7 ms·

The following comment might seem off-topic, but it's not. There are well-known techniques to propaganda, and it is important that we recognize them by now or we

The following comment might seem off-topic, but it's not. There are well-known techniques to propaganda, and it is important that we recognize them by now or we will continue to be victimized by it. Also, we cannot wait until we have certain evidence of propaganda to point it out: It's very rarely certain that something is propaganda - that would be poor execution indeed, violating its basic purpose - so we cannot give propaganda the benefit of the doubt, wait for certainty to call it what it is, and therefore empower it. That benefit of the doubt is normal, healthy good faith, but propaganda is a parasite on good faith; good faith is a tool of manipulation for propaganda, used to take advantage of others. Here are some techniques I know; I'd be interested in more or where I can find useful research and expertise about it: * Create uncertainty. The strategy is not to persuade people, but to create enough uncertainty to disable them and disable debate. One way to do this is to question every possible flaw in the evidence; in reality, nothing is so clear-cut that there aren't questions (and that especially applies to intelligence operations). * Make many baseless claims in order to force others onto defense and occupy all their resources. A baseless allegation takes seconds to make but hours or days to defend. Also, many people remember only the first headline, the baseless allegation, and don't see the followup story. Again, it's a way of disabling debate. By design, it's tough to deal with propaganda - it's tough to continue intelligent, valuable discussion in the face of it. I'm not sure of the answer, but comments matching those techniques, such as the parent, seem to appear when Russia is discussed, for example. One thing I do is to look for whether the comment adds substantive knowledge to the debate, or whether it just increases uncertainty about others and includes baseless information (unsubstantiated claims and rumors). Do I know more about the subject after reading the comment, or less? EDIT: Clarified my purpose in the first paragraph.

