Every time I see a revelation of what a spy agency does, I see someone making a statement like this. I'm not sure it is very helpful to the discussion, because it treats the situation as expected and dismisses people's concerns about it. It's a cynical thing to do, and begets more cynicism. And cynicism is appealing, because the revelations keep coming, keep getting worse, and efforts to counter them are outnumbered by efforts to make the situation worse. But I don't think we should give up in trying to raise awareness and understanding, and trying to fix the damage.

I accept the charge of cynicism. I am not saying we shouldn't do anything about it, though. The distinction is important.

But it does beg the question: if we knew it then, and it bothered us, why didn't we do something about it then?

There's a distinct difference between suspecting something or knowing it's probable or likely, and seeing evidence that it's actually happening.

Are you suggesting that the only reason we didn't get outraged sooner at the spy agencies is because we didn't have evidence?

...speaking of 'unhelpful' to the conversation, please explain what 'We' can do about it? Nothing. The fact is that CONgress actually legalized domestic propaganda (which is what this is).

'raising awareness' does nothing as the snowden incident showed us. 1984 is the SOP now.

But it's not domestic. The article specifically states that this is not be used on US based sites. Posts are not in English.

Not saying some other program doesn't potentially exist but this particular program is aimed at sites in the Middle East and Asia. From the article: languages in which the interventions are conducted include Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto.

The problem, as I see it, is (the Alphabet Agency) has a proven ability and now authorization to do X to Y but promises to never to do it to Z. This is the point where trust comes into the equation. As has been shown via FISA courts, warrantless eavesdropping & sneak/peak ex post facto warrant abuses, trust no longer exists. Sorta like how the US vehemently denied torture until disclosures & evidence mounted so high they couldn't keep up appearances & now hem & haw about how somebody will be held accountable... some day.

tldr: If they have the ability, you can depend on them finding a credible(sic) excuse for using it just that one, initial time. Thus starts the tide of more rationalizations and the ultimate abuses to follow.

If that's unhelpful to the discussion, why should we discuss it at all? Isn't the point of discussing a problem finding a solution to it?

truth cones in three phases:

First, it is mocked and ridiculed.

Second, it is vehemently/violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as self-evident.