Right wing Using Psychological Warfare against United State Citizens in the
Cannabis Cafe forums; Originally Posted by Charlie Ventura
Not only do they insist upon real names, but they insist on an address and ...
Look up the Word Topical
Originally Posted by Charlie Ventura
These are Real People
NOt a right wing Organization Using Psyops tools developed for the Military against US Citizens
Not even Close to the same thing
I agree with beardo
We don't live in a democracy, so its not supposed to work, and it won't work.
Yes!!! That's how democracy and the first amendment are supposed to work.
Conformity is failure! ~ME
To first be simply surprised by this technology is amazing. Secondly, to simply say that only one group of people, who happen to be on the opposite side of ideology as you, are the only ones who do it is completely foolish.
Perhaps I missed something. I couldn't finish the OP.
yeah Go reread it
Originally Posted by sync0s
From what I have Seen. And I havent seen it here
Its one sided
Will do when I'm not so tired.
Originally Posted by dukeanthony
That's cool. We're getting there with true AI. Too bad it can't be to better us, like getting rid of India call centers. You could pick the persona of your liking to give tech support with an accent you can understand. Hopefully their greed will let some of this tech trickle to the private sector. I really hated the MS paper clip!
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.If we extend it even to those who are intolerant,if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant,then the tolerant will be destroyed,tolerance with them.
This article while easily believable is a little more than a stretch and puts too much weight on the power of internet marketing. Indeed it is very true in many ways that the Internet has been bought by people essentially buying traffic from china botters and politicians are guilty of this, its not really fair to put this all on the right wing, even though many of them are guilty specifically of this very thing. On the internet you have 100% free will, for example you might not be aware but Kim Kardashian has one of the top twitter "followers" numbers. If she tweets one of my servers I am alerted and woken up from my sleep to handle the traffic of millions. A politicians site is a joke compared to Kim Kardashian or pictures of boobs, pictures of boobs are my worse nightmare as sys admin.
Originally Posted by dukeanthony
The image that its some kind of team of people doing this in droves as some kind of mafia is ridiculous. Its very small businesses that do this, its 5 dudes in their basement or a small sweaty office in china, south korea, or turkey.
So the gist of it is: - Nobody cares how many twitter followers you have....the amount of facebook "likes" or twitter followers you have is not taken very seriously, I know that I wouldn't be swayed by the amount of youtube subscribers you have. I have quite a few subscribers myself, are you swayed?
Last edited by deprave; 11-13-2011 at 04:28 AM.
Anonymous Leaked the Emails
Its not Just one team
There are a few
I have Personally seen it in action On CNN Blogs
I am not talking about website activism either Like the democratic underground, The free republic or even Stormfront. WHere a poster says Hit this link.
I am talking about what the Right Pukes into the echo chamber and how they go on Blogs using Sock Puppets to shape concensus, attack Critics and Regurgitate Lies.
I think this has a lot to do with the Current state of Politics
Last edited by dukeanthony; 11-13-2011 at 05:54 AM.
Every month more evidence piles up, suggesting that online comment threads and forums are being hijacked by people who aren't what they seem.
The anonymity of the web gives companies and governments golden opportunities to run astroturf operations: fake grassroots campaigns that create the impression that large numbers of people are demanding or opposing particular policies. This deception is most likely to occur where the interests of companies or governments come into conflict with the interests of the public. For example, there's a long history of tobacco companies creating astroturf groups to fight attempts to regulate them.
After I wrote about online astroturfing in December, I was contacted by a whistleblower. He was part of a commercial team employed to infest internet forums and comment threads on behalf of corporate clients, promoting their causes and arguing with anyone who opposed them.
Like the other members of the team, he posed as a disinterested member of the public. Or, to be more accurate, as a crowd of disinterested members of the public: he used 70 personas, both to avoid detection and to create the impression there was widespread support for his pro-corporate arguments. I'll reveal more about what he told me when I've finished the investigation I'm working on.
It now seems that these operations are more widespread, more sophisticated and more automated than most of us had guessed. Emails obtained by political hackers from a US cyber-security firm called HBGary Federal suggest that a remarkable technological armoury is being deployed to drown out the voices of real people.
They are the online equivalent of enclosure riots: the rick-burning, fence-toppling protests by English peasants losing their rights to the land. When MasterCard, Visa, PayPal and Amazon tried to shut WikiLeaks out of the cyber-commons, an army of hackers responded by trying to smash their way into these great estates and pull down their fences. In the WikiLeaks punch-up the commoners appear to have the upper hand. But it's just one battle. There's a wider cyberwar being fought, of which you hear much less. And in most cases the landlords, with the help of a mercenary army, are winning.
