Interesting and full of both fair points and unintended irony. It seems complicated but it can be simplified:
`1. The first problem with "disinformation" counter measures is who gets to define what is "truth" and what is "dis".
2. If it doesn't pass a logical consistency test, it's probably propaganda
What the record shows is that "To counter propaganda and disinformation" different propaganda and disinformation is used. There is a pretty visible clue.
Logical consistency: The claims Russia would use social media to attempt to influence public opinion are certainly plausible. So sure. And why not? Media, all media, is first and always a means to influence people. The point of open discourse. Where's the crime? See there's point one - assert that something normal is abnormal and thus a threat.
But even before seeing that BS, the idea that Russia would do so to favor the election of Trump makes no sense at all. If one simply looked at "what favors Vlad" it is clear it was Clinton, not Trump. Clinton == more of the same policies that were very favorable to Putin. Trump == ???.
In 2016 Putin's Russia was doing great under the policies of the Obama administration. His expansion into E. Europe was going great for him, with tacit support in Obama's second term ("when I'll have more latitude" to quote president Obama). Economic sanctions on Russia had been lifted. He was receiving the tech he needed increase Russia's ability to export oil and natural gas, which was providing the revenue he needed to fund his vision of "re-unifying" E. Europe under his new version of the USSR. The US under Obama was looking the other way and pressuring allies, especially in Europe, to do the same. Never mind that Russian behind the curtain. So Putin was getting no opposition and lots of help from the Obama administration. So less change is better.
Hilary Clinton promised to continue the policies of the Obama administration, which had been very good for Vlad. At best for Vlad, Trump was an unknown. Well, then came the "America first" speeches and all the positive reaction to them. So from Vlad's seat, a Trump admin looked like a bad thing. Potentially very bad for Putin. And he was not wrong in fact: Shortly after moving in, Trump raised caps on oil production and exports, and restored economic sanctions on Russia that Obama had lifted. US oil production began to compete with Russia and OPEC and took over the tops slots in W. European supply, seriously hurting Russian oil revenue. Soon Russian expansion into E. Europe slowed to a stop. That is until 2021 when US production and exports were cut by administrative edict, and Russia again wad sin control of energy products in Europe. 2021 and first half of 2022 was Obama 2.0 for Putin and despite some counter-theatre, still is.
So if Putin's Russia were influencing elections, who's side would be favored? It's pretty obvious.
The one thing western leaders - business or politics or other - has to do to discredit chinese, moslem or russian info-war is also the one thing said leaders cannot do:
Stop lying.
If they didn't lie, didn't use turd-polishing and semantic games, and stuck to working to improve actual factual matters instead of always trying to find politically correct magic rituals (like masking f.e.) to fix things with, non-western info-war wouldn't have anything to use, but would instead be forced to lie.
Meaning they could and would be exposed and disarmed.
Instead our leaders lie and gives our enemies weapons (don't kid yourself thinking Russia or China or any moslem state is a friend in any way to the West): all RT has to do to make western/american liberal capitalist democracy look bad?
Report the crime rate re: blacks and whites in the US, straight from official databases. Report on artists, journalists, musicians being silenced or cancelled or even imprisoned.
Thanks to our leaders, all they have to do is report the truth, adn all our leaders can respond with since they won't stop lying is calling the truth racist oranti-semitic or bigoted or some other deflection and projection.
If our leaders stopped lying, they would no longer need to fear "misinformation", since them being truthful would rebuild and recreate trust (in about a decade or so).
Side note: As for Clinton/Putin: the Clinton's and friends were about to gain control over almost all the oil and gas in Russia in 2008 (could be 2010, don't have the exact date in front of me), when Gazprom was going to be sold to US buyers tied to the Clintons et al. A purchase Putin stopped which also marks the point when USrethoric on Russia started to change from friendly to "Evil Empire"-bullshit so as to dehumanise Putin's mob-regime - as if that was needed for an old KGB man who used to train and equip terrorists in DDR in the 1980s.
The last sentence is the best: "If the underlying philosophy of the war against disinformation can be expressed in a single claim, it is this: You cannot be trusted with your own mind." Good article but I just have to add one little quibble: McCarthy was right.
