the same as anyone else who isn't perfect.

there seems to be a misconception here that psyop == lying. the majority of psyop is well-presented truths as opposed to intentional deceit. credibility counts, and is easily eroded with careless lies.

we did have a fair amount of latitude which objectives we would pursue, however, based on the relevance and estimated effectiveness for the demographics in the area. that said, reducing roadside bombs is an objectively good goal, in my opinion. as is encouraging people to participate in an election. as is informing the public about free medical services.

> I know the answers

well that's no fun! honestly, it seems your "known answers" are a bit off-base. try to keep an open / curious mind; we're still on HN after all :)

>During consideration of the bill, critics voiced concern that lifting the restrictions could result in information designed to influence foreign audiences being used against American citizens. Proponents countered that the ban made it difficult for Americans to access and evaluate this content.

- Associated Press

https://apnews.com/article/archive-fact-checking-7064410002

I knew someone who was in one of the lead units in the Iraq war. They said they were instructed to tell people in each town that the US forces had come to liberate them, and that the locals would of course rise up and help the Americans. They said every town was the same: they'd make the announcement, and then they'd hear the mortars coming ...

It turns out people don't like foreigners with guns taking over their towns by force, no matter what their stated intentions. Imagine how you would feel.

Although granted, cases with positive outcome seem rare.