General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The government figured out sockpuppet managment but not "persona management". [View all]nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)...interesting too that the Smith-Mundt Act was amended to allow for social media "special ops" in the US, they same way they run them in foreign countries we're "at war" with.
Here's the late Michael Hastings reporting on the possibility the amendment would pass -- which it did, going into effect July 1 this year (right about the time of his accident).
Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban
Propaganda that was supposed to target foreigners could now be aimed at Americans, reversing a longstanding policy. Disconcerting and dangerous, says Shank.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to-lift-propaganda-ban
The tweak to the bill would essentially neutralize two previous actsthe Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from our own governments misinformation campaigns. The bi-partisan amendment is sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State. In a little noticed press release earlier in the week buried beneath the other high-profile issues in the $642 billion defense bill, including indefinite detention and a prohibition on gay marriage at military installations Thornberry warned that in the Internet age, the current law ties the hands of Americas diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way.The bills supporters say the informational material used overseas to influence foreign audiences is too good to not use at home, and that new techniques are needed to help fight Al-Qaeda, a borderless enemy whose own propaganda reaches Americans online.
Critics of the bill say there are ways to keep America safe without turning the massive information operations apparatus within the federal government against American citizens.
(snip)
The new law would give sweeping powers to the government to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. It removes the protection for Americans, says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.
(snip)
The Pentagon spends some $4 billion a year to sway public opinion already, and it was recently revealed by USA Today the DoD spent $202 million on information operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last year.
In an apparent retaliation to the USA Today investigation, the two reporters working on the story appear to have been targeted by Pentagon contractors, who created fake Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in an attempt to discredit them.
here's an article on the Pentagon's smear campaign against the journalists -- > http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-05-24/Leonie-usa-today-propaganda-pentagon/55190450/1
(snip)
The evaporation of Smith-Mundt and other provisions to safeguard U.S. citizens against government propaganda campaigns is part of a larger trend within the diplomatic and military establishment.
In December, the Pentagon used software to monitor the Twitter debate over Bradley Mannings pre-trial hearing; another program being developed by the Pentagon would design software to create sock puppets on social media outlets; and, last year, General William Caldwell, deployed an information operations team under his command that had been trained in psychological operations to influence visiting American politicians to Kabul.
A U.S. Army whistleblower, Lieutenant Col. Daniel Davis, noted recently in his scathing 84-page unclassified report on Afghanistan that there remains a strong desire within the defense establishment to enable Public Affairs officers to influence American public opinion when they deem it necessary to protect a key friendly center of gravity, to wit US national will, he wrote, quoting a well-regarded general.