"a small team of operatives who used bogus internet identities to spread negative narratives about Xi Jinping’s government"
For what purpose? What's the measurable payoff for something like that? I mean, sure, it'd be fun ... for a while. It just doesn't seem very useful. Using operatives to try to collect accurate information about public sentiment seems like a better use of money.
Just imagine - suppose that they accidentally foment a revolution (unlikely). Do you think they could ever TELL anyone?
Blatant virtue-signalling follows ...
After the whole "fake news" attack thing, I decided that I had no right to complain about rubbish news coverage if I didn't support the good stuff. So I signed up (just online) to a bunch of newspapers across the political spectrum (WSJ is probably the most "conservative" paper that I pay money for).
I've now got way more than I can possibly read, but it's worth it. The free stuff online is pretty shallow. The hot takes from the google news tab don't give you much of what the real journalists are saying. It really is worth paying the money, IMHO.
I gather than the NYT did good business in online subscriptions after it was attacked as fake news.
Forget about facebook as a news source, it's terrible. It's not even particularly good for keeping in touch with actual friends, its ranking and filtering just gets in the way.
We need to find a way to make sure that journalists can keep getting paid. Even the ones that we disagree with, because sometimes they're right. Whether that means that the "mastheads" can survive remains to be seen. I wonder if the future will mean just subscribing to aggregaors like Reuters, AP, AFP etc.
Blatant virtue-signalling follows ...
After the whole "fake news" attack thing, I decided that I had no right to complain about rubbish news coverage if I didn't support the good stuff. So I signed up (just online) to a bunch of newspapers across the political spectrum (WSJ is probably the most "conservative" paper that I pay money for).
I've now got way more than I can possibly read, but it's worth it. The free stuff online is pretty shallow. The hot takes from the google news tab don't give you much of what the real journalists are saying. It really is worth paying the money, IMHO.
I gather than the NYT did good business in online subscriptions after it was attacked as fake news.
Forget about facebook as a news source, it's terrible. It's not even particularly good for keeping in touch with actual friends, its ranking and filtering just gets in the way.
We need to find a way to make sure that journalists can keep getting paid. Even the ones that we disagree with, because sometimes they're right. Whether that means that the "mastheads" can survive remains to be seen. I wonder if the future will mean just subscribing to aggregaors like Reuters, AP, AFP etc.
Do Americans want Facebook/Google/Twitter to become private arms of the Intelligence Community?
They're resisting it (at least publicly), but if you want them to respond intelligently to coordinated disinformation campaigns then should they coordinate with the FBI and CIA as well?
I don't know the answer. In wartime, I have absolutely no doubt that British or Australian companies (and probably quite a few American companies) wouldn't hesitate.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by thismattwilson.
Done
I am a very big fan of leaving everything to the last possible moment.
Why!?!
"a small team of operatives who used bogus internet identities to spread negative narratives about Xi Jinping’s government" For what purpose? What's the measurable payoff for something like that? I mean, sure, it'd be fun ... for a while. It just doesn't seem very useful. Using operatives to try to collect accurate information about public sentiment seems like a better use of money. Just imagine - suppose that they accidentally foment a revolution (unlikely). Do you think they could ever TELL anyone?
Re: I bit the bullet
/signalling off Just wanted to say it. Thanks for putting up with me
I bit the bullet
Blatant virtue-signalling follows ... After the whole "fake news" attack thing, I decided that I had no right to complain about rubbish news coverage if I didn't support the good stuff. So I signed up (just online) to a bunch of newspapers across the political spectrum (WSJ is probably the most "conservative" paper that I pay money for). I've now got way more than I can possibly read, but it's worth it. The free stuff online is pretty shallow. The hot takes from the google news tab don't give you much of what the real journalists are saying. It really is worth paying the money, IMHO. I gather than the NYT did good business in online subscriptions after it was attacked as fake news. Forget about facebook as a news source, it's terrible. It's not even particularly good for keeping in touch with actual friends, its ranking and filtering just gets in the way. We need to find a way to make sure that journalists can keep getting paid. Even the ones that we disagree with, because sometimes they're right. Whether that means that the "mastheads" can survive remains to be seen. I wonder if the future will mean just subscribing to aggregaors like Reuters, AP, AFP etc.
I bit the bullet
Blatant virtue-signalling follows ... After the whole "fake news" attack thing, I decided that I had no right to complain about rubbish news coverage if I didn't support the good stuff. So I signed up (just online) to a bunch of newspapers across the political spectrum (WSJ is probably the most "conservative" paper that I pay money for). I've now got way more than I can possibly read, but it's worth it. The free stuff online is pretty shallow. The hot takes from the google news tab don't give you much of what the real journalists are saying. It really is worth paying the money, IMHO. I gather than the NYT did good business in online subscriptions after it was attacked as fake news. Forget about facebook as a news source, it's terrible. It's not even particularly good for keeping in touch with actual friends, its ranking and filtering just gets in the way. We need to find a way to make sure that journalists can keep getting paid. Even the ones that we disagree with, because sometimes they're right. Whether that means that the "mastheads" can survive remains to be seen. I wonder if the future will mean just subscribing to aggregaors like Reuters, AP, AFP etc.
Re: The problem with satire...
Some satire ages very well. John Clarke and Bryan Dawe started their sketches on the ABC in the late 80's, and they're still classics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQKjj_FDI_M
Might just be an Australian thing, though.
Random though about regulation
Do Americans want Facebook/Google/Twitter to become private arms of the Intelligence Community?
They're resisting it (at least publicly), but if you want them to respond intelligently to coordinated disinformation campaigns then should they coordinate with the FBI and CIA as well?
I don't know the answer. In wartime, I have absolutely no doubt that British or Australian companies (and probably quite a few American companies) wouldn't hesitate.