I'm not talking here about threats to net neutrality and the danger of a two-tier internet developing, though these are real. I'm talking about the daily attempts to control and influence content in the interests of the state and corporations: attempts in which money talks.
The weapon used by both state and corporate players is a technique known as astroturfing. An astroturf campaign is one that mimics spontaneous grassroots mobilisations but which has in reality been organised. Anyone writing a comment piece in Mandarin critical of the Chinese government, for instance, is likely to be bombarded with abuse by people purporting to be ordinary citizens, upset by the slurs against their country.
But many of them aren't upset: they are members of the 50 Cent Party, so-called because one Chinese government agency pays five mao (half a yuan) for every post its tame commenters write. Teams of these sock-puppets are hired by party leaders to drown out critical voices and derail intelligent debates.
I first came across online astroturfing in 2002, when the investigators Andy Rowell and Jonathan Matthews looked into a series of comments made by two people calling themselves Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek. They had launched ferocious attacks, across several internet forums, against a scientist whose research suggested that Mexican corn had been widely contaminated by GM pollen.
Rowell and Matthews found that one of the messages Mary Murphy had sent came from a domain owned by the Bivings Group, a PR company specialising in internet lobbying. An article on the Bivings website explained that "there are some campaigns where it would be undesirable or even disastrous to let the audience know that your organisation is directly involved … Message boards, chat rooms, and listservs are a great way to anonymously monitor what is being said. Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make postings to these outlets that present your position as an uninvolved third party."
The Bivings site also quoted a senior executive from the biotech corporation Monsanto, thanking the PR firm for its "outstanding work". When a Bivings executive was challenged by Newsnight, he admitted that the "Mary Murphy" email was sent by someone "working for Bivings" or "clients using our services". Rowell and Matthews then discovered that the IP address on Andura Smetacek's messages was assigned to Monsanto's headquarters in St Louis, Missouri. There's a nice twist to this story. AstroTurf TM – real fake grass – was developed and patented by Monsanto.
Reading comment threads on the Guardian's sites and elsewhere on the web, two patterns jump out at me. The first is that discussions of issues in which there's little money at stake tend to be a lot more civilised than debates about issues where companies stand to lose or gain billions: such as climate change, public health and corporate tax avoidance. These are often characterised by amazing levels of abuse and disruption.
Articles about the environment are hit harder by such tactics than any others. I love debate, and I often wade into the threads beneath my columns. But it's a depressing experience, as instead of contesting the issues I raise, many of those who disagree bombard me with infantile abuse, or just keep repeating a fiction, however often you discredit it. This ensures that an intelligent discussion is almost impossible – which appears to be the point.
The second pattern is the strong association between this tactic and a certain set of views: pro-corporate, anti-tax, anti-regulation. Both traditional conservatives and traditional progressives tend to be more willing to discuss an issue than these rightwing libertarians, many of whom seek to shut down debate.
So what's going on? I'm not suggesting that most of the people trying to derail these discussions are paid to do so, though I would be surprised if none were. I'm suggesting that some of the efforts to prevent intelligence from blooming seem to be organised, and that neither website hosts nor other commenters know how to respond.
For his film (Astro)Turf Wars, Taki Oldham secretly recorded a training session organised by a rightwing libertarian group called American Majority. The trainer, Austin James, was instructing Tea Party members on how to "manipulate the medium". This is what he told them: "Here's what I do. I get on Amazon; I type in 'Liberal books'. I go through and I say 'one star, one star, one star'. The flipside is you go to a conservative/ libertarian whatever, go to their products and give them five stars … This is where your kids get information: Rotten Tomatoes, Flixster. These are places where you can rate movies. So when you type in 'Movies on healthcare', I don't want Michael Moore's to come up, so I always give it bad ratings. I spend about 30 minutes a day, just click, click, click, click … If there's a place to comment, a place to rate, a place to share information, you have to do it. That's how you control the online dialogue and give our ideas a fighting chance."
Over 75% of the funding for American Majority comes from the Sam Adams Alliance. In 2008, the year in which American Majority was founded, 88% of the alliance's money came from a single donation, of $3.7m. A group that trains rightwing libertarians to distort online democratic processes was, in other words, set up with funding from a person or company with a very large wallet.
The internet is a remarkable gift, which has granted us one of the greatest democratic opportunities since universal suffrage. We're in danger of losing this global commons as it comes under assault from an army of trolls and flacks, many of them covertly organised or trained. The question for all of us – the Guardian, other websites, and everyone who benefits from this resource – is what we intend to do about it. It's time we fought back and reclaimed the internet for what it does best: exploring issues, testing ideas, opening the debate.