Irrelevant whataboutism.

In fact the commenter’s point is quite relevant. A central characteristic of the information war is to dismiss the “other side”’s POV as propaganda. This works to prop up one’s own propaganda.

The article makes this quite clear:

> Those words — foreign digital interference — are very important.

> The West has neglected to fight on the battlefield that has been right in front of them the entire time — the internet.

It’s remarkable that the author thinks this is true. The issue is the foreign source of the propaganda, not the propaganda itself, and in fact the solution is more propaganda, according to them.

By limiting our focus to pro-Russia edits, and refusing to acknowledge the larger context, we let ourselves become unwitting dupes, casualties in this information war.

▲

Levitz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is this goodwill seemingly never works both ways.

When the western side of things does something bad or controversial, it's all about how the west is bad and any comment on other actors is deflecting.

When the eastern side of things does something bad though, we must never stop reflecting on how the west is also bad, and also be aware of how our biases might actually paint an unfairly worse picture of the east.

Which, funny enough, would be an ideal result of western propaganda.

	▲	doggers246 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

jszymborski 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

First of all, I'd like to thank you for a more nuanced and substantial comment. It stands in stark difference from the one I responded to.

While I agree the author of the article is either ignorant of or conveniently ignoring the fact that the West has certainly done plenty to "...fight on the battlefield...[of] the internet", I also think it's a mistake to simply refer to Pravda-fr.com or Storm-1516 as merely "the other side". It's manifestly propaganda.

I have lots of energy for talking about all the messed up things the US government has and continues to do, esp. in the information space. I just don't know why we can't talk about Russian or Chinese imperialism or propaganda without doing so. It's not zero-sum; saying bad things about Russia is not saying great things about its enemies, and vice-versa.

▲

recursivedoubts 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I never said this was zero sum game. I just think its humorous when folks get spun up about russian or chinese propoganda, as if our own intelligence agencies aren't actively managing (to a far greater degree, I assume, due to their location in western datacenters) online sources like wikipedia.

It's all propaganda. They even wrote a book (the book) about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)

Goose, gander. A shame both sides can't lose.

▲

jszymborski 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> I never said this was zero sum game.

> A shame both sides can't lose.

If you didn't before, you just did.

Why can't I get "spun up" about Russian or Chinese propaganda AND US propaganda?

Why is it that you are free to assume that the magnitude of US interference is far greater than that of Russian or Chinese interference, but we can't even suggest that Russia is perpetrating what you've characterized as a relatively small operation?

As I said, I'll spend all day talking about the crimes of the US government, but it won't stop me from similarly litanizing those of China or Russia. I don't factor the former in my judgement if the latter, and vice versa.

	▲	recursivedoubts an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> If you didn't before, you just did. No, that would be a negative sum game. > Why can't I get "spun up" about Russian or Chinese propaganda AND US propaganda? You absolutely can. > Why is it that you are free to assume that the magnitude of US interference is far greater than that of Russian or Chinese interference, but we can't even suggest that Russia is perpetrating what you've characterized as a relatively small operation? I gave my reasoning: the servers are hosted in western nations and I assume that western intelligence agencies have far more control over them. If we were talking yandex, I'd assume the russians had more influence. It's a reasonable assumption, but I'm not too wedded to it. > As I said, I'll spend all day talking about the crimes of the US government, but it won't stop me from similarly litanizing those of China or Russia. I don't factor the former in my judgement if the latter, and vice versa. I fully support that position.

▲

recursivedoubts 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

au contrare, extremely relevant whataboutism

"For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all Parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history"

▲

nmbrskeptix 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

cpursley 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]