If you think it's problematic that a Twitter exec is also a reserve psyops officer, you probably shouldn't think about how many corporate (and nonprofit, and non-federal government) cybersecurity officials at all levels are military reservists whose military role is cyberwarfare.
Twitter exec for Middle East is also part-time British army 'psyops' officer
71–80 of 140 posts
Re: Twitter exec for Middle East is also part-time British army 'psyops' officer
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’ve seen one too many movies, mostly they are doing about the same job as brand influencers just their brand is HMAF in this case.
No, I was stationed as security for a PsyOps team in Gardez, Afghanistan for four months in 2003.
Sounds like one particular viewpoint that, while somewhat relevant, doesn't actually shed much light into this vastly different (both geographically and temporally) situation.
Don't close your mind just because you know of one instance of the thing being discussed; you anchor yourself to a specific point in time.
Re: Twitter exec for Middle East is also part-time British army 'psyops' officer
#73Recently the Chinese government ran a full-page ad in a national newspaper explaining "their view" of "the Hong Kong situation." The newspaper got a lot of flack for publishing the ad, but I think neither they nor the Chinese government did anything wrong. Because the sender of the ad was clearly identified people could judge for themselves. While the ad was propaganda it wasn't manipulative or underhanded.
But what is going on these days is that governments are engaging in propaganda where the identity of the sender is shrouded. For example Twitter accounts controlled by the Chinese state pretending to be common citizens. I think such propaganda is not ok and also that it is not only China and Russia doing it but also Western states and states that are supposed to be friendly to the West.
Re: Twitter exec for Middle East is also part-time British army 'psyops' officer
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I was stationed as security for a PsyOps team in Gardez, Afghanistan for four months in 2003.
Sounds like one particular viewpoint that, while somewhat relevant, doesn't actually shed much light into this vastly different (both geographically and temporally) situation. Don't close your mind just because you know of one instance of the thing being discussed; you anchor yourself to a specific point in time.
"Winning hearts and minds" isn't a bad thing on its own - NATO forces are objectively better than islamic extremists like ISIS and the Taliban - but acting like our military is wholly altruistic is naive at best and purposefully disingenuous at worst.
Re: Twitter exec for Middle East is also part-time British army 'psyops' officer
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
PsyOps main job is convincing occupied peoples that the occupier is their friend. One of the ways they do that is by taking photos of bags of rice being handed out. They also actively work to spread (dis)information.
You’ve seen one too many movies, mostly they are doing about the same job as brand influencers just their brand is HMAF in this case.
"They're just like brand influencers" makes them sound worse, if anything.
Re: Twitter exec for Middle East is also part-time British army 'psyops' officer
#76One thing that mystifies me is why the general population thinks that uniformed PsyOps people are like a real-life version of Kilgrave from Jessica Jones. They're basically the military's version of PR reps; most of their time is spent doing stuff like making fliers and taking photos of bags of rice being handed out. Maybe once in a while they get to blast Slayer at a building of holed-up insurgents. Meanwhile all th…
That isn't accurate. In a modern military the role of interfacing with an external public is divided into three distinct roles:
* public relations
* civil affairs
* psychological operations
Public relations' job is to interface with media and community leaders where the military is an established asset. This means in area where the military is not conducting active (non-training) military operations.
Civil affairs' interface with media and civilian leaders in areas where the military is conducting active (non-training) operations. This may include areas where the military is operating in a peace keeping or humanitarian capacity. This communications responsibility may be more diplomatic or business oriented in nature and focuses on welfare and humane needs of a supported civilian population.
Psychological operations operates against a military enemy.
It is the job of all three roles to provide some amount of influence and general information. The public relations and civil affairs are far more restrictive in the information they provide, almost as if in a journalistic capacity. Psychological operations will provide any information as helpful to win military engagements and is primarily restricted by military tactical conditions.
It is best not to intermix or confuse those 3 separate communications roles, because the overlap between them is extremely limited.
Re: Twitter exec for Middle East is also part-time British army 'psyops' officer
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, like a PR rep?
The term public relations was actually an explicit rebranding of the term Propaganda after it started to develop a negative association in the public eye. Look up Edward Bernays, it's a fascinating bit of history that's not really talked about much. http://theconversation.com/the-manipulation-of-the-american-...
If you're into documentaries, "The Century of the Self" covers this subject excellently: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=century+of+self
Re: Twitter exec for Middle East is also part-time British army 'psyops' officer
#78Recently the Chinese government ran a full-page ad in a national newspaper explaining "their view" of "the Hong Kong situation." The newspaper got a lot of flack for publishing the ad, but I think neither they nor the Chinese government did anything wrong. Because the sender of the ad was clearly identified people could judge for themselves. While the ad was propaganda it wasn't manipulative or underhanded. But what…
> the sender of the ad was clearly identified people could judge for themselves.
If they aware enough of how horrible their government is that they can ignore what it says and assume it's all a lie, sure.
If the Chinese government has done anything to make citizens trust its authority, such as censorship etc, then the ad is manipulative.
> While the ad was propaganda it wasn't manipulative or underhanded.
Perhaps not in itself, but taking the very example you give, it is manipulative.
Use news stories to paint the "official" picture and use astroturfing to provide a counterpart to the "official" picture. Both as parts in a larger underhanded play.
Re: Twitter exec for Middle East is also part-time British army 'psyops' officer
#79Recently the Chinese government ran a full-page ad in a national newspaper explaining "their view" of "the Hong Kong situation." The newspaper got a lot of flack for publishing the ad, but I think neither they nor the Chinese government did anything wrong. Because the sender of the ad was clearly identified people could judge for themselves. While the ad was propaganda it wasn't manipulative or underhanded. But what…
> For example Twitter accounts controlled by the Chinese state pretending to be common citizens.
Problem is that they are real citizens. In China, they're referred to as 50 Cent Army (or 50 Cent Party), because that's how much they're believed to be paid for every pro-government post.
Their engagements are usually not. There are botnets upvoting/downvoting/liking/retweeting stuff, but each and every post is written by an actual human, and there are guidelines as to how they need to respond to different stories. It's not like there's one human in charge of posting to 100s of accounts.
Re: Twitter exec for Middle East is also part-time British army 'psyops' officer
#80One thing that mystifies me is why the general population thinks that uniformed PsyOps people are like a real-life version of Kilgrave from Jessica Jones. They're basically the military's version of PR reps; most of their time is spent doing stuff like making fliers and taking photos of bags of rice being handed out. Maybe once in a while they get to blast Slayer at a building of holed-up insurgents. Meanwhile all th…
I appreciate your dishing some reality to folks. I think the answer to your question lies in the fact that the faction that laments and is "outraged" at these types of things lies in the projection of their own guilt about psychological manipulation and propaganda efforts by the technology tyrants that control websites and public square of their services. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, HN too, they all are in the hands of unaccountable, censorious, authoritarian self-righteous people who abuse their control and power to silence things they personally or ideologically do not like or disapprove of, regardless of the factual basis in truth or reality.
Try going on any digital public square website like FB, twitter, reddit, YT, etc. and point out things like that blacks commit wildly disproportionate amount of crime everywhere they are, even with direct links to the FBI crime statistics that prove it; and see how fast you are censored, mobbed, silenced, shadow banned, or any number of other abuses of power for literally just stating fact and reality, regardless of reasons, causes, or anything else. Society is clearly and objectively insane on a massive global scale right now by every and all objective psychological measures.
That's the cause of that inconsistency and incongruence you are noting, the fact that they are projecting their own abuses on others and it causes the rage that comes from the cognitive dissonance they are experiencing from doing it.