Difference today is you can stoke the flames of public outrage with just a few people, without even setting foot in the country, while maintaining a lot of plausible deniability, since the modern playbook relies heavily on uncertainty and confusion, meaning you can safely target allies without significant risk of being caught (even if you're caught, you can deny it and say it's hostile propaganda).
Propaganda only seems to work in two situations. The first is on topics people know nothing about. Each time the US invades some places most people couldn't even find on a map, support for it rises in accordance with the propaganda. But as people learn more, and gradually form their own values, that support tends to rapidly decline. And there are also long-term consequences, because people will remember being lied to. My views on the US war machine and geopolitics in general seem unlikely, at this point, to ever change. And they were largely formed due to the Iraq War. Irrefutable [1] and Undeniable [2] are two 21 year old articles I still go back to on occasion.
The other situation is when it's true. During the Cold War we spread endless propaganda about things like having stocked store shelves. This is doubly effective in the same way that lying propaganda is doubly ineffective. Because not only does it create a desired perception, but once people gradually find out it's really true, it also tends to turn them against their own government who invariably misrepresents such situations. Again, people don't like being lied to.
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...
[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u...
The belief that holding strong opinions protects against propaganda is dangerous. Strong opinions is where propaganda inserts its levers.
Here's AI Trump and AI Biden debating live now on Twitch (video isnt great as of today but the voices are) https://m.twitch.tv/videos/2157689323
God knows what % of the population has mental issues because we watch too much Twitter and Facebook and other crap
The Gaza Genocide is similar, the use of AI for target selection (or rather generation), the social media campaigns, using drones for killings, etc. We haven’t seen a genocide before which uses information technology to the extent it really defines whole processes of the genocide.
The first television broadcast on earth was of Hitler, and his chief propagandist, Goebbles, continues to have significant influence on modern propagandists. For instance, Biden's publicly compared the tactics Trump used in the 2020 "Big Lie" campaign to those of Goebbles. Of course, there was also the Hitler Youth, which was a pretty successful social engineering campaign.
On the computer side of things: IBM mainframes were famously an enabling technology for the holocaust and german war machine.
It's been that way with Syria conflict, too, though. A lot was shared in twitter/youtube during that one.
One thing that's seemingly a bit new is how much ordinary Israeli soldiers are sharing their behavior, empowered by their self-righteousness, I guess. Videos from shooting unarmed deaf people up close in their homes, to all kinds of calls for atrocities, actual assaults on international humanitarian aid trucks and violence against the drivers, cheerful mocking of starving people, dedicating videos of them blowing up peoples homes as gifts to their spouses back home in Israel, looting and stealing, wanton destruction of property (like going around and breaking things in someone's gift shop), burning people's houses down, etc. There's so much of this.
Entire 130k strong Israeli telegram channels are dedicated to collective cheering on and mocking of dead and suffering people: https://t.me/s/dead_terrorists Total dehumanization.
Jeez, just like those supremacists of the yesteryears Hollywood made movies to warn us about, then?
We didn't learn though.
Radical elements can find each other and (dis)organize between themself and instigate such actions between military groups outside the chain of command.
Telegram is used to for this in other current wars.
Jews are a loosely-defined, globally-distributed cultural group. Israel is a specific, concrete sovereign country. It is a bit like saying if you criticize Venezuela then you must hate "Latinos".
I know for sure that my reasons for criticizing Israel have nothing to do with dislike of Jews. Why? Because I'm inside my own mind, so I would know if I had anything against Jews or not, and I don't.
There are plenty of reasons people care more about Israel's actions than those of any random country that have nothing to do with the fact that Israel is populated mostly by Jews, including:
1. It has historical and cultural ties to Western countries, so Westerners feel naturally interested in what goes on there (see also: why people care more about what's happening in Ukraine than in other armed conflicts around the globe),
2. Israel has a much higher degree of influence over American politics than any other foreign country, which bothers people,
3. It is largely propped up by U.S. aid, so Americans feel responsible for it,
4. Because of point 3., it is one of the only global problems that Americans have a realistic chance of solving by protesting.
