Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On a related note, we have here in the US a sudden wave of "culture revolution 3.0" with its proponents using the very same tactics What on Earth are you talking about?
Watch this interview with Yuri Bezmenov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOmXiapfCs8 Then think about all the "Culture War" problems we are dealing with in American for the past ~10 years.
Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter
421–430 of 463 posts
Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter
#422https://www.youtube.com/c/laowhy86
It explains many of the issues with China nowadays.
Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We discuss that. That was viewed as a western media propaganda. I.e., no hard proof from any reputable organizations (UN for example). United Nations statement titled "China: UN experts deeply concerned by alleged detention, forced labour of Uyghurs" https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N... Statement from 43 countries presented at UN "Joint statement on human rights situation in Xinjiang at 47…
I have friends visiting Xinjiang and talked with local people, Uyghur and non Uyghurs. There is no evidence that supports the 1M number. You can watch a lot of YouTube video of people visiting Xinjiang and the local people. Make your own judgement.
>We discuss that. That was viewed as a western media propaganda. I.e., no hard proof from any reputable organizations (UN for example).
In response to that comment, I linked reports from the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Those are 3 of the most reputable organizations in the world in the field of human rights (the links also point out that it's impossible to investigate thoroughly because the Chinese Government won't allow access).
I'm supposed to believe some random Youtuber over them? That's what you're telling me? That's especially hilarious because the very article we're discussing is about manipulating social media, including creating videos specifically for youtube.
Or are you nitpicking the 1M number? If it's 10,000 or 1 million it's still a gross violation of human rights.
Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two things can simultaneously be true: (1) there is substantial astroturfing in the infosphere & (2) everything is not astroturf. Ironically, I think the accusations of astroturfing (whether true or not) more directly serve the meta goal of decreasing the public's ability and willingness to engage in debate, and accusations are much more amplification / outrage friendly.
So it’s better to just never acknowledge it? As if there is no alternative?
So articles and discussion like this, but not "Chinese|American shill" in a thread about something else.
Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have friends visiting Xinjiang and talked with local people, Uyghur and non Uyghurs. There is no evidence that supports the 1M number. You can watch a lot of YouTube video of people visiting Xinjiang and the local people. Make your own judgement.
You're changing the criteria? >We discuss that. That was viewed as a western media propaganda. I.e., no hard proof from any reputable organizations (UN for example). In response to that comment, I linked reports from the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Those are 3 of the most reputable organizations in the world in the field of human rights (the links also point out that it's impossible…
Everything so far regarding Xinjiang are all one-sided news rehashing from a few individuals, while the US intelligence with its cutting-edge spy satellites, field agents, cannot find any concrete evidences. Just coincidence?
Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously majority vote does not decide the truth, and ignorant people don't know what they're talking about. And still we have to try to find a way to operate this forum and not allow people to destroy it. Burning the community down doesn't serve the truth in any way.
Nice talk, but you are one of the biggest offenders by using moderation powers to curtail discussion around topics which may not fit the majority world-view while refusing to treat the view of ignorant morons similarly. I have seen it happen several times over the last decade. And no, I am not going to present any "evidence" here.
Re what you've "seen happen several times over the last decade": I'm sure you've seen some dots, but how you connect them into the picture you've got is not a thing you've seen, but something you yourself have made out of the dots. If you started with different priors, you'd collect different dots and build a totally different picture—and believe me, people do.
Your (and others') dot collections are smatterings of datapoints out of which, like magic beans, you can grow whatever beanstalk of bias you want. People with different priors have different tastes in datapoints and "ignorant morons", therefore collect different beans, and therefore grow different visions of massive, outrageous bias—and they're all just as angry about it.
Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously majority vote does not decide the truth, and ignorant people don't know what they're talking about. And still we have to try to find a way to operate this forum and not allow people to destroy it. Burning the community down doesn't serve the truth in any way.
Look at this immediate thread above your comment, majority vote did decide the truth about how Chinese people think (they're brainwashed!). Then you scolded someone who got salty about it.
Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter
#428So much of social media pre-supposes that no entity would spend the kinda money to influence an issue. They didn't take a state with limited resources into account.
Literally all traditional media are like that, yet for some reason it is normalized and few people care.
online, offline just in general. democratic societies formed knowing this, but there is a will to power among certain people who will at any cost affordable to them will try and become the center focus of attention.
you see this in mega corporations eating up smaller companies in order to centralized power and indirectly control the market.
in the same way, actors use money to pump into traditional and social media in order to influence the masses or part of the masses to sway towards their agenda. which may or may not benefit society.
media is very powerful especially if the transmission is consistent in messaging, and broad as well. meaning coming from many angles to achieve said goal or agenda.
it can be very intoxicating once the scale tips towards the agenda, then social pressure or peer pressure to fit in takes control. it's a very odd thing to observe herd mentality from an outside perspective and almost instantly hammered down and framed as a negative thing to those who are entrenched within conditioning.
i believe transparency is the only way we can subvert mental coups, if we know who is funding what then we can consciously ask why and then maybe, just maybe we will become enlightened of an atrocity before it is too late.
Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_laws_by_region
Fair enough, I haven’t figured out the exact breakdown from that link, although it seems fairly equally split to me. Still, that map lends credence to my initial gut feeling, that defending China’s porn ban to someone with a seemingly Western perspective by saying it’s banned in a lot of other places too probably isn’t very effective - they most likely feel the same about these laws where they exist in the rest of As…
Re: Buying Influence: How China manipulates Facebook and Twitter
#430there seems to be a really powerful group of people that don't approve of facebook selling access to "eyeballs" fairly and equally to anybody willing to buy this. I conjecture that they'd prefer if somebody (i.e. them) had preferential access
Who's "they"?