"Why do authoritarian governments secretly fund sympathetic media personalities in enemy countries?" seems like a question that answers itself.

Are the mentioned “media personalities “(Tim Pool) really sympathetic to authoritarianism?

From what little I’ve seen, no. I only know Tim Pool from his accurate portrayal of Swedens failed immigration experiment. Perhaps he’s now yet another boot licker?

He is openly pro-Putin.

Does “88” in your handle mean what I think it means?

No, and it is obvious from my comment history on this site as well.

Where has he expressed support for Putin?

Authoritarian? That's what Americans do to Russia for 15 years.

"By 2010, the military began using social media tools, leveraging phony accounts to spread messages of sympathetic local voices – themselves often secretly paid by the United States government. As time passed, a growing web of military and intelligence contractors built online news websites to pump U.S.-approved narratives into foreign countries. Today, the military employs a sprawling ecosystem of social media influencers, front groups and covertly placed digital advertisements to influence overseas audiences, according to current and former military officials.

...

Nevertheless, the Pentagon’s clandestine propaganda efforts are set to continue. In an unclassified strategy document last year, top Pentagon generals wrote that the U.S. military could undermine adversaries such as China and Russia using “disinformation spread across social media, false narratives disguised as news, and similar subversive activities [to] weaken societal trust by undermining the foundations of government.”" [0]

[0] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covi...

Because the legacy institutions built up after WWII are losing all of the power they've carefully built up, and now have to shameless smear and discredit anyone that strays from their narrative. The legacy institutions cannot directly refute the Internet-based mainstream media because they can't report anything that would put themselves at existential risk.

You have to understand, there are people that have built their entire lives around this blob of power. People spend 20-50+ years there, and for the first time since JFK there is a very real risk of an outsider threatening to up-end all of the personal career goals decades in the making. And these people don't have useful real-world skills, if they did, they would be making 2-3x their current salary in the private sector. The people there are either completely helpless, or deranged power-drunk sociopaths. The former are really not anyone's concern, but the later most definitely are.

It also doesn't help that these people have used every single dirty trick imaginable to try to prevent it with an air of supreme arrogance and confidence that immediately blows up in their faces. If any these these desperate measured worked, they would negatively affect the outsider's polling, but it does the opposite suggesting the voters have total contempt for the establishment and are keenly aware of their buffoonery. Given that context, if the outsider does win, it's would not be unreasonable to assume the voters want the outsider to use the full power of the military to completely refresh the civil service.

What's it like to be them?

I think when you run for Congress or POTUS, one has to (rightfully) be optimistic and hopeful in a way that resembles a greenfield project. The problem is, in reality, you're inheriting a project that has been iterated upon for many, many generations. There are so many levels of abstraction that have been created to manage this, that it makes even having productive conversations about fundamental problems impossible because there are too many that have to sit in a room at once. Even if it does happen, it's going to be with folks that have built an extensive network of government vampires they can bat-signal other departments to sabotage efforts.

So given this reality, the elected officials that do genuinely have pure intentions either have to compromise, and continue maintaining the existing codebase, or become a heretic and suggest doing a rewrite.

There are also lots of unpolitical government departments that deserve to be left completely in tact. Departments that are soley mission driven and have a purpose are good in my book, and I say that as a very staunch anarcho-capitalist. I'm thinking NOAA, for example. Yes, they get a few drops of money for political efforts, but that's not their fucking job in any meaningful way. Same with the FAA.

That's why:

"By 2010, the military began using social media tools, leveraging phony accounts to spread messages of sympathetic local voices – themselves often secretly paid by the United States government. As time passed, a growing web of military and intelligence contractors built online news websites to pump U.S.-approved narratives into foreign countries. Today, the military employs a sprawling ecosystem of social media influencers, front groups and covertly placed digital advertisements to influence overseas audiences, according to current and former military officials.

...

Nevertheless, the Pentagon’s clandestine propaganda efforts are set to continue. In an unclassified strategy document last year, top Pentagon generals wrote that the U.S. military could undermine adversaries such as China and Russia using “disinformation spread across social media, false narratives disguised as news, and similar subversive activities [to] weaken societal trust by undermining the foundations of government.”" [0]

Don't like it now, do you?

[0] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covi...