People are classically horrible at that kind of self evaluation and will do amazing mental gymnastics to assure themselves they have "real" reasons for their opinions rather then the truth.
Unless by point 3 and 4 you mean the complete destruction of Israel I don't see any other outcome Americans protesting could accomplish to "solve" the conflict. Though since it's hard to find a protest that isn't pushing for that maybe your right on point 4.
If I have no conscious negative feelings towards Jews, don’t treat any of the ones I know differently from anyone else (other than maybe asking them curious questions about their culture/religion), and generally don’t have any negative reaction when I find out someone is Jewish, how would you even measure or define this apparently asymptomatic anti-Semitism?
> Unless by point 3 and 4 you mean the complete destruction of Israel I don't see any other outcome Americans protesting could accomplish to "solve" the conflict.
I do not mean that and I think it’s very unlikely the protests will cause that, and to be clear, I think the maximalist demands being made by protestors (“from the river to the sea”, etc.) are too radical, but again, that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily motivated by antisemitic feelings. Perhaps sometimes they are, but it’s by no means a logical necessity.
What I think is possible to achieve by protesting is forcing Israel to back down from its own right-wing maximalist posture towards Palestinians and be open to agreeing some kind of lasting peace or at least easing up on the atrocities they’re committing (and I am mainly thinking of the atrocities they’ve been committing since long before Oct. 7th: the indefinite blockade of Gaza and the creeping settlement Swiss-cheesing the West Bank).
But the difference here is that for many in the West, they are seeing their own participation in it (ie USA, UK) with the Germans giving morale support for it. All those American Boeing-made missiles ripping apart and burning alive those little hungry toddlers camping outside in their cold tents… it tends to make people reflect a little more.
Changing the convo to talk about some other wars than Israel / Gaza is just another kind of deflection technique to avoid responsibility.
If it isn’t the antisemitism card, it’s the deflection card.
Sorry, but most of us know it’s true.
On and on. For anyone able to absorb new information, I created a YouTube playlist on this. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiJgBiONK7dILxA1zuIKJ_89e...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40519369 (May 2024)
If you keep this up we're going to have to ban you, for reasons explained on many past occasions: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
Edit for anyone concerned: yes, this principle applies regardless of which side of any political conflict an account is identified with.
After posting this, and reading the replies, I’m actually less convinced about my original point. That is, I’ve learned something.
This is not to say that the topic doesn't matter. Of course it matters, a great deal—more than almost anything that gets discussed here. But that not only doesn't change the above point, it makes it even more important.
As I said the last time I replied to you, I appreciate that your comments have mostly not been breaking the site guidelines in other ways. But the "primarily" test applies regardless.
I don't want to ban you as you've been here a long time and have used the site as intended in the past. But I have to go quite a long way back into the past before that becomes visible. This is not ok.
I got very lucky, and the very next day someone started an argument about the futility and/or propriety of user-mode TCP/IP stacks and WireGuard. I wish for you a similarly irresistible nerd snipe for whatever nerd topic lights you up. Good luck!
I’m actually way more of a lurker here. There are e.g. once a month a submission about Bayesian Analysis (and a guaranteed once a year submission about Kalman Filters) which I religiously read but hardly ever contribute to (unless a frequentist is advocating for IQ tests or other psychometric devises; then I for sure contribute; but that can lead to flame-wars easily). Every so often there is a back end engineer with an “opinion” on the front end stack which I sometimes answer for, however that often be a flame-y subject, for some reason I’m less tempted to be sucked into flamewars when the subject is actually aligned with my expertise.
Israel is using information age technology to commit and propagandize their genocide
The post expresses an opinion, but it definitely wasn't flamebait.
Of course I replied to a specific post because any reply has to do that; but I was responding to the account's use of HN over time. That's the issue here.
I wrote the GP in haste and can see how this point wasn't obvious. On the other hand it should quickly become obvious to anyone who clicks on the link I provided (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), which is the purpose of providing the link.
eg: 26 March 2024 Human Rights https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976
Citing international law, Ms. Albanese explained that genocide is defined as a specific set of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
“Specifically, Israel has committed three acts of genocide with the requisite intent: causing seriously serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group,” she said.
Furthermore, “the genocide in Gaza is the most extreme stage of a long-standing settler colonial process of erasure of the native Palestinians,” she continued.
Hilarious considering every conflict has been started by Palestine. Ceasefires broken by Hamas on multiple occasions. And there’s no settler colonial process happening now or in the past.
But let’s continue to blame Israel when Hamas kills people trying to get food or supplies. Or blame Israel when Hamas fires its own rocket at a parking lot and claims 500 dead. Let’s blame Israel for trying to wipe out a terrorist organization that’s sole purpose is to wipe out the Jewish population and wipe Israel off the map.
While Israel is quite restrained. We will keep calling it genocide even tho ACTUAL genocide is happening every day in Iran and China and Africa. It’s fun to ignore what’s happening elsewhere so we can focus on Israel and making up things that aren’t happening.
> But let’s
Please don't speak for me, or for others when expressing your opinion.
> It’s fun to ignore what’s happening elsewhere
Perhaps for you but again, please don't speak for myself or for others.
All that I've spread in my comments above (do please scroll back and check) is the message that opinions are divided.
The question "has an account been using HN primarily for political or ideological battle?" is one of the most important criteria we use in HN moderation. When it is the case, we ask an account to stop and/or end up banning it.
runarberg's comments are just a symptom of a deeper problem, dang
> This is not the 'hacker news' ranking algorithm, this is the ranking algorithm distributed with 'ARC', which is the basis for the HN algorithm, but definitely not equal to it. The biggest missing ingredients are flagged posts dropping off quicker and posts that contain no URL dropping off quicker but there are quite a few other subtle tweaks.
Not really "public".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40589862
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40589978
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40590128
I don't see how I could have been much clearer, so if you read those posts and still have a question that isn't addressed, I'd be curious to know what it is.
The Rohingya genocide in Myanmar in which Facebook’s role was widely discussed (largely, in the first world, after the fact) was probably the first social media age genocide, if you don't restrict it to ones with immediate first-world attention at a significant level.
No, its not. Heck, the Holocaust used information technology for target selection.
> The Rohingya Genocide does not e.g. use drones
The genocides in the former Yugoslavia used most of the weapons of then-modern warfare, which may not have included drones but certainly involved plenty of weapons systems that incorporate "information technology" in doing the killings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cyber_Command is the closest thing that we have today. It's not a formal branch, though, but rather a joint effort across the existing branches.
A cursory look and it seems Germany and China were first to having a specific branch, but China dissolved theirs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_and_Information_Domain_S...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Str...
Why internet is the battlefield? Because everything in our world is based on an opinion. You can sell a lot of bs to your “client” if he has “correct” opinion.
Bad news, our opinion system was designed for groups and villages, not for the internet.
Internet is a communications medium. It was destined to be flooded with propaganda, whatever you try to call your particular flavour.
Or as I have been saying since the 1990's, the only difference between marketing and propaganda is that with marketing at least you are trying to peddle a product instead of an ideology.
Quite often I default to the word propaganda when talking about anyone's PR campaigns in my own personal battle with trying to undo this. I ratchet it up when talking directly to marketing/PR people. Pretty much every time I'm just looked at as yet another crazy person.
Literally the raison d'etre of PR | propaganda is to distract, to replace, to (in modern terms) throw a dead cat on the table and have everybody talk about that.
I disagree, ideologies are often already in there, even when they are simplistic "power-tools are for men and all men require power-tools", or "having better stuff than your neighbors is a virtue, failing to do so will lead to dangerous ostracization."
Very tame "Our blender spins twice as fast as the competition" marketing might be arguably free of ideology, but that's a decreasing minority.
