"However, the bulk of the content appears aimed at creating a sense of dismay over the state of America without any clear partisan bent." This is a key point. The objective of modern Russian propaganda is to sow confusion and reap inaction. See McMaster's "Battlegrounds" book.[1] The winning strategy for Russia in eastern Europe is a non-united United States, and if possible a non-united European Union.
Classical propaganda is heavy drum-beating for how great your side is. That goes back to at least Cicero, increased when newspapers came along, and really got going during WWII. That stuff rapidly gets boring, and is usually aimed, at least in part, at stroking the backs of your own political leaders.
Increasing the noise level so that no one can believe anything isn't a new idea. British "black" propaganda during WWII used it quite a bit. "Rumor-mongering" was once a thing.[2] But it didn't scale.
It's picked up in recent years partly because it's much more effective when combined with ad targeting. This is a problem.
There's plenty of successful "classical" propaganda in the modern era, like Tucker Carlson interviewing Putin, and his subsequently tweeting about how much better the cities/subways/groceries/MacDonalds are in Russia than they are in America.
I like to browse both far left and far right social media to see what different circles are talking about, and a lot of the far right are coming around to be pro Russia (way more than I would have ever expected given US history).
There's also the conservative house representatives majority who are likely to continue blocking any additional military aid to the Ukraine. So on a whole it seems to me that Russian government has been highly effective at advancing their political agenda within the USA recently.
I wonder if other governments could even execute these types of campaigns on the Chinese internet. My sense is if I went on Sina Weibo and started posting weird stuff about politics the account would get shut down quite quickly.
I suspect that in order to mangle with election one should have elections in the first place, so I guess that its not possible for other governments to do the same on the Chinese internet
IMO there aren't enough people with Chinese fluency/competency from other govs to try at scale on PRC net. Same vice versa - PRC 50C operates domestically, and even then spams platitudes, not substantive engagement - all the spamouflage networks in the last few years on western networks have been incompetently small scale operations. PRC was not wasting valuable language fluency on good/bulk propaganda. I think LLM is going to change this. Maybe TW with Chinese LLM can break into PRC net, but phone number / id linked accounts and lingo, probably limited scale. I think we'll start to see PRC propaganda networks slowly rival Indian presence on Anglo internet in the coming years. Dissenting opinions ares going to be absolutely innundated by automated PRC IT Cells. It doesn't even have to be good, but adundant and annoying.
there's no real consistency on this in China. There's quite a lot of political content or "shitposting" happening on Weibo and whether something's taken down or not depends entirely on the particular issue and is pretty arbitrary. At times it's been used like a sort of anti-corruption tool where criticism of local officials in particular or issues isn't being suppressed at all, there is an awareness that letting complaints through is an important signal.
In many ways it's even necessary because the political system is so byzantine that online venting is really the best feedback loop there is.
Likely, but America likes lowest common denominator weird stuff anyway. I imagine there are nuanced ways of communicating to Chinese audiences that don't run afoul of the censors, eg fulsomely praising CCP leadership for relatively inconsequential results (implying that inconsequential results are all they can deliver).
It is somewhat of an humorous thing. For decades the US has interfered with other countries' election trying to have the person the US felt was better for them to be in charge. Now, other countries are saavy enough to do it back, but the effort is much more effective because of the 24/7 firehose of information that is the internet. The lock-in echo chamber effect of social platforms took that effectiveness knob and turned it to 11.
The US used to fly planes to drop leaflets over population centers, so there was the expense of creating/printing the leaflets, the expense of flying them into place, the risk of invading foreign airspace, blah blah. Now, it's some keyboard warriors sitting in an office using a exponentially more efficient delivery system.
Is this a fair characterization? It's factually correct that USA interfered before and also that others are interfering now in USA's elections. But the allusion to a "only USA then" and "lol, anti-usa now" seems wrong.
Surely all major powers tried to influence all elections of interest wherever and whenever they could? Both then and now?
> The US used to fly planes to drop leaflets over population centers, so there was the expense of creating/printing the leaflets, the expense of flying them into place, the risk of invading foreign airspace, blah blah.
Is your point that this is so inexpensive that it’s hardly a line item on a budget? Printing leaflets and flying a plane.
