The US ambassador visiting our Justice Ministry [1] a few years ago when almost all of the middle-class electorate was out in the streets protesting against the Government's direct influence on some justice-related stuff was the cherry on cake. I didn't realise it back then, because I was busy protesting against my own government, but in retrospect I started wondering how come it's ok for a foreign entity to control the justice system from my (supposedly sovereign) country.
[1] https://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/actualitate/ambasadorul-sua-ha...
Is there a corruption problem in Romania, and the US is trying to help overturn it?
Is there no corruption problem in Romania, and the US is doing some power play to try to get the people in power out?
Plus the few cases when US companies (or they local subsidiaries, more exactly) do get tangled up in a corruption thingie for one reason or another the companies themselves get out of it as nothing had happened.
Here's an article about a former CEO of Oracle Romania [1] recognising that he took 500,000+ euros as bribes, but because he reached a deal with the prosecutors he received a suspended sentence (so no actual prison time).
And, the most famous, the Microsoft scandal [2], which has its own dedicated wikipedia page, but where, again, the company itself got away without anyone working for them actually being prosecuted. I'll give it to the American authorities on this one, though, that scandal was most probably put into motion at the very beginning thanks to the work of the FBI [3] (so, obviously, as the result of domestic US investigations), the FBI which had also found irregularities with MS's work in China and Italy.
[1] https://www.mediafax.ro/social/fostul-ceo-oracle-romania-aco...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_licensing_corruption...
[3] https://fcpaprofessor.com/microsoft-business-in-romania-the-...
Government propaganda is anathema to a free and democratic society. Our government is purportedly granted its authority by the consent of the masses. Having this consent influenced (or completely manufactured by government propaganda) nullifies the whole idea of democracy. The absurd contention that propaganda being spread by US military and government operatives on Facebook and social media is only targeted at (much less only influences) "foreigners" is patently absurd. Millions of Americans (myself included) vehemently oppose our currently stated "US foreign policy objectives" devised by the CIA, the Pentagon and the various government-funded "think tanks" that set policy and direct these propaganda efforts. "Full spectrum narrative control" has been the wet dream of every dictator, king and authoritarian government since the dawn of time, and it should be something that every thoughtful, decent person recognizes as toxic and incompatible with a free and open society.
Ignoring any moral qualms or suspicions, any powerful weapon that isn’t actively overseen will inevitably be abused.
Infinite regress is only contemplated when you aim for perfect oversight which is impossible. The best we can hope for is 'as good as possible'. We the People, as well as possible, oversee that the appropriate authorities are, independently as possible, overseeing the use of weapons and interventions. It's obviously imperfect just like any other human endeavor but that's why we as citizens should fight for strong whistleblower protections, regular investigations/audits and reasonable timeframes for declassification etc so that we can do our job.
We all should - one of many arguments for complete transparency. Democracy dies behind closed doors. All the claims about the need for government secrecy, "national security", protecting "methods and sources" are trash when compared against the importance of transparency in a society purportedly governed by elected representatives of the people. The so-called "risks" posed by radical and complete government transparency are far less than the actual and tangible harms caused by the ever-growing secrecy afforded and demanded by those holding the levers of power.
> It also reveals a somewhat damning tidbit when talking about the reach and impact of these campaigns; according to the report, “the vast majority of posts and tweets we reviewed received no more than a handful of likes or retweets, and only 19% of the covert assets we identified had more than 1,000 followers.” What’s more, the two accounts with the most followers explicitly said they were tied to the US military. I’ll try not to think about how much all this cost when I’m paying my taxes next year.
Had US social media agencies been fully in bed with the feds such a report would have never been produced in the first place. Remember, conspiracists always talk about shadowy organizations or groups of people with near omnipotent power - an idea these agencies themselves would like perpetuated to make it seem resistance is futile.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/25/23322214/us-government-pr...
Quite the opposite - the conspiratorial reaction is that these agencies want to be mistaken for bumbling bureaucracies, so they let reports of small-level stuff get out. That way we underestimate the real degree of their control and believe that if they ever tried to manipulate us, they would get caught anyway, and besides, they're just making unsuccessful tweets, right?
Or even deeper, that these organizations are meant to distract us from much more powerful entities who they don't even realize they are controlled by.
I don't believe any of this, but the conspiracy theorists deserve more credit for creativity that you are giving them!
Ever heard of a limited hangout?
The most damaging thing that they do is inflate the like counts and apparent engagement of government thinktank employees and unaware nationalists drunk on the dopamine hits of botted upvotes. I'm absolutely certain that the removal of downvotes from social platforms in general was a long term government project.
edit: does anyone believe that this behavior can't be easily detected algorithmically? I don't know about other platforms, but Twitter is obviously a government partner, not a victim.
