Can't wait to see your readout from the conference. Misinformation has always been a menace but it's more pernicious now and we seem to lack the collective will to do something about it these days.
I think it’s a great idea, except it’s not a far step for someone to ask “why just bot-farms, why not people”?
Tulsi Gabbard being put on the TSA terrorist watch list is pretty much the same thing as what you are advocating. I think she and the rest of my fellow conservatives are totally bonkers in their approach to Ukraine. But they have a right to that belief. Putting her and other outspoken conservatives on TSA surveillance being always followed by marshals, being extensively searched — is conservatives are rightly paranoid and the Democratic administration is being actually authoritarian and Unconstitutional.
"Democratic administration is being actually authoritarian and Unconstitutional."
Were you equally upset when Trump and Bill Barr threw Michael Cohen into solitary confinement for 51 days because he was writing a book about Trump? Or when Trump weaponized the DOJ and pushed it to prosecute Democratic lawyer Greg Craig before Election Day to, quote, "even things out."
Our presidents have a long history of this, back to Kohn Adams (Aliens and sedition act) and Abraham Lincoln. They all get shot down by the other branches…
But not this time…. The Democrats have a lock on power and ever since the Capital Police moronically let the Jan. 6th Protestors in to the capitol - every critic of the administration is suspect.
This isn’t one or two people like you mention, this is an entire political block that the Deep State is moving against. Heck, look at members of the military and anyone else who disagreed with Fauci’s assessment of Covid.
Y’all are spot-on - words, deeds, actions and behaviors all have consequences attached to them… associate w/ whom you choose and feel free to say what whatever, be also realize that your choices can have consequences for you, your family and friends….
Are you seriously advocating killing people for something they said?
Even in a declared war some targets are off limits, but our government has abused every power it has ever been given. Would Edward Snowden be safe from this authority? Julian Assange? Daniel Ellsberg?
What if the offending people are in the US--would you just up and kill them? Why should the country they live in make a difference?
Yes, I realize that the US government has already used this power. See, for instance, the drone killing of Anwar Al-Awlak--followed shortly after by the killing of his 16 year old son and, years later, by the killing of his 8 year old daughter. Having done it does not justify it.
I like your work. I like your insights into modern warfare. But this power you propose isn't just open to authoritarian abuse--exercising this power *is* authoritarian abuse. If the US government gets to set itself up as the judge of what is true and what is false, then set itself up as the executioner of liars who will dare speak up against it? None of us would be safe. Not even you.
The foreigner working in the munitions factory is not a valid target, the munitions factory is*. The people working in it are collateral damage--to be avoided if possible. Otherwise why not kill them at home, or in school as they train to work in a munitions factory, or in the womb before they grow up to work in a munitions factory?
The only machinery in a disinformation mill is the humans who work there. The physical equipment is inconsequential--blow up a cell phone or a laptop and there is another to take its place. The only product that comes out of that mill is words, and you would be killing people to silence them.
And this blanket death warrant only applies to DISinformation spread by a foreigner, right? Like Hillary Clinton's emails or the Hunter Biden laptop story or the Trump pee tape? What if they're telling an inconvenient truth?
In that case the people who get to decide to kill the foreigners also get to decide what's true, and (surprise!) it will always turn out that the truth favors them. Who do you trust with that power?
And why would it be limited to foreigners, or even to people outside the country? Would a target have to be working for a foreign government to be legitimate? Why wouldn't a newspaper in Paris or a troll in his mom's basement on Twitter or a teenage shitposter in a middleschool library count?
And what's the moral difference between someone in a foreign country and someone in Silver Springs? Same effect, same methods, maybe even same motives. You're proposing an extrajudicial killing for something that isn't even a crime domestically.
A good part of my objection is the paradigm of "information war is war". You're assigning causus belli to...words. If everyone in the world who is lying about us (again, as determined by whoever is in power) is at war with us we're going to have to send an awful lot of Tomahawks thru an awful lot of windows.
*Presupposing an actual declared war. Just going around the world blowing shit up is criminal.
Moving to kinetic strikes, unless we are actually engaged in a physical war is a slippery slope. The only reason the US is even considering it is because of its position as the dominant military power on the planet. BOT farms targetting foreign powers no doubt exist within the US, maybe even US government sponsored ones. If the US can justify a kinetic attack then US farms become valud targets as well. To be clear im talking about kinetic attacks... cyber attacks are relatively "safe" in comparison.
