site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   15594 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 19, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Twitter Files 8

Lee Fang is joining the fight. Link

This one is very much disconnected from the rest of the TF releases, and consequently more interesting. Fang argues the following.

  1. Despite publicly declaring they combat state-backed information ops, Twitter has worked with the US military to help its ops for years.

  2. As early as 2017, CENTCOM (US Central Command) was sending Twitter lists of accounts they use to "push certain messages" and asking for them to be whitelisted (and verified in one case). The Pentagon also wanted help in doing better at these campaigns (like how to not accidentally reveal related accounts and what not).

  3. These accounts were typically writing in Russian and Arabic, promoting pro-US messaging like accusing Iran of organ harvesting against Afghanis, or flooding Iraq with crystal meth.

  4. Twitter was lauded for its efforts to combat these information ops, but had been actively complicit in helping them and knew what they were being used for.

  5. Twitter worked with journalists closely and was quite happy when reporting on these campaigns focused on the Pentagon instead of Twitter.

This release is much shorter, but damn, this is exciting! I feel like this is the kind of bombshell expected of all releases, but I've definitely noticed engagement going steadily down with each release (2 days and the first tweet in this chain doesn't even have 100k likes).

Anyways, this seems like a much more open-and-shut case. I don't know what you could say that wouldn't indict Twitter. Even if the messaging wasn't explicitly known to Twitter, they could not be so credulous as to imagine the Pentagon wasn't trying to push pro-US messaging via fake accounts and what not. That said, a few details seem weak. In particular, I'm not sure which reporting Fang is referring to when he says that Twitter was lauded for its efforts in removing those types of accounts.

I also read the emails posted as pictures, I don't see them "congratulating" each other, just acknowledging that the WaPo won't focus on them in its article. I think the article in question is this one. Anyone know of a case of the media lauding Twitter/Facebook for this?

There's also an interesting report from the Stanford Internet Observatory which digs into how these accounts were generated and what they were doing. Most of these apparently didn't get very much interaction

The vast majority of posts and tweets we reviewed received no more than a handful of likes or retweets, and only 19% of the covert assets we identified had more than 1,000 followers. The average tweet received 0.49 likes and 0.02 retweets. Tellingly, the two most-followed assets in the data provided by Twitter were overt accounts that publicly declared a connection to the U.S. military.

The only people who'd care about this, ignoring the lizardman constant, would be some members of the old left who think anything the US does overseas is bad and that the FBI is always bad anyway. Yes, it has Twitter cooperating with the FBI, but they're cooperating with the FBI to do the kinds of things that are actually the government's job to do. There's a big difference between the FBI doing this and the FBI using Twitter to interfere with domestic politics.

As a non-American, I certainly care about the US interfering in other countries by spreading disinformation. Even if it were my own government, I care about Twitter acting as a free propaganda arm of the government to give it more influence when I want it to have less influence in the world, because I don't think it is actually generally acting in my best interest when it does these things.

As a non-American, I certainly care about the US interfering in other countries by spreading disinformation.

Notice the languages: Russian and Arabic. The countries that speak those languages aren't shining models of democracy.

when I want it to have less influence in the world

The US also has influence in the world through normal ambassadors. This argument implies that the US must get rid of all of its ambassadors. It implies that the White House should never make any press releases. It implies that the US should never get involved in any treaties that are in its own interest. It implies that the US should never perform any military action anywhere, any time. "This is bad because it gives the US influence" is a ridiculously general argument which implies that the US should never do anything that has any political implications, at least not for its own benefit.

"This is bad because it gives the US influence" is a ridiculously general argument which implies that the US should never do anything that has any political implications, at least not for its own benefit.

It's a good thing I didn't say that then. I said the US has too much and therefore I care about it extending its influence in this specific way.

This is ridiculous. There is Ambassadorship, the act of making nice with other states, and then there's Empire, the act of cajoling and beating other states until they resemble your own. I like the idea of the US making a mutual-security-and-trade deal with the People's Republic of El Kazukistan; I'm not going to be happy when the reality of that mutual-security-and-trade deal turns out to be "US troops help the foreign government bulldoze their own people over when they start to protest for better wages from the 1452 McDonald's franchises that were opened in El Kazukistan last year."

If the US wants to dominate the world, it should at least do it the hard way and say it wants to outright annex a country or two, not merely build some military bases and establish non-voting territories.

This is ridiculous. There is Ambassadorship, the act of making nice with other states, and then there's Empire, the act of cajoling and beating other states until they resemble your own. I

The poster I was responding to did not make any such distinction; he referred to influence.

no one is objecting to influence in the form of merely making nice; be charitable, not pedantic

It's not pedantic. It's being vague about exactly what he objects to.

If he actually described specific types of influence that he didn't like, it would be possible to argue that propaganda didn't fit the description or that it fit the description but the description isn't very useful. There's a reason people here are asked to speak plainly.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats