Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 463 posts

Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter

#61

Post by 323 »

uniqueuid wrote: post #44
323 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a free market for manipulation. Advertising, lobbying, PR, think tanks, ... are all legal. They are all in the market for manipulation.

Right, these are legal and regulated forms of manipulation. Covert manipulation is mostly sanctioned through platform TOS and laws.

You confuse "legal and regulated" with "transparent to the public".

When Ford pays money to product place one of it's cars in a movie, that might be declared and invoiced in some contract, but you as a film watcher will never know it (unless they make a point of announcing it). So please explain how movie product placement is not covert.

The same with PR, think tanks, and a lot of advertising.

Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter

#62

Post by k4c9x »

chroem- wrote: post #47
k4c9x wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is parroting Chomsky critics that stretched pretty damn hard to find some way to defame him. He compared the US media coverage of 2 similar genocides, nowhere does he claim either was "just US propaganda", nor does he downplay the seriousness of either, just that the coverage of it was handled different than the other.

Wikipedia has an entire section dedicated to his denial of the genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...

Oh, I stand corrected.

Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter

#63

Post by hetspookjee »

uniqueuid wrote: post #36
hetspookjee wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Platform reports by whom?

By platforms. Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms regularly publish (and in some countries are required by law to publish) reports on coordinated inauthentic behavior. Example: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/07/june-2021-coordinated-inau...

I don't understand why you'd expect anything from Facebook to be a reliable source? Or from any platform about their own integrity? Their historical record on truthful reporting is dismal, and they have every incentive to report what the moral fashion of the day is about.

Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter

#64

Post by audunw »

the-dude wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

Consent for what exactly? A direct war with China is not going to happen (MAD). I could see USA pushing to set up more defences for Taiwan, if Taiwan would allow it. And that would be a good thing. Far better to spend money on setting up defences for a peaceful and valuable ally than to spend on wars in the middle east.

Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter

#65

Post by hetspookjee »

fsckboy wrote: post #49
hetspookjee wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be foolish to think that either of the companies would move an inch in tackling this. Governments need to enforce policy to lower the ridiculous amount of influence this platforms have. They can start by forcing open standards on these platforms like SMS used to be for messaging. There is barely any technological challenge to the basics of Facebook and Twitter. Here in the Netherlands the PM had a phase wher…

I agree that the platforms have too much market power... but astroturfed propaganda from a centralized authoritarian power requires a centralized defense; a true "open competitive marketplace" of ideas and discussion would have just as much astroturfing and more. I'm not arguing in favor of Facebook at all, shut them down and lock up Zuck, but I'm simply saying "careful what you wish for".

I agree entirely with you. Open competitive marketplace is definitely not an easy goal.

Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter

#67

Post by Jerrrry »

foverzar wrote: post #40
cyb_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

The idea of "whataboutism" and attempting to present it as something inherently wrong awfully seems like a convenient way to dismiss uncomfortable points of the discussion and turn it into yet another two minutes hate. Comparing how different agents deal with similar problems is not a thoughtcrime, you know. It is quite a healthy way of understanding how such problems arise and how to deal with them.

whatboutism is whataboutism

Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter

#68

Post by 323 »

thomasahle wrote: post #50
323 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a free market for manipulation. Advertising, lobbying, PR, think tanks, ... are all legal. They are all in the market for manipulation.

Advertised content is supposed to be marked as such; not guise as organic content and upvoted by lots of bots disguising as real users.

Product placement is not marked. That's the whole idea before product placement, not marking it so that it appears "organic".

When a think tank expert comes on TV and talks in favor of (or against) building an oil pipeline, they will briefly announce that "X is from the Open House think tank", but not mention "a know oil company defender".

Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter

#70

Post by WaxProlix »

chroem- wrote: post #47
k4c9x wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is parroting Chomsky critics that stretched pretty damn hard to find some way to defame him. He compared the US media coverage of 2 similar genocides, nowhere does he claim either was "just US propaganda", nor does he downplay the seriousness of either, just that the coverage of it was handled different than the other.

Wikipedia has an entire section dedicated to his denial of the genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...

I don't think that says what you're claiming it says. In fact, my reading of the content is contradictory to my reading of your comments. Am I missing something?
Post reply on HN