Australia’s secret propaganda unit
declassifiedaus.org
declassifiedaus.org
Now imagine the level of sophistication propagandists have reached with the internet, where merely running ad campaigns on social media has the power to influence millions and directly control politics on a global scale.
Cambridge Analytica was merely the tip of the iceberg. It's scary to think about the magnitude of the operations we don't hear about.
The problem I have with this realisation, is that this kind of behaviour sets a precedent for 'acceptability' for all groups and individuals on lower rungs than government - which is everyone. No wonder governments have trouble legislating against bad corporate behaviour, because they have done, and likely are in the midst of doing, shady shit themselves of a greater scale. I feel I'm exposing a level of my own naivete, but I'm trying to convey the path from government 'bad-ness' to the current level of social and civil mistrust in government and also inward looking perspectives on any and all actions (ie. what's in it for me, fuck y'all) that's encouraged by every exposure of such government-approved actions.
You, Government, with all your power, cannot judge me, as a powerless individual member of the proletariat, as guilty and punishable for any crime lesser than that which you yourself has actively participated in and considered acceptable. The wind blows unhindered through your glass house.
I think it can be done if the country is small enough and the government itself is small enough. Even if such states do end up meddling in the affairs of neighbors they won't be able to concentrate as much wealth into these actions as larger countries can.
I'm also permanently intrigued as to whether it's possible to succeed as a government without being evil. The good of the many at the expense of the few means being evil to 'the few'. Hard decisions have to be made, and when they're made they need to be committed too lest inviting insanity from constant second-guessing.
Tough gig either way, but the setting of behavioural precedents for "your people" should be of utmost consideration.
Very little reason to believe they aren't, for the most part, as bunglingly ineffectual as they were then, especially when it comes to efforts tied to intelligence services or people trying to sell a service, like CA.
Really? I thought there was plenty of reason. There has been lots of reporting on Russian troll farms and concentrated Russian efforts for Brexit, Donald Trump. There was also quite good reporting against the propaganda war in the Central African Republic between the French and Russian armies/intelligence services.
CA 'scandal' was vastly misrepresented by most in the press, it was a bit of a problem, but completely over stated.
I worked at a company that received 'special access APIs' from Facebook (something indicated during this scandal) and it was not only benign but the mechanics were misrepresented.
That said - it's reasonable to wonder 'What Is Happening Now?'
Another question is ... is it rational and/or moral? That's a more difficult question to contemplate for younger people I think, who have less exposure to the mechanics of the world, which are materially relevant. My view on that has evolved so much over time, it's so hard to say.
CA abused the friend-of-a-friend feature of FB's API to create detailed profiles of millions of voters, which they then used to micro-target them with ads. Advertisers are quite aware of the psychological effect of ads, and their ability to influence decision making, even on a subconscious level. It's pretty clear, then, how this would be useful for pushing propaganda, and swaying voters one way or another.
The 2020 leaks[1] show that they've done this in 68 countries. Whether or not they were entirely responsible for election results is debatable, but you can't possibly call this "a bit of a problem" and "completely over stated".
This is a very real and dangerous weaponization of social media, and it's not difficult to see how it's a natural progression of propaganda efforts from past decades. It would be naive to think that CA was the only and last firm operating in this business. They're just the ones we happened to hear about.
> Another question is ... is it rational and/or moral?
How is that even a question? There's nothing moral about getting paid by politicians to manipulate voters into voting for them. It's the modern equivalent of outright buying votes. If you don't see how that undermines democracies[2], then we have completely different worldviews.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-an...
[2]: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2020/08/kreps-social-media-...
The 'harm' caused by such information gathering, were it effective, is marginal.
So yes, we don't want people abusing people's APIs, but it's almost a nothing burger that people could 'target a few ads'.
More relevant to CA's case - their capabilities were rubbish. They completely overstated their ability to target people and to influence them.
This is the 'running scam' of the entire advertising, agency, ad-buying and consulting industry. Their claims were ridiculous.
All of that combined means that this was not some scary thing for civilization, the effects were marginal, and even then 'ad targeting' itself is not even a bad thing.
It's not 'harmful' that Toyota was able to get their ads in front of a few more truck buyers. More like 'annoying'.
'The Guardian' is a primary source for borderline fabrication at least to the extent that they vastly overstate both the kinds of abuse in the situation, and the power of the information garnered. In this case, misinformation by The Guardian is as bad as the case they are following.
"There's nothing moral about getting paid by politicians to manipulate voters into voting for them."
What Campus Bubble do you live in?
So you want to ban all public communications by 'Politicians'?
Are signs 'evil'? 'Pamplets'? 'TV Spots'? 'Radio spots'?
Did that 'pamphlet' you receive make you vote for ABC politician, and therefore the 50 cost of that was tantamount to 'vote buying'.
Does the same apply to industry? The iPhone ad should be illegal?
Please.
Ironically - targeted advertising is, on the whole, probably better for everyone than not. There is too much information out there, and we need better ways to access it. 'Targeting' is a form of market clearing, it's a form of efficiency.
The dynamics of it are screwed up in that some are much better able to leverage the system than others, and I don't like that our privacy is abused in many cases, but on the whole it's not bad.