Seems a lot cheaper than defending Ukraine from a madman terrorist. A madman terrorist in cahoots with PRC.
We can't talk about any other country here without someone bringing it back around to America, as if America were the Main Character of the whole world. Other countries exist, other countries don't need America to define themselves, other countries can be without needing to be in relation to America.
I doubt there's any evidence it's effective, only evidence that a lot of people with "analytics platforms" found a way to get paid to browse Twitter. (Oh no! China's posting memes on the internet!)
Don't know why they redacted the Twitter handles in the screenshots if they believe these to be bots/propagandists.
In any case, you can easily find the accounts by searching for the tweeted texts. It's very unlikely that these are regular Twitter accounts. But I see little reason to think this is part of a camouflaged "CCP propaganda operation" to influence the US election. You need to at least make an attempt to masquerade as a "fellow American" to qualify as election interference, but many of these accounts have handles/names that are literally pinyin, or have Chinese profile pics, or regularly retweet/like tweets in Chinese.
It's also not clear to me just what claim the report is making. It says Spamouflage "is already pivoting to focus on [the election]". Then later it says "the bulk of the content appears aimed at creating a sense of dismay over the state of America without any clear partisan bent... These [the issues focused on] are not election-specific narratives and have been a significant feature of Spamouflage's content over several years." So Spamouflage is at once pivoting to focus on the election and mostly talking about issues that aren't election-specific; and it's at once trying to improperly influence the election outcome and doing so in a way 'without any clear partisan bent'...
Influencing an election can take the form of sowing confusion and apathy, instead of driving people to a specific candidate. This leads to people not voting or otherwise participating, which cedes the political landscape to the extremes, who then go on to destabilize the country. It can be done without broaching election-specific topics.
So Spamouflage is at once pivoting to focus on the election and mostly talking about issues that aren't election-specific; and it's at once trying to improperly influence the election outcome and doing so in a way 'without any clear partisan bent'...
People are easily influenced by messaging. Today it is easy to create targeted messaging. A state actor could send messages to Republicans that are different than the ones sent to Democrats. In this way it is correct that the actor has no partisan bent. They just want to sow confusion, doubt, misinformation.
One can imagine that it is possible to influence an election without using election specific issues. If, for instance, welfare reform is not an issue in an election but talking about it in a way to create fear and anger can influence an electorate’s desires. I believe that if the CCP is actively engaged in an information war against Americans that they could do so in ways that, on the surface, would appear to be ineffective.
This is hard to reconcile with real events: for example, Russia has a huge upside to replacing the guy supporting their humiliation in Ukraine with the guy who trying to break up NATO on their behalf – the opposite of “similar”! As for China, one candidate has been consistent in seeing the US as a needed counter to their power, the other has flipped a few times but most recently declined to answer whether he’d protect Taiwan and expressed his dismay over Taiwan having outcompeted in the semiconductor market – I know which of the two a competent opponent would be on being able to outwit, and I bet they’d offer great financing terms for his biggest hotel yet, too.
I mean the leader of the Russian government wants Americans to elect they guy that's saying he'll get rid of a number of constitutional protections, so there is that.
I have family who got sucked into Q-related stuff, and this kind of over-the-top ominous imagery is all over the telegram channels they are addicted to.
Many people in these circles take it very seriously, and Jan 6 is a bit of a counterpoint to the lack of interesting-ness, IMO. It shows what can happen when people buy in fully, and I think it’s best to see these memes not as a representation of what is, but a representation of what some people are trying to bring about.
I clicked on the hyperlinked word 'spamoflage', repeatedly. I never found a satisfactory description of what the term was meant to mean, renderinhg the article pretty incomprehensible
It's not a word, it's a proper noun. It's like "Panda Banker". Cybercrime groups often don't choose the name, so security researchers coin one to talk about them in articles. Here's an explainer I found "Spamouflage, also known as Spamouflage Dragon, or DragonBridge, is a Chinese propaganda network that has been fully active on social media platforms since 2017-18. Spamouflage refers to deceptive practices that attempt to hide or blend spammy content within legitimate or inconspicuous contexts. It’s like spam wearing a disguise, trying to sneak past filters or appear less suspicious."
