Live data from Hacker News

Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

nytimes.com

131–140 of 311 posts

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#131
IMO most of the problems with news stem from how it is funded. Advertising and back-room deals are not a good way to fund journalism. Cable news producers get ratings updates every 5 minutes and adjust their content according to what keeps people watching.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#132
post #95
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have friends that do this selling crappy financial products while wearing a suit IRL. It’s really hard to look the other way.

Bitcoins?

lol no. Terrible mutual funds and whole life insurance.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#133
post #122

Pot, kettle, etc. 'The new disclosure revealed that the Post and the Journal each received more than $100,000 per month to run print versions of Chinese propaganda articles. The Times received $50,000 in 2018 to place the propaganda on its website, presumably a small fraction of the revenue it made selling print space to China Daily. The new disclosures also showed that China Daily paid hundreds of thousands of dolla…

> Pot, kettle, etc. Most defense and intelligence agencies have been, for the past two decades, calling the internet the most important conflict space of the 21st century. Why no one took them seriously is beyond me. What this didn’t touch on was the availability of likes/interactions for money. This seems to be the much more pernicious attack vector, because you don’t need to write fake content and risk exposure to…

> already plenty

Apparently it only took 12.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#134
post #20

Ironic that this is from the New York Times, which has (in)famously had several years of poor or biased reporting.

The NYT reporting seems pretty reliable to me. Could you give a few notable examples at least to support that claim?

For what it's worth, the NYT was also behind the podcast series Caliphate, which I wept to on hearing the first hand accounts of murder and violation perpetrated in the name of ISIS. It came to light later that their primary source they relied on for the story fabricated the whole thing. [1]

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55375277

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#135

Pot, kettle, etc. 'The new disclosure revealed that the Post and the Journal each received more than $100,000 per month to run print versions of Chinese propaganda articles. The Times received $50,000 in 2018 to place the propaganda on its website, presumably a small fraction of the revenue it made selling print space to China Daily. The new disclosures also showed that China Daily paid hundreds of thousands of dolla…

And this the reason i pay no mind to all world news, politics, etc media. Money driven trash in which you have no idea what's the truth, the bent truth for money or outright lies for money/power...

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the said propaganda? The article does not articulate but I do remember one of which came up in an earlier discussion being a tourist promotion.

A tactic used in some almost autocratic countries is to pay for lots of ads in the press, ensuring that the press stays friendly to the payer. It's legal, it passes first scrutiny, and it's effective. NYT wouldn't want to lose a big client, so they will be thinking twice before publishing a damaging article. I don't think 100k a month can break NYT journalism integrity (their revenue is 1.7 billions), but not because…

A spurious claim backed only by evidence from equally biased sources

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#137
post #122

Pot, kettle, etc. 'The new disclosure revealed that the Post and the Journal each received more than $100,000 per month to run print versions of Chinese propaganda articles. The Times received $50,000 in 2018 to place the propaganda on its website, presumably a small fraction of the revenue it made selling print space to China Daily. The new disclosures also showed that China Daily paid hundreds of thousands of dolla…

> Pot, kettle, etc. Most defense and intelligence agencies have been, for the past two decades, calling the internet the most important conflict space of the 21st century. Why no one took them seriously is beyond me. What this didn’t touch on was the availability of likes/interactions for money. This seems to be the much more pernicious attack vector, because you don’t need to write fake content and risk exposure to…

I mean, Kojima did in Metal Gear Solid 2.

> The mapping of the human genome was completed early this century. As a result, the evolutionary log of the human race lay open to us. We started with genetic engineering, and in the end, we succeeded in digitizing life itself. But there are things not covered by genetic information. Human memories, ideas, culture, history. Genes don't contain any record of human history. Is it something that should not be passed on? Should that information be left at the mercy of nature? We've always kept records of our lives. Through words, pictures, symbols, from tablets to books...

