Here's another paper by the same author arguing that people who believe wrong things should be covertly manipulated by government agents to induce them to not believe wrong things.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

At first I thought you were editorializing a little bit; I expected to see conspiracy theories discussed objectively, with theoretical solutions. But you're right, it does seem like they are seriously arguing in favor of eliminating conspiracy theories as a way of protecting society.

Some of the suggestions seem reasonable and beneficial, but they seem to have missed the grand irony in suggesting things like "cognitive infiltration of conspiracy theorist communities by government agents" as a way of somehow making conspiracy theorists trust the government before... Nor did they discuss what would happen to their debunking effort if the scheme was somehow leaked or discovered.

edit: I am definitely not the first person to notice this irony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#.22Conspiracy_The...

It's also important to note that Cass Sunstein was hired into the US government after that work, after which both the Smith-Mundt Act was eviscerated and the Air Force as well as other branches of the government developed workflows for 'engaging public opinion'.

The undertone of all of this is that there is a propaganda war going on across the internet and through foreign media companies (and sometimes through NGOs and CSOs) between nations - one component of what is now referred to as hybrid war. The US feels that it needs to respond to the activities of other nations and in particular Russia - though Russia and other nations feel they needs to respond to the US (which propagandizes overseas liberally).

I always try to find redemptive irony in the fact that those most blinded by misleading ideas are themselves disposed to proclaim that it is actually all others others who suffer that affliction.

Silly article, written deliberately in an ivory-tower manner. Of course people manipulate others. Its the purpose of language. Of course the law allows it; its called salesmanship and is at the core of a free market.

Personally I would argue that the purpose of language is communication without any particular prominence placed on manipulation. The laws expressly forbids deception so I would also argue that manipulation is at the core of fraudulent behaviour and that mutual benefit is at the core of a free market.

The 'free' part of the free market means each actor is allowed to work for their own best interest. To convince others to act in a way that's beneficial to oneself is at least an important purpose of language. Mutual benefit is an accidental result of SOME forms of market.

Do you realise you've just said that no one can trust anything you say to them, because they can never be sure if you're misleading them for your personal benefit?

No, I've said that folks communicate AT ALL because it helps them. "Where do you want to go for lunch?" is a loaded question, designed to get food and company. The point is, the OP was making foolish claims that there's something wrong with this.

A 'free' market supposes that the consumer has all the available information he needs to make the most rational choice for his own best interest. Deception of the consumer is not a primary part of the (mostly theoretical) free markets.

That is why laws exist to protect the consumer from provider deception. The question, related to this topic, is just how manipulative are you able to be before you are being deceptive?

Don't know where you got that. The 'free' part of free market means the seller can set their price any way they wish - the market prices are not set by any authority. In such a market "let the buyer beware" is the norm. The information available to the consumer is another issue entirely, and no assumption of perfect knowledge is assumed.

Well, social communication. And deception and manipulation are surely a part of human social communication, not least child rearing.

I disagree. The primary purpose of language is to help one give form to their thoughts. Communication is secondary to this.

I tend to think in pictures. Those are form to my thoughts. On the other hand, I can't really tell you about things that are in my head without words (but diagrams really help me get my point across and understand your point).

The primary purpose of language is to facilitate social communication in primates.

I very much agree with you this time, Joe.

Manipulation is everywhere. Those that don't acknowledge it deserves being manipulated. You can't ignore such a huge part of all social interactions and expect that it will go away.

Manipulation happens in technology too, where it is called "hacking".

Next time I find a salesman on my doorstep, I'll have him arrested for attempting to hack into my brain :)

"Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires." - Steven Kaas

Cass Sunstein is a borderline seditious man, and I don't think he should be given nearly the amount of respect he is. His papers, from his younger days up until today, are rife with unconstitutional and blatantly globalist views. I will admit his views are not drivel, and should be evaluated on their own merits, but they are the same views largely held by the supranational oligarchical aristocracy, which is exactly the reason I find him to be so dangerous.

This is a man that has, amongst other things:

1. Advocated the use of sock-puppets (aka persona mangement) to conduct cognitive infiltration of dissent groups, primarily targeting "conspiracy theorists".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OIiOztc52g

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

2. Encouraged the censorship of the internet via changes to libel laws.

http://www.amazon.com/On-Rumors-Falsehoods-Spread-Believe/dp...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1966:

3. Has argued (very subtly) against the founders vision of the Constitution, seeking to reinterpret it outside the setup mechanisms.

"Now, it is alarming to people who want to believe in the unitary executive, like me, that the 19th-century writers thought this was self-evident. [The unitary executive theory holds that a powerful president controls the entire executive branch.] That's the policy recommendation and the conclusion that the Constitution is largely, not entirely, but largely irrelevant. Now, I say what I've said about the Constitutional matter with considerable regret. I wish it weren't so. The executive department's vision of the Constitution, with the president on top and the administration below, has elegance and simplicity and tremendous appeal. It would make much more sense, I submit, given our current situation, to have a Constitution in which the president is on top of administration is below. But that was not the founder's original conception. The Constitution does not speak in those terms…. Because the conclusion that I've reached seems to me so unfortunate, I'm trying hard to figure out what can be done about it…. One thing that perhaps can be done about it is to say, well, we shouldn't really be originalists about the meaning of the Constitution. Maybe Judge Bork had wrong. Maybe we should think that the Constitution has a high degree of flexibility. Maybe it's a changing and living document. Now, under that conception of Constitutional interpretation, maybe we can have the ingredients of a new unitary executive idea."

http://www.amazon.com/The-Partial-Constitution-Cass-Sunstein...

4. Has proposed that conspiracy theories be banned outright, taxed, censored, and subverted.

"Our main policy claim here is the government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

4. Actively interfered with various regulatory proposals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/cass-sunsteins-resi...?

5. Was appointed as one of the people to the "independent" NSA review panel, which then prepared a report to James Clapper (who should be tried for blatantly lying to congress), who then would report about the report to the president about his own organization...

Not exactly the kind of guy I want everyone taking cues on for policy decisions, and definitely not the kind of guy I would expect HN readers to support, particularly given his involvement in "cognitive infiltration" groups.

He also wrote the book "Nudge", that was more or less how government policymakers can convince people to do things by shaping the environment so that they still feel they made free choices (through constrained options and psychological manipulation.)

Active infiltration of conspiracy theorist groups seems like exactly the kind of thing that would lend credence to conspiracy theories, not to mention directly proving the "the government is watching me and wants to brainwash me" ones entirely true.

This was the in-depth comment I was looking for. Thank you for taking the time to write this up.

of course I had to scroll to the bottom of the thread to read this post. Why wouldn't be buried? it's far too useful to be seen by critical thinkers.