> However, the bulk of the content appears aimed at creating a sense of dismay over the state of America without any clear partisan bent ... this content clearly also feeds into the attempt to create a sense of dissatisfaction with the state of the country among voters, as well as potentially engendering a sense of chaos in the US amongst international audiences.
It's sad to see so much provocation and doomerism on the news and social media, ironically among people who want the US to improve. I'm not saying it's as blatant or harmful as CCP propaganda, but I'm certain it's very bad for the country.
> However, the bulk of the content appears aimed at creating a sense of dismay over the state of America without any clear partisan bent. It focuses on issues like urban decay, the fentanyl crisis, dirty drinking water, police brutality, gun violence and crumbling infrastructure.
> However, the bulk of the content appears aimed at creating a sense of dismay over the state of America without any clear partisan bent. It focuses on issues like urban decay, the fentanyl crisis, dirty drinking water, police brutality, gun violence and crumbling infrastructure. These are not election-specific narratives and have been a significant feature of Spamouflage’s content over several years. While not explicitly linked to the election, however, this content clearly also feeds into the attempt to create a sense of dissatisfaction with the state of the country among voters, as well as potentially engendering a sense of chaos in the US amongst international audiences.
This is not exactly news, and there are plenty of American videos exposing these issues for years now. Maybe Congress should be spending that inflation printed money fixing them so that we don’t have to wait for a new president to get to work.
You aren’t responding to / speaking to this article at all. You are responding to the hypothetical propaganda that it’s talking about. That doesn’t feel on topic at all. The point is that they aren’t election-specific issues.
[+] [-] Animats|2 years ago|reply
Classical propaganda is heavy drum-beating for how great your side is. That goes back to at least Cicero, increased when newspapers came along, and really got going during WWII. That stuff rapidly gets boring, and is usually aimed, at least in part, at stroking the backs of your own political leaders.
Increasing the noise level so that no one can believe anything isn't a new idea. British "black" propaganda during WWII used it quite a bit. "Rumor-mongering" was once a thing.[2] But it didn't scale. It's picked up in recent years partly because it's much more effective when combined with ad targeting. This is a problem.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._McMaster
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vaupcu2qqI
[+] [-] naet|2 years ago|reply
I like to browse both far left and far right social media to see what different circles are talking about, and a lot of the far right are coming around to be pro Russia (way more than I would have ever expected given US history).
There's also the conservative house representatives majority who are likely to continue blocking any additional military aid to the Ukraine. So on a whole it seems to me that Russian government has been highly effective at advancing their political agenda within the USA recently.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] walrus01|2 years ago|reply
Vladislav Surkov and propaganda methods of making people distrust everything and sow strife and confusion.
https://youtu.be/Gr7T07WfIhM?t=8567
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=vladislav...
[+] [-] Razengan|2 years ago|reply
> Classical propaganda is heavy drum-beating for how great your side is.
Isn't that a form of "classical propaganda" in itself? "We are perfect. There is nothing wrong with us. Only our enemies say we have problems."
or
"All our problems are caused by THEM"
or
"If you don't like America you MUST be a commie!" (one of the worst slurs in post-WW2 USA)
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] neom|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lnxg33k1|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxglute|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Barrin92|2 years ago|reply
In many ways it's even necessary because the political system is so byzantine that online venting is really the best feedback loop there is.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] canjobear|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nomel|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dylan604|2 years ago|reply
The US used to fly planes to drop leaflets over population centers, so there was the expense of creating/printing the leaflets, the expense of flying them into place, the risk of invading foreign airspace, blah blah. Now, it's some keyboard warriors sitting in an office using a exponentially more efficient delivery system.
What goes around, comes around
[+] [-] jvanderbot|2 years ago|reply
Surely all major powers tried to influence all elections of interest wherever and whenever they could? Both then and now?
[+] [-] ericmcer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgfitz|2 years ago|reply
Is your point that this is so inexpensive that it’s hardly a line item on a budget? Printing leaflets and flying a plane.
Seems a lot cheaper than defending Ukraine from a madman terrorist. A madman terrorist in cahoots with PRC.
