It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There is no greater threat in fact currently facing America, the government and our way of life than the unchecked spread of those promoting alternative realities
""World War III will be a guerilla information war, with no division between military and civilian participation." Marshall McLuhan
* The flow of Information in the Internet is way beyond control. It was already in the 90s. Information comes from every person, every angle, every group, every mood...a Billion times a day.
* People dont have to be manipulated nowadays because they lack interest in world events, because they manipulate themselves and because there is so much contradictory information flowing around that it is often impossible to separate accurate from inaccurate. If manipulation by Government Agencies took place it would have to already have taken place in school by retarding their ability to process, select and evaluate information, truth, falsehood properly.
Your average Joe is not the enemy. Intelligence Agencies focus on the perceived enemy, not on a Normalton. In Ancient Rome they went to fight other nations, not to fight the Plebs. Your normal citizen is not concerned with World Events and does not pose a danger to the goals of Intelligence Agencies. It would be a massive waste of resources. Its not viable.
Social Media is a natural Evolution of who and what we are, not a Conspiracy. Not everything is a Conspiracy. Implying that social media is a Conspiracy misperceives that Social Media is the next Logical Step. Before Internet we used meeting groups, Movie Theaters, Cafes to connect socially. In the age of Internet we naturally use "Social Media". What is Social Media? Its a virtual Cafe where people meet and socialize.
While you purport to see a sinister effort to manipulate the citizenry, I feel it my obligation to point out to you, that government’s role is to protect and serve the citizenry.
Question #1: Why is you feel that America, it’s Government and it’s people lack the ability and resolve to ensure the flow of information on the Internet always includes fair and balanced factual reporting in any and all venues that report news in it’s various forms and interpretations?
the Government only seeks to defend the citizens and the nation from this onslaught.
Question #2: Why do you feel that the government protecting the citizens from snake oil salesman and propagandists is manipulation by the government?
Question #3: Do you really believe that El Qaeda, Communists and extremist militias and people like Timothy McVeigh are not a threat that warrants a guarded and vigilant response to?
Question #4: Do you really imagine America’s enemies and detractors, would not realize an opportunity in being able to broadcast directly to so many people, so inexpensively, and in as great a detail and frequently as they can muster to do harm do this nation?
I was under the impression that we were arguing whether Intelligence Agencies are using Social Media for mass-manipulation or not and I think you are under the impression that we are arguing whether them using Social Media is good or not.
The topic for this debate is "The United States Intelligence Community Has Considered And Implemented Ways To Use Social Networking Communities To Influence The Opinions Of The American Population."
“A lie told often enough becomes truth” Vladimir Lenin
“There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.” William James father of modern Psychology
#1 Do you think every last bit of information can be controlled?
#2 Do you agree with the prognosis of some Researchers that, because of the massive overload of Information in the Internet, people will come to value conventional news sources again?
#3 Are you afraid of alternative viewpoints being offered to the American Public?
#4 Do you oppose freedom of speech?
"If you dont grant freedom of speech to people you hate, you dont grant freedom of speech at all" - Source Unknown
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I am at a total loss of where you might have gotten that impression from?
“A lie told often enough becomes truth” Vladimir Lenin
amateur pseudo journalists misinterpreting simple facts
American Communist Party News!
They can do this at a substantially reduced cost, they can do this, 24 hours a day, and they are doing this with malicious and malignant intent aimed at breeding subversion to the State and the American Way of life, and weakening and diluting our national resolve.
Clearly you are trying to cast a benevolent government, one intent on protecting its citizens and way of life as some kind of desperate fascist enterprise
Question #1: Why do you fear people receiving all the facts and the proper context from a concerned government that wishes nothing but prosperity and freedom for it’s people?
Question #2: Why is it you fear Government using social networking sites to disseminate and broadcast news and facts and events?
Question #3: Are you afraid of the Government and it’s desire to broadcast to the citizenry in all those places that they can effectively be reached in mass?
Question #4: Are you promoting anarchy and stating the government should not be able to speak freely itself and address valid discrepancies in incomplete and falsified information being disseminated by commercially driven sensationalists and true enemies of the state?
Once again I implore you to consider the true gravity of this situation and understand that it is not a question of 'if' Cognitive Infiltration is being employed, but 'should' it be employed.
Question #1: If it were a matter of life and death (such as a coming bomb attack), would you rely more on ATS or on conventional news media (CNN, NBC, Fox) for information?
Question #2: Do you think anyone would give a Rats Ass if the CIA started posting political information on Twitter?
Question #3: If the President had a choice between holding a Press Conference or posting a note on Myspace for important information, which should he choose in your opinion?
Question #4: Wouldnt you agree that, since anyone can post responses and facts and different views here, this would be the last place the Government could get Propaganda out UNIMPEDED?
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
There is a difference between freely expressing oneself and expressing oneself falsely for the purpose of a hidden agenda.
alter the perspectives of others for political gain, power, profit or intentional harm.
Militias, terrorist cells, extreme religious cults, foreign governments and others look for disaffected people to recruit by befriending them, giving them attention, bolstering their egos, and indoctrinating them into radically different ideologies
Today YouTube sports what are often big dollar productions of audio video presentations aimed at undermining the Government and destroying the American way of life
You sir would have us do nothing at all as far as safeguarding our way of life and protecting and promoting it on the Internet?
The Internet is a new frontier and the people of this nation deserve their government’s protection, oversight, and organizational and logistical capabilities here as much as they do in the mountains, valleys and dales.
Question #1: Why do you feel the government can not adequately or should not make the Internet a viable and reliable alternative venue for official news, views, and information thus allowing any choice to be a good one?
Law abiding Americans though would see a CIA presence on Twitter as reassuring.