> But not all the information was inherited by the later generations. A small percentage of the whole was selected and processed, then passed on. Not unlike genes, really. That's what history is. But in the current, digitized world, trivial information is accumulating every second, preserved in all its triteness. Never fading. Always accessible. Rumors about petty issues, misinterpretations, slander... All this junk data preserved in an unfiltered state, growing at an alarming rate. It will only slow down social progress, reduce the rate of evolution. Raiden, you seem to think our plan is one of censorship.

> The digital society furthers human flaws and selectively rewards development of convenient half-truths. Just look at the strange juxtapositions of morality around you. Billions spent on new weapons in order to humanely murder other humans. Rights of criminals are given more respect than those of their victims. Although there are people suffering in poverty, huge donations are made to protect endangered species. Everyone grows up being told the same thing. "Be nice to other people." "But beat out the competition!"

> "You're special. Believe in yourself and you will succeed! But it's obvious from the start that only a few can succeed...

> All this rhetoric to avoid conflict and protect each other from hurt. The untested truths spun by different interests continue to churn and accumulate in the sandbox of political correctness and VALVe systems. Everyone withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum. They stay inside their little ponds, leaking whatever 'truth' suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large. The different cardinal truths neither clash nor mesh. No one is invalidated, but nobody is right. Not even natural selection can take place here. The world is being engulged in 'truth'.

> And this is how the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper.

> We're trying to stop that from happening. It's our responsibility as rulers. Just as in genetics, unnecessary information and memory must be filtered out to stimulate the evolution of the species.

I think no one took it seriously because it's always hard to take a threat seriously until it has caused some damage. Nuclear power seemed safe and environmentally friendly until a lot of nuclear disasters happened. With a world where we seem to be facing new existential threats every day, it makes sense that people hit the attention saturation point some time ago, walled themselves into their internal social networks, and landed us here today.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People would be less susceptible to disinformation if they could actually trust mainstream sources like the NYT. What is the relationship between more trust in a mainstream source and susceptibility to disinformation you are implying here? For example, IIRC Rush Limbaugh's audience gave him a lot of credibility and was less informed because of that.

Because a media outlet that is trusted and good and has a significant following would keep people away from disinformers. Unfortunately, we appear to have something towards the opposite - large media outlets that aren't good, aren't trusted, and are trying to manipulate the market (à la Youtube with it's now completely useless search and its nefarious recommendation algorithms) to stop people going to competitors who…

I'm not defending the NYT, but there's a reason why most news sources have become extremely opinionated. There's lots of competition for people's attention, especially when it comes to news and people don't want to pay for news. As a result, they've tried to gain back viewership by becoming more editorialized. Sure you lose people who want a more objective source of news, but you gain a more dedicated following by picking a side in the culture wars. Highly opinionated content also gets you more of that sweet advertising revenue.

Until more people actively seek out more objective news sources and are willing to fund it with something other than ads, I don't see the situation improving.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bias is not in-and-of-itself a bad thing. The B-Word feels like a rhetorical trick for simply dismissing someone with a strong stance.

It's just confirmation bias, the desire to avoid information that conflicts with their worldview. Comments like hobs' contribute nothing to the conversation except partisan dismissal of a differing viewpoint. What's ironic is that this attitude was described in the quote hobs responded to: > If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in f…

>"except partisan dismissal of a differing viewpoint"

My thoughts exactly. The other thing I find so frustrating is that people online will assert that bias is a terrible thing and that people should be open minded. But they also assert that it is a bad thing to be an "enlightened centrist" and they immediately become dismissive of anyone who utters the term "both sides". It's maddening.

Re: Disinformation for hire, a shadow industry, is quietly booming

#140

Instead of constantly hand-wringing about "disinformation" from the shadows, they should be desperately addressing their own plummeting credibility: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gallup-american-trus... People would be less susceptible to disinformation if they could actually trust mainstream sources like the NYT.

In my experience, people just want their biases confirmed and their prejudices reinforced. Moving away from mainstream media gives the people what they really want: white supremacy and conspiracy theories.
Post reply on HN