[+] [-] msla|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whatshisface|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aragonite|2 years ago|reply
In any case, you can easily find the accounts by searching for the tweeted texts. It's very unlikely that these are regular Twitter accounts. But I see little reason to think this is part of a camouflaged "CCP propaganda operation" to influence the US election. You need to at least make an attempt to masquerade as a "fellow American" to qualify as election interference, but many of these accounts have handles/names that are literally pinyin, or have Chinese profile pics, or regularly retweet/like tweets in Chinese.
It's also not clear to me just what claim the report is making. It says Spamouflage "is already pivoting to focus on [the election]". Then later it says "the bulk of the content appears aimed at creating a sense of dismay over the state of America without any clear partisan bent... These [the issues focused on] are not election-specific narratives and have been a significant feature of Spamouflage's content over several years." So Spamouflage is at once pivoting to focus on the election and mostly talking about issues that aren't election-specific; and it's at once trying to improperly influence the election outcome and doing so in a way 'without any clear partisan bent'...
[+] [-] orev|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dralley|2 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/blackintheempir
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtKeFiYWIAgQLfw.jpg
[+] [-] skhunted|2 years ago|reply
People are easily influenced by messaging. Today it is easy to create targeted messaging. A state actor could send messages to Republicans that are different than the ones sent to Democrats. In this way it is correct that the actor has no partisan bent. They just want to sow confusion, doubt, misinformation.
One can imagine that it is possible to influence an election without using election specific issues. If, for instance, welfare reform is not an issue in an election but talking about it in a way to create fear and anger can influence an electorate’s desires. I believe that if the CCP is actively engaged in an information war against Americans that they could do so in ways that, on the surface, would appear to be ineffective.
[+] [-] nextworddev|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dc_ist|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheCaptain4815|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cladopa|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] acdha|2 years ago|reply
This is hard to reconcile with real events: for example, Russia has a huge upside to replacing the guy supporting their humiliation in Ukraine with the guy who trying to break up NATO on their behalf – the opposite of “similar”! As for China, one candidate has been consistent in seeing the US as a needed counter to their power, the other has flipped a few times but most recently declined to answer whether he’d protect Taiwan and expressed his dismay over Taiwan having outcompeted in the semiconductor market – I know which of the two a competent opponent would be on being able to outwit, and I bet they’d offer great financing terms for his biggest hotel yet, too.
[+] [-] ben_jones|2 years ago|reply
The foreign, domestic, and economic policies of both potential presidents are different. Are you really arguing that they have negligible differences?
[+] [-] pixl97|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mphetbug|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] synergy20|2 years ago|reply
only then a peace deal can be made, politics should never be a one sided effort.
[+] [-] whatshisface|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] haswell|2 years ago|reply
I have family who got sucked into Q-related stuff, and this kind of over-the-top ominous imagery is all over the telegram channels they are addicted to.
Many people in these circles take it very seriously, and Jan 6 is a bit of a counterpoint to the lack of interesting-ness, IMO. It shows what can happen when people buy in fully, and I think it’s best to see these memes not as a representation of what is, but a representation of what some people are trying to bring about.
[+] [-] bigcat12345678|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lwansbrough|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Angostura|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geor9e|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mediumdeviation|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyleo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kurthr|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] armchairhacker|2 years ago|reply
It's sad to see so much provocation and doomerism on the news and social media, ironically among people who want the US to improve. I'm not saying it's as blatant or harmful as CCP propaganda, but I'm certain it's very bad for the country.
[+] [-] infotainment|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orhmeh09|2 years ago|reply
> However, the bulk of the content appears aimed at creating a sense of dismay over the state of America without any clear partisan bent. It focuses on issues like urban decay, the fentanyl crisis, dirty drinking water, police brutality, gun violence and crumbling infrastructure.
Maybe it's not so bad for people to be dismayed.
[+] [-] Nuzzerino|2 years ago|reply
This is not exactly news, and there are plenty of American videos exposing these issues for years now. Maybe Congress should be spending that inflation printed money fixing them so that we don’t have to wait for a new president to get to work.
[+] [-] cqqxo4zV46cp|2 years ago|reply