It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TrueBrit
...these government fools, that merely throwing out BS to confuse the membership of this merry site..
Originally posted by andre18
Can anyone say, arrogance or ego-trip, what an amazing exaggerated sense of importance. The government doesn't give a toss about conspiracy websites, why would they?
Originally posted by andre18
The government doesn't give a toss about conspiracy websites, why would they?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
He is a constitutional law professor
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Being an expert on constitutional law would seem to me to discourage unconstitutional behavior.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The irony of a constitutional law expert (and Supreme Court hopeful) advocating government-sponsored intervention in the free flow of free speech (including strategies of planting false information through paid covert contractors) is astounding.
Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer '___' and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials (though the plan never went into effect).13 In 1947, space aliens did, in fact, land in Roswell, New Mexico, and the government covered it all up. (Well, maybe not.) Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones. Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not
be undermined.
Originally posted by 27jd
What makes you think the U.S. government doesn't employ some of the same tactics?
Page 14:
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.
Page 15:
Second, we suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.
Page 22:
In one variant, government agents would openly proclaim, or at least make no effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations. A recent newspaper story recounts that Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms and websites in order to ventilate arguments not usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success.68 In another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false identities. Each approach has distinct costs and benefits; the second is riskier but potentially brings higher returns. In the former case, where government officials participate openly as such, hard-core members of the relevant networks, communities and conspiracy-minded organizations may entirely discount what the officials say, right from the beginning. The risk with tactics of anonymous participation, conversely, is that if the tactic becomes known, any true member of the relevant groups who raises doubts may be suspected of government connections. Despite these difficulties, the two forms of cognitive infiltration offer different risk-reward mixes and are both potentially useful instruments.
Originally posted by andre18
no issues on a conspiracy website is important or relevant enough to be taken seriously by the government
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Did you read any of the linked PDF from Cass Sunstein?
He is a constitutional law professor who advocates government intervention in online conspiracy venues -- chat, blogs, boards -- for the purpose of disrupting and confusing the flow of conversation.
And now, this person has been appointed by the President to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and has been singled out as the President's top choice for the Supreme Court.
You don't think this development signifies some level of interest?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This thread specifically: FBI Fears Chinese Hackers Have Back Door Into US Government & Military, prompted a press release and response from the FBI.
I'd say that qualifies as being "taken seriously."
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Here are some points that support -- through various methods of double-speak -- using false information or deceptive tactics:
Page 14: engage in counterspeech,
Page 15:
They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.
Page 22:
In another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false identities.
Rather than taking the continued existence of the hard core as a constraint, and addressing itself solely to the third-party mass audience, government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories, arguments and rhetoric that are produced by the hard core and reinforce it in turn. One promising tactic is cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.
…
Our main suggestion is just that, whatever the tactical details, there would seem to be ample reason for government efforts to introduce some cognitive diversity into the groups that generate conspiracy theories. Social cascades are sometimes quite fragile, precisely because they are based on small slivers of information. Once corrective information is introduced, large numbers of people can be shifted to different views. If government is able to have credibility, or to act through credible agents, it might well be successful in dislodging beliefs that are held only because no one contradicts them.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It’s also clear to me that Sunstein is NOT talking about planting false information, but cognitive infiltration. In other words, to infiltrate false conspiracy theories with facts…
Originally posted by andre18
no issues on a conspiracy website is important or relevant enough to be taken seriously by the government