Man... I am wondering how much of everything this is these days...

This is just one instance, but the propaganda effect I think is happening strong. I think probably all of public opinion is being manipulated like this...

▲

jvanderbot 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Does anyone remember the FTC "comments" about net neutrality? And how completely made up it all was?

It must be that everything is like this nowadays.

▲

Jtsummers 2 hours ago | parent [-]

https://ktul.com/news/local/data-center-scandal-who-sent-fak... - Naturally, data center projects are also getting in on this made up fun.

▲

eclipticplane an hour ago | parent [-]

Now the propaganda is that the anti data center movement is a fake campaign by China.

Which, sure, maybe it's amplified by them but go visit any of these cities public council meetings. People are legit mad about them. Energy prices are already through the roof, they are massive facilities that don't provide much local employment after being built (even the construction crews are contracted in from elsewhere), they get massive tax breaks in exchange for 1 time local development fees, get exempted from noise ordinances, pollution laws, and crammed down communities in backroom deals.

Not hard for foreign adversaries to escalate what's already a terrible deal for the citizens of most cities.

	▲	cjkaminski 38 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You're very correct. It's much, much easier to amplify sentiment that already exists, as opposed to attempting to manufacture sentiment from nothing at all. That's been true for as long as propaganda has existed, afaik.
	▲	piloto_ciego 28 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm honestly, pretty convinced that it's the opposite. I mean, people are spooled up? But I think the sentiment is entirely generated beyond the normal complaints? Like, yeah, people are annoyed, so like you say, foreign adversary just dumps targeted gasoline on the issue until people are rabid. Meanwhile, I don't see dick about the Epstein files, the ice raids, or literally crazy levels of authoritarianism in the general zeitgeist... It's like that other stuff piqued the interests of people for 20 minutes in March, then they stopped caring as soon as some people got fired at DHS. You guys remember "No Kings?" When is the next one of those? When is the next of any kind of protest? Where is the awareness?

▲

kilroy123 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've long thought _everything_ is already like this.

▲

hotsauceror 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This seems very much in the wheelhouse of clandestine agencies like the CIA and the FSB. Use front companies to modify the perceptions of reality by doing things like shifting the Overton window of currently discussed topics, preparing custom datasets for future LLM training that bake in desired assumptions, manipulating or publishing public opinion polls and prediction markets.

▲

vablings 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Haha, you think the CIA and FSB loves doing this stuff? Companies love doing this kind of stuff way more than your government employee shmucks. It is way more prevalent in private sector than you could ever imagine

	▲	pstuart an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's both.

▲

wang_li 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People just randomly get excited and make up shit online. See Median Strategies aka Rahil Prakash just making up polls and publishing them this month. Then declaring it was a social experiment and shutting down his website. After affecting prediction markets in some minor ways.

	▲	mmooss an hour ago \| parent [-]
		How does that theory explain, * So many people using the same nonsense talking points at the same time. Did they coincidentally make up the same lies? With no anchor in objective reality, why would they converge on the same talking points? * The sophistication of the talking points: IME they are often very well-crafted - seemingly professionally crafted - public communication. They effectively frame the debate, shift attention (often attacking the messenger), use powerful emotional impact to bypass reasoned discussion, and acheive the main goal of disinformation - paralyze discussion. Did people invest the time and effort to craft these talking points on their own, and do it so effectively?

▲

sleepybrett 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can see this in real time in our modern 'mainstream media', even MSNOW, the supposedly 'left-leaning' 'anti-foxnews' sounds more like a regan era republican than it's actual desired audience. If you turn on cnn it's just constantly drumbeating iran war/support for israel, etc.

▲

horsawlarway 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Hardly need to add "Modern" on this statement. Hell - Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" is nearly 40 years old at this point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent)

If anything - I actually think we're at a spot where the mask is slipping a bit, because the US was slow to adapt its media distortion to the internet, and the financial interests in the US are stretching even farther away from general sentiment.

So the notice is because they've fumbled, and now are beating the drum extra hard to try to make up ground.

	▲	ChrisMarshallNY 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		A classic Yes, Prime Minister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks

▲

forshaper 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The older I get and the more old stuff I sieve through, the more I feel I grew up in an environment shaped by short-term persuasions, all added up like different archaeological layers. Every single ideal, value, word, and so on, just marketing that hit my parents, or propaganda that hit my grandparents. Which is why the Confucian rectification of names is appealing.

	▲	ScoobleDoodle an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What is "Confucian rectification of names"? Thank you.

▲

lefstathiou 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Absolutely, billions (or trillions) of dollars of value and the future of the parties and our trade relations are at stake.

For Paramount, I'd imagine they have no choice but to do this. It would be naive to think its opponents aren't astro-turfing the other side.

▲

autoexec an hour ago | parent [-]

The opponents don't have to astro-turf. They can express their genuine feelings about the merger and the well known problems of media consolidation. Paramount has to astro-turf because there isn't any actual support for what they want outside of the small number of people who will make a ton of money in the deal.

	▲	saalweachter an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The thing about saying "everyone does it" to justify yourself is that eventually you start believing it.

▲

thatjoeoverthr 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This goes back far, and I’ve even seen what appear to be shills for random B-list celebrities. Add SEO business as usual, political campaigns, international influence and the SnR is just radio static.

▲

prollings 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

With the shoehorning of certain topics into absolutely every conversation on every platform... agree.

▲

RobRivera 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was literally just ranting about this yesterday regarding a reddit thread where the astroturfing was so obviojs and it is frustrating to see, because a large chunk of the population is in fact influenced by it.

	▲	jmspamerton an hour ago \| parent [-]
		isn't reddit mostly astroturf? Try to get a conflicting opinion on anything political.

▲

mmooss an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One way to look at it: Why wouldn't they use this capability? (Moral qualms?)

Powerful interests, including corporations and foreign powers, have long worked effectively to frame public perceptions, even when their access to the members of the public was as limited as newspapers and a few broadcast TV stations, and filtered through editors. And they did it effectively.

Have they stopped for some reason?

And would they be less effective for some reason? The new tools - direct access to billions of individuals, wide bandwidth, no filters - should make them far more effective.

It's amazing to me that the fact of them doing it isn't well-known (there is plenty of research and evidence) and assumed, but still a question even on HN. Bring it up to most people and they will ostracize/ridicule you - an odd response which I can't explain well, given the evidence, likelihood, and very serious consequences which those same people are unhappy with.

Interestingly, over the last several years powerful interests have worked - successfully - to shut down research on this issue, including at places like Stanford and Harvard.

▲

verdverm an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

welcome to the post-truth world, where online manipulation are the "truths" like the world's greatest conman "posts," the (mal)intent seems intentional to me