I disagree. This isn't peddling an ideology, it's using an existing ideology (or stereotype) in order to peddle a product. A company with a marketing campaign targeting men isn't going to refuse to sell power tools to women, they're just designing their marketing campaign in a way they think will maximize sales overall, using existing biases and ideologies that potential customers already have. Normal companies don't care about ideology unless it helps them make more money, which is their true goal.
That’s not how this works. “The medium is the message,” as Marshall McLuhan would say.
A woman may never consider buying power tools because of the imagery of the propaganda surrounding power tools. Or the salesman may undermine, intimidate, or otherwise obstruct her attempts to purchase one. But regardless your point falls apart because the ideology of capitalism underlying the power tools on the shelf subsumes the ideology of the advertising.
That subsumption, however, does not in any way contraindicate those ideologies present in the advertisement’s framing. It only demonstrates that money is more important than the other ideologies being peddled.
Marketing often includes the peddling of an ideology as a foundation for the product buying, especially for big-ticket items. (One buys the product that fits and signals one’s ideology.) To me, this makes marketing even more insidious as we often focus on the product rather than the message. Think Ford, Tesla, Apple …
And guns.
The difference now is the speed, cost and scale. It is super cheap to spread crap today than ever. Also it is quick and the reach is massive.
By the way, Manufacturing Consent is a depressing book. You’d lose what little faith you have in media, if you read it…
Maybe it's not what I should remember most, but it did help remind me that when your livelihood is based on what you say you will be much more measured, regardless of the subject.
Probably why people look to social media or Substack for more independent people who have a longer leash, less on the line, and more to gain, since that's where you get your interesting although many times wrong takes (e.g. Ivermectin for Covid, or Lab Leak Theory)
The stated purpose was to flatten the curve.
> Who benefited?
The government.
> How?
By giving the impression that they were doing something.
> Why were the curfews necessary to achieve those goals?
They weren't, as far as we know. In Quebec's case they were still scrambling to justify them a few hours before the press conference:
https://www.thesuburban.com/news/legault-s-curfew-decision-w...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/curfew-legality-queb...
You believe there was ulterior motives for the curfew being put in place. You say the used the reason to flatten the curve, which clearly implies that's not what you believe was the actual purpose. So, please, tell me/us what you believe the actual purpose of the action taken.
I don't think it is necessary to insult people as 'conspiracy nutters' on here. If you don't want to discuss something with someone, just give them a downvote and move on. No need to be uncivil.
How curfews can slow the spread of a virus, I have no idea. If you want to slow a virus's spread, you do it by isolating people and preventing them from mingling. A curfew doesn't do that; it just forces them to mingle during a shorter number of hours in a day, which if anything helps the virus spread by increasing the density of people mingling. The allegation that it was just governments trying to look like they're doing something useful is not an unreasonable charge. Any idiot can tell you that preventing someone from going on a bike ride in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere is not going to help stop a pandemic, but this is exactly what several governments did.
Yes, but this doesn't mean that you know the actual purpose.
>So what purpose were you proposing?
I'm not proposing anything; I didn't propose a conspiracy happened, the OP did. I'm just explaining that the conspiracy theorist doesn't have to allege a specific purpose.
As for the curfews, my theory is that it was just plain anti-science stupidity, plus wanting to look like they're doing something, like many political decisions. If you disagree, please explain how someone riding a bicycle outdoors in a rural area with no other humans around somehow spreads a virus. Only countries with truly stupid leadership even had restrictions like these (i.e., UK, they're the only one I know of actually).
The US hasn't been especially loud about it, but it's been a dominant force in 'internet warfare.'
how competent they actually are at this, who knows...
If anything, this makes me question the accuracy of historical events that happened before humanity had access to such tools.
Cyber Force!
They have cyber marines, cyber carriers, cyber destroyers, cyber bombers, cyber jets, and cyber drones. They even have their own sister agency called Veterans Affairs where veterans can go to get virtual healthcare treatment.
US military spent over half a billion on war propaganda - outsourced to experts.
Just waiting for a random US future president to create an "Internet" branch of the military. Maybe that's already happened.