*This is probably true in some areas but the opposite in others - our influence simply shifted.
Tangential to your comment, but in fact there was another path, spearheaded by, among others, India. It's where we get the term "third world", which became shorthand for "developing" because basically no developed countries joined this "third world" movement ("first world" being the so-called West, "second" being the Soviets).
Multi-polarity is generally code for regional hegemony. That's great if you're the regional hegemon. Not so much if you're the hegemon's neighbor.
America is a maritime power. These (think: Carthage, Venice, Portugal, the Dutch and Britain; counterfactual: Japan) have historically relied on trade, and trading outposts, to project power. As such, they're a natural friend of small countries resisting regional hegemony.
>natural friend of small countries resisting regional hegemony
Consider Cuba or Venezuela and their relationship to the USA.
Objectively, yes. In no small part because maritime powers tend to knit together alliances, not annex and colonise the way land powers do.
> Consider Cuba or Venezuela and their relationship to the USA
In both these cases, we are the regional hegemon.
There is no organization that can prevent one state from going to war with another, I believe a multi-polar world would inevitably lead to a global scale conflict.
Was the humanity better off during the Bi-polar era of the Cold War, with continuously escalating nuclear threats and proxy wars vs 1991-2010? What about the multi-polar world of 1919-1938?
And while it's true that U.S. cultural "force projection" hasn't weakened; they are being severely squeezed when it comes to trade dominance (https://merchantmachine.co.uk/china-vs-us/) and monetary dominance (see James Rickards' books).
America still has its hegemony, but the notion that it's declining is very much mainstream in academia (https://www.routledge.com/Americas-Allies-and-the-Decline-of...). Worse, its national security institutions have lost credibility among a significant portion of its electorate (MAGA people), and its military hegemony is now opposed by both populist left (pacifists) and populist right (non-interventionists). They're being squeezed both abroad and at home.
That's not what empires do.
Pretty standard definition of an empire.
> The U.S. base at the Bishkek airport had become a regular source of criticism from various Kyrgyz politicians and, with heavy Russian influence, it also closed in 2014.
https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-military-bases-in-central-asia-p...
Again, doesn't sound like any Empire i've read about in a history book.
Hollywood is the main exporter of American culture and values and that seems to have been compromised quite effectively in this last decade.
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/09/how-holl...
What I can say though is that money appears to be the primary driving factor here whether that is pushing an agenda or censoring ideas.
"foot-in-the-door" American culture maybe. I'd say it's a different projection of our culture at home.
GPT-3:
我覺得電影腳本被中國人牽制了
(Transition according to Google: "I think the movie script is being held back by the Chinese")
The biggest advocate for the fairness of a prison cell often is the prisoner.
Also, it's not like nuclear proliferation is solved. It's still breathing down our necks, we just don't talk about it anymore
You were doing well until this last sentence.
No, propaganda and psychological manipulation is completely incompatible with a democratic society.
My take: Democracy is not the natural state, therefore requires a lot of psyops to remain in place. It’s not democratic, but well, can you speak up about it? No. Or if you can, will you? Probably not worth it. You’re “happy enough”.
My converging evidence: France’s 1789 democracy was set up by gillotining the very person who would have gotten all the majority votes (He was organizing a referendum and the parliament couldn’t let this happen); The EU wasn’t born as a democracy and we only ask people’s opinions when it’s trending up; etc. there are so many examples that actually-democratic systems are an unstable mess and superficially-democratic systems are the norm.
The idea is that people believe they live in democracy, and psyops the only way to reach this state. True democracy might be a naive dream.
The EU is hardly a triumph of stability - indeed I'd argue it supports the opposite idea, it's unstable because it's not accountable enough and people realise that, no matter how strong the propaganda.
If the democracy leads to a tyranny of a majority it does not deserve to be a dream either. To me what has the most value is the recognition and protection of the individual rights.
“Vimes had once discussed the Ephebian idea of ‘democracy’ with Carrot, and had been rather interested in the idea that everyone had a vote until he found out that while he, Vimes, would have a vote, there was no way in the rules that anyone could prevent Nobby Nobbs from having one as well. Vimes could see the flaw there straight away.”
one social credit has been deposited in your account
"These tools are good for us when we use them against our enemies" breaks down very fast when your apparatus starts to find "enemies" within its borders, a line we crossed a very long time ago.
So the logical thing to do is dump resources into keeping yourself from being caught.
I sleep much better knowing my dog isn't taught such behavior is acceptable. I would hate for him to bite the hand that feeds him because he learned such, "enlightened" behavior is acceptable and condoned by his owner.
Corruption? Abuse of power?