Quote: (12-10-2016 09:22 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:
I have something to offer the discussion.
In May I wrote an article for Return of Kings about the CIWA (Countering Information Warfare Act) and the motivations behind it.
http://www.returnofkings.com/87688/the-s...censorship
Nothing objectionable about your article, although using "censorship" in the title is misleading. You note the existence of Russian and Chinese propaganda, false smears of the USA in the Muslim world by Russia, Russian troll farms, the threat of Chinese influence, the extent of Chinese spying and subversion. I remember when the Soviets were pushing the idea that HIV/AIDS was a US biowar program back in the 80s.
But then at the end you suggest that a small program in State targeted to foreign audiences is going to have an effect on First Amendment activities.
Quote: (12-10-2016 09:22 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:
Although the text of the statute inserts the requisite "ass-covering" phrases like "outside the United States" and the like, in reality, all of us know better. In 2016 the difference between "domestic" and "foreign" news is thin indeed. Let's not play semantic games. This is an attempt to steer the narrative in the electronic battlefield.
Do we "know better?" Legal texts matter in the US Government, at least in the unclassified world. Taking the law in tandem with other federal laws, like the federal acquisition regulations and FOIA, it's impossible for this Center to be handing out money to US journalists. If the program is directed at monitoring foreign media, propaganda, and foreign trolls, so what? If the program spreads a little money to friendly foreign media and NGOs, so what? When the Russians and Chinese are using their resources, why shouldn't the USA? As I said, this looks like the U.S. Information Agency updated for the digital age. Good.
While it's true that stories can travel from foreign to domestic media, the reality of different languages is a buffer. State Department funding of media in Russian, Chinese, Bulgarian, or Thai, potential foreign target audiences is going to have limited return to English language media.
Quote: (12-10-2016 09:22 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:
Textual analysis is one thing. But there is a bigger principle: power. The US is trying to take steps to counter what it sees as Chinese and Russian "disinformation." Fine. Information warfare has been going on for centuries. CIA black ops has been funding fake stories from journalists for a long, long time.
The real issue, as I tried to point out in my article, is this: who is going to decide what is "disinformation."?
Why shouldn't the US be continually refining its information operations? We are in a new media world now, USG has to adapt.
Somebody's got to call bullshit out. I did it for awhile, was spreading around money to "new independent media" in Iraq. Called my beneficiaries in occasionally and chewed them out for spreading bullshit from Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, street rumors and insurgent propaganda, objectively false shit. This is the main problem for US public diplomacy and strategic communications outside the US., really outrageous bullshit.
There are people in State Public Diplomacy, military strategic communications/ information dominance, obviously CIA/DIA who have done this for years, not particularly new to them to call bullshit on things. They don't care about Zero Hedge or InfoWars. They might care about the Russian troll army or covert stuff pushing bullshit into the USA.
The interesting question for me, is who came up with the bullshit put out about this law? Is it just trolling or more insidious?
So a bill is passed provided for an office to counter Russian and Chinese propaganda. The office will be in the State Department, which is charged with the foreign relations of the USA, but will coordinate with the military and intelligence agencies. The bill says foreign audiences are the target.
There is a very modest grant program, only $10 million a year. The grants are in line with what DOS and USAID already do for foreign journalists and NGOs. Training for investigative journalists, direct support to newspapers, radio, been there, done that.
The bill does not say anything about censorship, putting people in jail, shutting down media.
To me, it may be a waste of money, but it might have some effect if the foreign grantees are effective at getting a counter-narrative out.
The Russians and Chinese would not approve of this bill, right? Who would want to mischaracterize the bill, mobilize opposition against it, kill it?
You start out this thread with the title:
Alert: The US Government will begin Censorship of 'Fake News' and Alt-Media
Where the hell did the OP get that from? The only link in the OP was to Sen. Portman's press release. One link, then a blatantly false description of the law.
Then you have Cernovich, ranting about how people will be imprisoned, fined, there will be censorship, it will "take out free speech in America," "label all independent media as Russian propaganda," "fine, outlaw, make you a criminal" if you're independent media. Total bullshit.
Now you have #NoPortmanMurphy trending, anonymous twitterers repeating the same bullshit hysteria. Who, why?
Very strange.
Res ipsa loquitur.