10 ms·

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 i

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.
    - hackuser 9y ago
      > That was information I hadn't known or had forgotten Fair enough, but how do you know that it's true? That's part of propaganda, to make many unsubstantiated claims that people generally will accept without checking - who has time? > Following your rubric, practically every comment in here will be indistinguishable from propaganda In fairness I said that myself; it is a high standard that often isn't met, but it's not hopeless: Many comments do say things that are substantiated (or well-known - 'the sun rises in the east' doesn't need a cite) and they don't follow other patterns of propaganda. But as I said, it is difficult. Good or even decent propaganda isn't easily distinguished - otherwise it wouldn't be effective.
      - linkregister 9y ago
        Excellent rebuttal (I'm not being sarcastic). I had not checked that the SB actually claimed they got the tools from a left-behind Equation Group pivot server. Or that it's even relevant, because there's plenty of contradictory stuff in their public statements (in the last dump they claim they're inside the IC and they write "Cyber Policy Papers"). I'll say that you have absolutely added to the conversation.
hackuser 9y ago
As I said, it's tough to deal with propaganda, and I think the immediate parent comment supports that point. First, people often spread propaganda without repeating it. There was interesting research a little while ago showing how propaganda stories spread across the Internet; most of the propagation is done unknowingly. Also, others simply use the techniques without realizing it. If they don't intend it to be propaganda, is it? I think it doesn't matter, unless we want to shift focus from the comment to the speaker - a falsehood is just as false independently of the speaker, no matter what the speaker's intent. Ah, uncertainty, a primary tool of the trade. How do you point out propaganda, politely? One defensive tactic, both of the propagandist and of a normal person (again, it's never certain), is to frame it as a personal attack. Also, it's one thing to point it out with the personal distance of a online message board; what do you say to someone you are talking to - 'those are propaganda talking points'? That's rude, but otherwise you empower it. Again, it's a parasite on good faith and politeness. This discussion is a tangent, but a very important one: What to do? Doing nothing, politely ignoring it, is to empower it. We've seen disastrous consequences from that, both historically and we seem to be heading in that direction now.
- jwtadvice 9y ago
  I would agree with most of this, but add that the comment could very well be talking about US domestic propaganda and the falsehood narrative that "Russia is behind it." Essentially it's this: there are many narratives for explaining what's going on provided by different sources of authority and different avenues of information dispersal. Much of it is consistent with a propaganda narrative by the United States, Israel, Russia, Britain, China or another active "strategic communication"/"public messaging" campaigner. Thinking that any one of these narratives is wholeistic truth (for example the US domestic propaganda) and then charging forward critical of any true facts that inconvenience that propaganda or are consistent with a competing one is not the solution to the problem. And thus the track that this thread has gone down: inconvenient truths about the gaps, assumptions and conspiracies that support a broader US propaganda position are being called into question not as facts but because merely contributing these facts into the discussion could be conceivably be supportive of a competing narrative. That's ultimately how these propaganda programs function: they overwhelm your instinctual capability to reason about facts in a manner that is divorced from reaffirmation of the propaganda bubble. I don't know how to help you get out of it other than to call it out to you.

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.
  - hackuser 9y ago
    > That was information I hadn't known or had forgotten Fair enough, but how do you know that it's true? That's part of propaganda, to make many unsubstantiated claims that people generally will accept without checking - who has time? > Following your rubric, practically every comment in here will be indistinguishable from propaganda In fairness I said that myself; it is a high standard that often isn't met, but it's not hopeless: Many comments do say things that are substantiated (or well-known - 'the sun rises in the east' doesn't need a cite) and they don't follow other patterns of propaganda. But as I said, it is difficult. Good or even decent propaganda isn't easily distinguished - otherwise it wouldn't be effective.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      Excellent rebuttal (I'm not being sarcastic). I had not checked that the SB actually claimed they got the tools from a left-behind Equation Group pivot server. Or that it's even relevant, because there's plenty of contradictory stuff in their public statements (in the last dump they claim they're inside the IC and they write "Cyber Policy Papers"). I'll say that you have absolutely added to the conversation.

hackuser 9y ago

As I said, it's tough to deal with propaganda, and I think the immediate parent comment supports that point. First, people often spread propaganda without repeating it. There was interesting research a little while ago showing how propaganda stories spread across the Internet; most of the propagation is done unknowingly. Also, others simply use the techniques without realizing it. If they don't intend it to be propaganda, is it? I think it doesn't matter, unless we want to shift focus from the comment to the speaker - a falsehood is just as false independently of the speaker, no matter what the speaker's intent. Ah, uncertainty, a primary tool of the trade. How do you point out propaganda, politely? One defensive tactic, both of the propagandist and of a normal person (again, it's never certain), is to frame it as a personal attack. Also, it's one thing to point it out with the personal distance of a online message board; what do you say to someone you are talking to - 'those are propaganda talking points'? That's rude, but otherwise you empower it. Again, it's a parasite on good faith and politeness. This discussion is a tangent, but a very important one: What to do? Doing nothing, politely ignoring it, is to empower it. We've seen disastrous consequences from that, both historically and we seem to be heading in that direction now.

jwtadvice 9y ago
I would agree with most of this, but add that the comment could very well be talking about US domestic propaganda and the falsehood narrative that "Russia is behind it." Essentially it's this: there are many narratives for explaining what's going on provided by different sources of authority and different avenues of information dispersal. Much of it is consistent with a propaganda narrative by the United States, Israel, Russia, Britain, China or another active "strategic communication"/"public messaging" campaigner. Thinking that any one of these narratives is wholeistic truth (for example the US domestic propaganda) and then charging forward critical of any true facts that inconvenience that propaganda or are consistent with a competing one is not the solution to the problem. And thus the track that this thread has gone down: inconvenient truths about the gaps, assumptions and conspiracies that support a broader US propaganda position are being called into question not as facts but because merely contributing these facts into the discussion could be conceivably be supportive of a competing narrative. That's ultimately how these propaganda programs function: they overwhelm your instinctual capability to reason about facts in a manner that is divorced from reaffirmation of the propaganda bubble. I don't know how to help you get out of it other than to call it out to you.