Interesting and full of both fair points and unintended irony. It seems complicated but it can be simplified:
`1. The first problem with "disinformation" counter measures is who gets to define what is "truth" and what is "dis".
2. If it doesn't pass a logical consistency test, it's probably propaganda
What the record shows is that "To counter propaganda and disinformation" different propaganda and disinformation is used. There is a pretty visible clue.
Logical consistency: The claims Russia would use social media to attempt to influence public opinion are certainly plausible. So sure. And why not? Media, all media, is first and always a means to influence people. The point of open discourse. Where's the crime? See there's point one - assert that something normal is abnormal and thus a threat.
But even before seeing that BS, the idea that Russia would do so to favor the election of Trump makes no sense at all. If one simply looked at "what favors Vlad" it is clear it was Clinton, not Trump. Clinton == more of the same policies that were very favorable to Putin. Trump == ???.
In 2016 Putin's Russia was doing great under the policies of the Obama administration. His expansion into E. Europe was going great for him, with tacit support in Obama's second term ("when I'll have more latitude" to quote president Obama). Economic sanctions on Russia had been lifted. He was receiving the tech he needed increase Russia's ability to export oil and natural gas, which was providing the revenue he needed to fund his vision of "re-unifying" E. Europe under his new version of the USSR. The US under Obama was looking the other way and pressuring allies, especially in Europe, to do the same. Never mind that Russian behind the curtain. So Putin was getting no opposition and lots of help from the Obama administration. So less change is better.
Hilary Clinton promised to continue the policies of the Obama administration, which had been very good for Vlad. At best for Vlad, Trump was an unknown. Well, then came the "America first" speeches and all the positive reaction to them. So from Vlad's seat, a Trump admin looked like a bad thing. Potentially very bad for Putin. And he was not wrong in fact: Shortly after moving in, Trump raised caps on oil production and exports, and restored economic sanctions on Russia that Obama had lifted. US oil production began to compete with Russia and OPEC and took over the tops slots in W. European supply, seriously hurting Russian oil revenue. Soon Russian expansion into E. Europe slowed to a stop. That is until 2021 when US production and exports were cut by administrative edict, and Russia again wad sin control of energy products in Europe. 2021 and first half of 2022 was Obama 2.0 for Putin and despite some counter-theatre, still is.
So if Putin's Russia were influencing elections, who's side would be favored? It's pretty obvious.
The one thing western leaders - business or politics or other - has to do to discredit chinese, moslem or russian info-war is also the one thing said leaders cannot do:
Stop lying.
If they didn't lie, didn't use turd-polishing and semantic games, and stuck to working to improve actual factual matters instead of always trying to find politically correct magic rituals (like masking f.e.) to fix things with, non-western info-war wouldn't have anything to use, but would instead be forced to lie.
Meaning they could and would be exposed and disarmed.
Instead our leaders lie and gives our enemies weapons (don't kid yourself thinking Russia or China or any moslem state is a friend in any way to the West): all RT has to do to make western/american liberal capitalist democracy look bad?
Report the crime rate re: blacks and whites in the US, straight from official databases. Report on artists, journalists, musicians being silenced or cancelled or even imprisoned.
Thanks to our leaders, all they have to do is report the truth, adn all our leaders can respond with since they won't stop lying is calling the truth racist oranti-semitic or bigoted or some other deflection and projection.
If our leaders stopped lying, they would no longer need to fear "misinformation", since them being truthful would rebuild and recreate trust (in about a decade or so).
Side note: As for Clinton/Putin: the Clinton's and friends were about to gain control over almost all the oil and gas in Russia in 2008 (could be 2010, don't have the exact date in front of me), when Gazprom was going to be sold to US buyers tied to the Clintons et al. A purchase Putin stopped which also marks the point when USrethoric on Russia started to change from friendly to "Evil Empire"-bullshit so as to dehumanise Putin's mob-regime - as if that was needed for an old KGB man who used to train and equip terrorists in DDR in the 1980s.
The last sentence is the best: "If the underlying philosophy of the war against disinformation can be expressed in a single claim, it is this: You cannot be trusted with your own mind." Good article but I just have to add one little quibble: McCarthy was right.
i'm waiting for the long run then.