jwtadvice 9y ago
Hi! I'm the parent user you've implied may be a propagandist for Russia. Your comment does the following: * Create uncertainty. * Make many baseless claims in order to force others onto defense and occupy all their resources. And we can seriously ask the question "Do I know more about the subject after reading (your) comment, or less?" (I think the answer is less - there's a great many things we could discuss about propaganda techniques that look nothing like the sophomoric list you've supplied). Are you a propagandist, by your own criteria? I don't think so. Can you see how your criteria for finding propagandists isn't even useful? I'm not one either. In fact, if you think I am the appropriate avenue is to alert the moderators. In any case my comment is extremely informative and adds substantive knowledge to the debate, and people know more about the subject after reading my comment. Figure I need to get in here to reply before this whole thread turns into a witch-hunting exercise.
- linkregister 9y ago
  I disagree with your original comment. I absolutely agree with this one. Your original comment certainly added to the discussion, and was well-reasoned (though I disagree with its conclusion).
  - hackuser 9y ago
    As a thought experiment: What in that comment allows you to distinguish propaganda from good faith substance? It's a serious question; maybe I'll learn something! Here's how I look at it: What knowledge did it add? By knowledge, I mean something substantiated and serious; claims and allegations are not knowledge. "President X did nothing to stop the advance of Y" is a claim. "President X said the following about their policy on Y; as you can see, it's a relatively passive position: '...' [from http://...]" http://...]" is substantiated knowledge (and admittedly, much on HN isn't substantiated). (I don't mean to be the arbiter of or set rules for validity and knowledge; I'm just trying to give a rough idea of the distinction I'm trying to make.)
    - linkregister 9y ago
      [paraphrased] > The Shadow Brokers mentioned X. Why didn't Bruce mention it? > The CIA had an internal hunt for contractors. Why didn't Bruce include this in his analysis? That was information I hadn't known or had forgotten. I found it useful. jwtadvice is critiquing an opinion piece. Following your rubric, practically every comment in here will be indistinguishable from propaganda. This is because we're commenting on an opinion piece, which itself is indistinguishable from propaganda. In fact, I assert that the most fact-laden article can be propaganda because it can completely ignore facts supporting the opposition. Why would you be commenting about this? Because you're doing the same thing we're doing, commenting on a forum because it's fun to discuss stuff. Sure, maybe jwtadvice is a secret propagandist. Maybe I am. I think it's a waste of time to accuse people of it unless there's substance. A more specific criticism is more appropriate: "You're just concern trolling by saying X." "You're spreading FUD about this topic without evidence. Let's wait and see." "You're changing the goal posts in order to 'be right'. Debate me on my argument." Etc.
empath75 9y ago
I think something that makes propaganda difficult to deal with is that you are fundamentally dealing with someone who is not operating in good faith. Usually when reporters work or people argue, they're generally trying to arrive at the truth, even if it's in a flawed way. For the propagandist, truth is merely another tool in the toolkit, and they'll use it when it advances their purpose and discard it when it doesn't. The same goes with logic and reason. The propogandist will in fact use the truth and reason and logic as much as possible for the simple reason that it's so effective. This is why Wikileaks was so devastating. As far as I know, there was nothing fabricated in any of it, but it produced an inaccurate impression of the candidates because one side had all their dirty laundry aired in public and he other side operated in secrecy. You'd be a fool to think that a similar release of RNC and Trump emails wouldn't have produced just as much damaging material. So now the counter-propagandist is put in the difficult position of arguing against the publishing of the truth, not a particular nice place to be, rhetorically. I think the only way to effectively fight it is our own countermeasures, fighting the truth with more truth. Unfortunately, the executive branch of the us and the U.K. is thoroughly compromised, so the west is going to have to rely on France and Germany to step up their games.
- jwtadvice 9y ago
  This is what makes most propaganda devastating. What you are talking about is "white propaganda": telling the truth but in a manner that creates a useful perception. This is unfortunately the basis of most information and news media today, as even "free" media industries compete to tell the stories and gain the access of intelligence and national security reporting (how we got the Iraq War propaganda in the US, how today the media industry is spreading "Russia did everything" nonsense, the current media sprint repeating propaganda about the situation in North Korea and the DPRK government's intentions). > So now the counter-propagandist is put in the difficult position of arguing against the publishing of the truth, not a particular nice place to be, rhetorically. Exactly. I would emphasize that "truth" is not a binary thing but a highly contextual and multidimensional device. Merely changing a headline or picture sets tone and dramatically alters perception - add to that editing, media campaigning, social media astroturfing, selective synonym choice... "Perception management" is an regular propaganda term employed by the Department of Defense for this reason. The facts can be useful, but ultimately the objective is to change minds and decision making and to affect outcomes. And so you may be the subject of perception management that utilizes (aspects of) truth. The most effective way of countering propaganda is to seek nuance when presented with characterizations, try to understand dispassionately the situation from every side, and to be skeptical of especially the things that you most routinely would like to agree. Ironically this usually means consuming more propaganda on purpose: specifically looking for the narrative position of the United States, Russia, Britain, China, etc on various issues. This is also why it's an extremely good idea to read international news from all parties in a conflict during the entire duration of an event (e.g. Syrian Civil-Proxy War).
neuronexmachina 9y ago
The RAND think-tank published a pretty good white paper last year on the Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" propaganda model, which seems in line with what you're describing. http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
- 100ideas 9y ago
  RAND's analysis applies to Trump's media strategy as well.

jwtadvice 9y ago

Hi! I'm the parent user you've implied may be a propagandist for Russia. Your comment does the following: * Create uncertainty. * Make many baseless claims in order to force others onto defense and occupy all their resources. And we can seriously ask the question "Do I know more about the subject after reading (your) comment, or less?" (I think the answer is less - there's a great many things we could discuss about propaganda techniques that look nothing like the sophomoric list you've supplied). Are you a propagandist, by your own criteria? I don't think so. Can you see how your criteria for finding propagandists isn't even useful? I'm not one either. In fact, if you think I am the appropriate avenue is to alert the moderators. In any case my comment is extremely informative and adds substantive knowledge to the debate, and people know more about the subject after reading my comment. Figure I need to get in here to reply before this whole thread turns into a witch-hunting exercise.