Question #2: Why do you have such a dim view of the nations premier intelligence agency?
Question #3: Why do you feel things should always boil down to just one choice of mediums?
What I would agree with is that for that very reason obviously the government is not trying to disseminate propaganda on social networking sites
Question 4#: Why do you feel the government would abuse its ability to disseminate information and safeguard the citizenry?
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Active and rigorous monitoring of social networking sites to ensure they don’t become a free broadcasting network
My oppnent says that the Government and people like myself who see a reasonable need for cognitive infiltration of social networking sites believe the people of this nation are too diminished in their capacity to think intelligently and make good decisions for themselves.
Every year thousands of children go missing after being lured away from their homes by predators on the Internet.
September 11, 2001 didn’t when nineteen radical Islamist extremists managed to arouse no suspicion to board 4 flights
Today’s social networking sites are yesteryears movie theatres, they are a place where citizens congregate in large numbers, and it is more efficient, timely and cost effective to broadcast through such mediums and to such audiences.
From the initial opening statement to the closing, ProtoPlasmicTraveler took the lead and kept it, making this a very lopsided debate. I found myself with the impression that Skyfloating did not have his heart in it.
Granted Skyfloating had the more difficult side of this debate, but ProtoPlasmicTraveler really nailed his side and I feel took the debate hands down.
"The United States Intelligence Community Has Considered And Implemented Ways To Use Social Networking Communities To Influence The Opinions Of The American Population."
This turned out to be a highly intense debate. I must admit to being somewhat disappointed that neither debater chose to utilize external source material to strengthen their arguments. Thus I was left to judge on who was able to present the best line of reasoning based solely upon personal opinion instead of solid facts.
Over all, ProtoPlasmicTraveler provided the most compelling – and might I add, entertaining – argument. While I do not necessarily agree with his entire line of reasoning, it was most certainly the strongest. He remained consistent with his stance throughout the debate, despite the fact that his opponent tried to steer him off course.
Skyfloating began with a weak opening statement and was unable to maintain his footing throughout the remainder of the debate. His attempts to reframe his opponent’s point-of-view not only failed, but completely undermined his own stance. Had he attempted to point to outside source material to strengthen his line of logic, he might have stood a chance.
In the end, the win goes to ProtoPlasmicTraveler.
Thought-provoking and articulate read. Interesting argument that the intelligence community uses social media to provide “a balanced view we greatly reduce the chance that false perspectives could taint the political landscape to the point of a significant breakdown in society and the state’s ability to successfully govern and protect and serve the citizenry.”
His opening statement is dodgy at best. If anything he seems to be mocking the subject matter, and takes the stance that social networking does not play an integral enough role in today’s society – which would deem this debate essentially moot. In short, his line of logic is sorely lacking.
Opening Statement goes to ProtoPlasmicTraveler.
His stance that the government is a sort of purveyor of truth in the midst of an information war that centers around personality cults that utilize social networking communities as propaganda tools makes for a truly interesting viewpoint.
Good use of Socratic questions to steer the debate.
He attempts to paint his opponent’s stance as one of the government attempting to “control the flow of information.” This attempt at spin comes across as off-balance and serves to highlight the faulty weakness of his opening statement.
Further weakens his stance with this:
“Too much (government) intervention becomes manipulation.”
This implies that the government does indeed make active use of various means to manipulate public opinion, thus rendering his argument pointless.
Round 1 goes to ProtoPlasmicTraveler.
Regarding foreign and domestic propaganda:
“The government of the United States would surely be remiss if it were not actively utilizing it’s resources to combat this growing threat, and rest assured American resolve in any regard or matter should never be underestimated!”
That is one humdinger of a response. He stands his ground and doesn’t falter off course.
Again, he makes a weak attempt to turn the debate in his favor by defending the Freedom of Speech. Had he attempted this line of reasoning earlier in the debate, perhaps it may have helped his stance. However, I cannot help but feel that he is struggling to stay afloat and is steering the debate off course in response.
Round 2 goes to ProtoPlasmicTraveler.
Regarding Freedom of Speech:
“When expressions involve distorting and omitting facts and reliance upon wild speculation and conjecture aimed at inflaming the readers emotions to render them into a confused and an easy to manipulate state, one is no longer simply expressing one’s self, one is contriving through machination to alter the perspectives of others for political gain, power, profit or intentional harm.”
He acknowledges that social networking sites and other media are already being manipulated by various groups for a wide variety of reasons. Personally, I could have gone without the long history lesson on the internet. That part could have been greatly shortened and still have gotten the point across.
Regarding social networking communities:
“Social networking and attempted infiltration of such networks existed long before the Internet...with mediocre results.”
“Government utilization of social networking sites is not viable and ineffective.”
Normally, I would consider these to be potentially strong statements – provided there was actually an attempt to provide a source to deem them factual. As there is no source provided, it falls into the realm of personal opinion which carries little weight in a debate.
Round 3 goes to ProtoPlasmicTraveler.
He continues to consistently stick to his core argument that the government does and should continue to use social networking communities to sway public opinion. Again, his argument could have been made without the long history lesson regarding the development of the internet.
Overall, he made an strong and compelling argument for his stance.
“Since ProtoplasmicTraveler did not provide any evidence for Social Networks being used by the CIA I had nothing left to do than to defend free speech in the Internet by pointing out that intervention would come decades too late, that it would not be viable, that it would not be effective, and to top it all of, that it would not be ethical.”
This is a poor attempt by Skyfloating to justify his lack of a cohesive argument to defend his stance in this debate. Unfortunately, his line of reasoning was all over the place thus weaken his argument.
Closing Statement goes to ProtoplasmicTraveler.