Should have been at the Rio last weekend. Star Trek: Las Vegas. Talk about some characters!
Holy shit is Vegas hot. It’s not something that can be accurately described. Even a breeze just makes it worse. I swear I could feel my eyeballs drying out. I’ll take the oppressive Georgia humidity over that every time.
On the disinformation front, I’m very pro free speech. But it’s not that people are sharing opinion pieces from the Moscow Times. When you know the source you can that into account. They’re sharing things specifically designed to create political strife. And the people sharing it probably think, or at least want, them to be true.
So real talk, we don't have a target card list for something in this situation, so I have to ask myself 'Am I comfortable briefing command and advocating for the death of someone'. For informational warfare, the answer is no. I would not recommend that target. In the event of a cyber attack or if it was highly likely a cyber attack would come from somewhere, the answer is yes.
I thought a lot about it though and informational warfare is damaging but it doesn't effect kinetic ability, at least in the same way a ADA system does or a radar. I agree it's harmful and needs to be countered however I can't, in just mind, advocate for a strike against a faciality which contains non combatants.
"Cyberwar is a domain of war". Hope I got that quote right. I see the world finally waking up to this. Lots of pushback against russian interference involving the riots in the UK for instance. And if I may say so, bad acters in the US as well. What a world.
Fascinating subject. Your basic point, that a misinformation bot farm in a wartime context is a legitimate target is interesting. Would a printing plant printing propaganda fliers for the Nazi's during WWII or a studio producing propaganda films be considered a legitimate bombing target? Or a factory making inflatable tanks for deception purposes? I really don't know, seems so. It requires that you accept that misinformation is a weapon of war (or that information is a weapon of war, which it can be). Clear long term thinking or slippery slope? Beats the crap out of me...
Not sure one can compare printing press pamphlet distribution back in the day to today's powerful social media reach, with organized bot-farms and dedicated disruption campaigns financed by russia, china et al. Given that those countries have closed-off any dissenting social media, all alternative information or views other than what their governments allow are verboten. Doesn't seem like a fair fight to me. I suspect those IT disinformation bot dudes know exactly what they're doing and I'm with Ryan on this.
Can't wait to see your readout from the conference. Misinformation has always been a menace but it's more pernicious now and we seem to lack the collective will to do something about it these days.
I think it’s a great idea, except it’s not a far step for someone to ask “why just bot-farms, why not people”?
Tulsi Gabbard being put on the TSA terrorist watch list is pretty much the same thing as what you are advocating. I think she and the rest of my fellow conservatives are totally bonkers in their approach to Ukraine. But they have a right to that belief. Putting her and other outspoken conservatives on TSA surveillance being always followed by marshals, being extensively searched — is conservatives are rightly paranoid and the Democratic administration is being actually authoritarian and Unconstitutional.
"Democratic administration is being actually authoritarian and Unconstitutional."
Were you equally upset when Trump and Bill Barr threw Michael Cohen into solitary confinement for 51 days because he was writing a book about Trump? Or when Trump weaponized the DOJ and pushed it to prosecute Democratic lawyer Greg Craig before Election Day to, quote, "even things out."
Yes
Our presidents have a long history of this, back to Kohn Adams (Aliens and sedition act) and Abraham Lincoln. They all get shot down by the other branches…
But not this time…. The Democrats have a lock on power and ever since the Capital Police moronically let the Jan. 6th Protestors in to the capitol - every critic of the administration is suspect.
This isn’t one or two people like you mention, this is an entire political block that the Deep State is moving against. Heck, look at members of the military and anyone else who disagreed with Fauci’s assessment of Covid.
Dude!
Y’all are spot-on - words, deeds, actions and behaviors all have consequences attached to them… associate w/ whom you choose and feel free to say what whatever, be also realize that your choices can have consequences for you, your family and friends….
Are you seriously advocating killing people for something they said?
Even in a declared war some targets are off limits, but our government has abused every power it has ever been given. Would Edward Snowden be safe from this authority? Julian Assange? Daniel Ellsberg?
What if the offending people are in the US--would you just up and kill them? Why should the country they live in make a difference?
Yes, I realize that the US government has already used this power. See, for instance, the drone killing of Anwar Al-Awlak--followed shortly after by the killing of his 16 year old son and, years later, by the killing of his 8 year old daughter. Having done it does not justify it.
I like your work. I like your insights into modern warfare. But this power you propose isn't just open to authoritarian abuse--exercising this power *is* authoritarian abuse. If the US government gets to set itself up as the judge of what is true and what is false, then set itself up as the executioner of liars who will dare speak up against it? None of us would be safe. Not even you.
If a foreigner works are a munitions factory is the factory a valid target?
So if the foreigner is working in a disinformation factor that is shaping the battlefield, how are they not a valid target?
The foreigner working in the munitions factory is not a valid target, the munitions factory is*. The people working in it are collateral damage--to be avoided if possible. Otherwise why not kill them at home, or in school as they train to work in a munitions factory, or in the womb before they grow up to work in a munitions factory?
The only machinery in a disinformation mill is the humans who work there. The physical equipment is inconsequential--blow up a cell phone or a laptop and there is another to take its place. The only product that comes out of that mill is words, and you would be killing people to silence them.
And this blanket death warrant only applies to DISinformation spread by a foreigner, right? Like Hillary Clinton's emails or the Hunter Biden laptop story or the Trump pee tape? What if they're telling an inconvenient truth?
In that case the people who get to decide to kill the foreigners also get to decide what's true, and (surprise!) it will always turn out that the truth favors them. Who do you trust with that power?
And why would it be limited to foreigners, or even to people outside the country? Would a target have to be working for a foreign government to be legitimate? Why wouldn't a newspaper in Paris or a troll in his mom's basement on Twitter or a teenage shitposter in a middleschool library count?
And what's the moral difference between someone in a foreign country and someone in Silver Springs? Same effect, same methods, maybe even same motives. You're proposing an extrajudicial killing for something that isn't even a crime domestically.
A good part of my objection is the paradigm of "information war is war". You're assigning causus belli to...words. If everyone in the world who is lying about us (again, as determined by whoever is in power) is at war with us we're going to have to send an awful lot of Tomahawks thru an awful lot of windows.
*Presupposing an actual declared war. Just going around the world blowing shit up is criminal.
Moving to kinetic strikes, unless we are actually engaged in a physical war is a slippery slope. The only reason the US is even considering it is because of its position as the dominant military power on the planet. BOT farms targetting foreign powers no doubt exist within the US, maybe even US government sponsored ones. If the US can justify a kinetic attack then US farms become valud targets as well. To be clear im talking about kinetic attacks... cyber attacks are relatively "safe" in comparison.
Should have been at the Rio last weekend. Star Trek: Las Vegas. Talk about some characters!
Holy shit is Vegas hot. It’s not something that can be accurately described. Even a breeze just makes it worse. I swear I could feel my eyeballs drying out. I’ll take the oppressive Georgia humidity over that every time.
On the disinformation front, I’m very pro free speech. But it’s not that people are sharing opinion pieces from the Moscow Times. When you know the source you can that into account. They’re sharing things specifically designed to create political strife. And the people sharing it probably think, or at least want, them to be true.
"Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter."
So real talk, we don't have a target card list for something in this situation, so I have to ask myself 'Am I comfortable briefing command and advocating for the death of someone'. For informational warfare, the answer is no. I would not recommend that target. In the event of a cyber attack or if it was highly likely a cyber attack would come from somewhere, the answer is yes.
I thought a lot about it though and informational warfare is damaging but it doesn't effect kinetic ability, at least in the same way a ADA system does or a radar. I agree it's harmful and needs to be countered however I can't, in just mind, advocate for a strike against a faciality which contains non combatants.
“I’m not even in the army anymore and they’re still screwing me.” — FUNNY!!!
"Cyberwar is a domain of war". Hope I got that quote right. I see the world finally waking up to this. Lots of pushback against russian interference involving the riots in the UK for instance. And if I may say so, bad acters in the US as well. What a world.
Fascinating subject. Your basic point, that a misinformation bot farm in a wartime context is a legitimate target is interesting. Would a printing plant printing propaganda fliers for the Nazi's during WWII or a studio producing propaganda films be considered a legitimate bombing target? Or a factory making inflatable tanks for deception purposes? I really don't know, seems so. It requires that you accept that misinformation is a weapon of war (or that information is a weapon of war, which it can be). Clear long term thinking or slippery slope? Beats the crap out of me...
Not sure one can compare printing press pamphlet distribution back in the day to today's powerful social media reach, with organized bot-farms and dedicated disruption campaigns financed by russia, china et al. Given that those countries have closed-off any dissenting social media, all alternative information or views other than what their governments allow are verboten. Doesn't seem like a fair fight to me. I suspect those IT disinformation bot dudes know exactly what they're doing and I'm with Ryan on this.