It was just as bad before this
With WWI, how did the european powers manage to convince their civilians to go die in the trenches fighting a meaningless war? Or Vietnam in the US
The saying "if everyone jumped off the bridge..." is funny, because people will say it and forget what it means the moment everyone around them starts jumping off the bridge
"It's a long way to tipperary"
Different medium, same outcome. Also a lot of yellow journalism.
But who conscripted them and dragged them off to war? Was it the politicians who decided to go to war? The "convincing" isn't necessary once it's reached critical mass
There were exemptions but it still seems a cruel form of gambling in a way.
There was a military draft in WW I:
>...By the end of World War I, some two million men volunteered for various branches of the armed services, and some 2.8 million had been drafted.
In ancient Rome everyone in the elite had to serve a few years as an officer in a legion.
As for wall Street and conscription - they would find a way to get their sons out of this trouble I am sure.
Surprisingly enough, the top US income quartile enlists at a higher rate than the bottom income quartile. There's a big list of things that disqualify recruits, not having basic literacy, no recent prison time, no high school dropouts, obesity standards, mental health standards, no marijuanas use, no children...
CIA learned the value of narrative formation from the BBC
This is a genuine not rhetorical question. I don’t know much about British politics but the statement that some shady elites are controlling the British through the BBC seems counterintuitive to me.
The BBC thing is much more subtle.
> "Beveridge was opposed to "means-tested" benefits. His proposal was for a flat rate universal contribution in exchange for a flat rate universal benefit. Means-testing was intended to play a tiny part because it created high marginal tax rates for the poor."
Plus ça change...
The BBC is not a clandestine operation, but does sometimes work with the government on special issues particularly for national security and/or in times of crisis.
Even knowing all of this, it's still a pretty good news source actually.
It's better than the Canadian CBC or US PBS/NPR in terms of 'objectivity' though those three entities do have some good qualities.
BBC is nothing like Russia Today for example, or even CNN/Fox or major braodcast networks, all of which have different levels of relationship with government.
In order to increase income from taxes, governments can usually most easily tax the middle class (provided middle class isn't too small of course).
And I state that free healthcare and handouts make people more dependant on the government, since governments can always provide some reason for decreasing the handouts or healthcare provided for various reasons. For example, perhaps at some point a government might decide to withheld free healthcare for civilians that refuse vaccination. Civilians at the bottom of the food chain would then feel more pressured in taking some vaccination in order to keep access to free healthcare of government handouts.
People dependant on the government will be more obedient civilians, so its likely many governments will want to move in this direction. Central Bank Digital Currencies will also give governments more control of people, so it will be the direction we'll be moving towards in the coming years.
The world view is that public health care is actually a massive subsidy for corporations, who obviously benefit from a healthy (and educated) pool of workers.
That public health care is fought against in the US is more about the hideously large and inefficient health care juggernaut in the US that lobbies against the publics interest in their own favour. Forget the smokescreen that the US calls "socialism", the word has no effective meaning there other than an epithet.
Looking at this data, it seems like it pays almost 50% more than the next highest country (over 9k per capita, vs just under 6k).
On using healthcare as a tool for coercion - whilst it's a debatably bad outcome, it's generally still better than healthcare locked behind money (the latter resulting a continuous, persistent denial of healthcare to some portion of the population - the former being a once off, or possibly intermittent, denial of healthcare).
Of course healthcare isn't free. The worst case, of course, is when healthcare is both paid for via taxation and then subsequent billing by non-government entities.
This sounds right, but the same issue of refusing services is just as valid (if not more valid) for private businesses. It would be a harder argument with respect to public healthcare because the first amendment is binding with respect to the government and not private companies. Said private companies and insurance companies can (and likely do) charge more because of things like vaccination.
The problem is not a matter of private vs public healthcare but of punishing violation of the first amendment and enforcing legislation that protects religious minorities from discrimination, especially on insurance companies.
The private sector is more unregulated than the public sector with regard to things like religious freedom. Corporate HR departments can get away with more coercion and subterfuge than the government, hence the current situation in the US where employers control freedom of speech and other things more thoroughly than the government ever could. It's far easier to exert power through the corporations than it is through the government
Balancing hope, fear, and desperation requires permanent effort.
So that they will have control of the healthcare system. Or lack thereof. "You missed crossing the T on page 1027-56, section 3 when filling out your submission to acquire cancer treatment form, and so we are rejecting your request at this time. Please fill out the form again and wait 6 weeks before re-submitting."
The more power politicians/elite have over the populace, the easier it is to control the populace. Right up until the riots.
Why not? If it doesn't cost them much then why wouldn't they want this for the masses? They're still people and most people don't like it when others needlessly suffer.
This is how socialist politicians came in. Before the war socialists were the enemy, after the war they were the ones who had to fix the mess and stop communism.
Remember Menzies in Australia tried to ban the communist party by legislation and lost a referendum in 1951 on this issue (it passed in 3? states I think, but didn't obtain the supermajority necessary)
He was also a central figure for one of the two major parties (Liberal - basically our closest equivalent to the American Republican party).
It would be fascinating to hear his opinion on where the Liberal party is today. That said, I think both major parties are generally shit (Broadly speaking, one works in the best interests of corporations, and the other just doesn't do much of anything)
That guy? Calling him great is controversial to say the least.
Please point out a BBC/ABC influence operation that is government backed in the past 3 decades.