linkregister 9y ago
I disagree with your original comment. I absolutely agree with this one. Your original comment certainly added to the discussion, and was well-reasoned (though I disagree with its conclusion).
- hackuser 9y ago
  As a thought experiment: What in that comment allows you to distinguish propaganda from good faith substance? It's a serious question; maybe I'll learn something! Here's how I look at it: What knowledge did it add? By knowledge, I mean something substantiated and serious; claims and allegations are not knowledge. "President X did nothing to stop the advance of Y" is a claim. "President X said the following about their policy on Y; as you can see, it's a relatively passive position: '...' [from http://...]" http://...]" is substantiated knowledge (and admittedly, much on HN isn't substantiated). (I don't mean to be the arbiter of or set rules for validity and knowledge; I'm just trying to give a rough idea of the distinction I'm trying to make.)
  - linkregister 9y ago
    [paraphrased] > The Shadow Brokers mentioned X. Why didn't Bruce mention it? > The CIA had an internal hunt for contractors. Why didn't Bruce include this in his analysis? That was information I hadn't known or had forgotten. I found it useful. jwtadvice is critiquing an opinion piece. Following your rubric, practically every comment in here will be indistinguishable from propaganda. This is because we're commenting on an opinion piece, which itself is indistinguishable from propaganda. In fact, I assert that the most fact-laden article can be propaganda because it can completely ignore facts supporting the opposition. Why would you be commenting about this? Because you're doing the same thing we're doing, commenting on a forum because it's fun to discuss stuff. Sure, maybe jwtadvice is a secret propagandist. Maybe I am. I think it's a waste of time to accuse people of it unless there's substance. A more specific criticism is more appropriate: "You're just concern trolling by saying X." "You're spreading FUD about this topic without evidence. Let's wait and see." "You're changing the goal posts in order to 'be right'. Debate me on my argument." Etc.

empath75 9y ago

I think something that makes propaganda difficult to deal with is that you are fundamentally dealing with someone who is not operating in good faith. Usually when reporters work or people argue, they're generally trying to arrive at the truth, even if it's in a flawed way. For the propagandist, truth is merely another tool in the toolkit, and they'll use it when it advances their purpose and discard it when it doesn't. The same goes with logic and reason. The propogandist will in fact use the truth and reason and logic as much as possible for the simple reason that it's so effective. This is why Wikileaks was so devastating. As far as I know, there was nothing fabricated in any of it, but it produced an inaccurate impression of the candidates because one side had all their dirty laundry aired in public and he other side operated in secrecy. You'd be a fool to think that a similar release of RNC and Trump emails wouldn't have produced just as much damaging material. So now the counter-propagandist is put in the difficult position of arguing against the publishing of the truth, not a particular nice place to be, rhetorically. I think the only way to effectively fight it is our own countermeasures, fighting the truth with more truth. Unfortunately, the executive branch of the us and the U.K. is thoroughly compromised, so the west is going to have to rely on France and Germany to step up their games.

jwtadvice 9y ago
This is what makes most propaganda devastating. What you are talking about is "white propaganda": telling the truth but in a manner that creates a useful perception. This is unfortunately the basis of most information and news media today, as even "free" media industries compete to tell the stories and gain the access of intelligence and national security reporting (how we got the Iraq War propaganda in the US, how today the media industry is spreading "Russia did everything" nonsense, the current media sprint repeating propaganda about the situation in North Korea and the DPRK government's intentions). > So now the counter-propagandist is put in the difficult position of arguing against the publishing of the truth, not a particular nice place to be, rhetorically. Exactly. I would emphasize that "truth" is not a binary thing but a highly contextual and multidimensional device. Merely changing a headline or picture sets tone and dramatically alters perception - add to that editing, media campaigning, social media astroturfing, selective synonym choice... "Perception management" is an regular propaganda term employed by the Department of Defense for this reason. The facts can be useful, but ultimately the objective is to change minds and decision making and to affect outcomes. And so you may be the subject of perception management that utilizes (aspects of) truth. The most effective way of countering propaganda is to seek nuance when presented with characterizations, try to understand dispassionately the situation from every side, and to be skeptical of especially the things that you most routinely would like to agree. Ironically this usually means consuming more propaganda on purpose: specifically looking for the narrative position of the United States, Russia, Britain, China, etc on various issues. This is also why it's an extremely good idea to read international news from all parties in a conflict during the entire duration of an event (e.g. Syrian Civil-Proxy War).

neuronexmachina 9y ago

The RAND think-tank published a pretty good white paper last year on the Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" propaganda model, which seems in line with what you're describing. http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

100ideas 9y ago
RAND's analysis applies to Trump's media strategy as well.