Skip to main content

A guide to understanding the hoax of the Century

Thirteen ways of looking at disinformation
 
by Jacob Siegel
 
Part 1 - Prologue: The Information War 

In 1950, Sen. Joseph McCarthy claimed that he had proof of a communist spy ring operating inside the government. Overnight, the explosive accusations blew up in the national press, but the details kept changing. Initially, McCarthy said he had a list with the names of 205 communists in the State Department; the next day he revised it to 57. Since he kept the list a secret, the inconsistencies were beside the point. The point was the power of the accusation, which made McCarthy’s name synonymous with the politics of the era.

For more than half a century, McCarthyism stood as a defining chapter in the worldview of American liberals: a warning about the dangerous allure of blacklists, witch hunts, and demagogues.

Until 2017, that is, when another list of alleged Russian agents roiled the American press and political class. A new outfit called Hamilton 68 claimed to have discovered hundreds of Russian-affiliated accounts that had infiltrated Twitter to sow chaos and help Donald Trump win the election. Russia stood accused of hacking social media platforms, the new centers of power, and using them to covertly direct events inside the United States.

None of it was true. After reviewing Hamilton 68’s secret list, Twitter’s safety officer, Yoel Roth, privately admitted that his company was allowing “real people” to be “unilaterally labeled Russian stooges without evidence or recourse.

The Hamilton 68 episode played out as a nearly shot-for-shot remake of the McCarthy affair, with one important difference: McCarthy faced some resistance from leading journalists as well as from the U.S. intelligence agencies and his fellow members of Congress. In our time, those same groups lined up to support the new secret lists and attack anyone who questioned them
.

When proof emerged earlier this year that Hamilton 68 was a high-level hoax perpetrated against the American people, it was met with a great wall of silence in the national press. The disinterest was so profound, it suggested a matter of principle rather than convenience for the standard-bearers of American liberalism who had lost faith in the promise of freedom and embraced a new ideal.

In his last days in office, President Barack Obama made the decision to set the country on a new course. On Dec. 23, 2016, he signed into law the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, which used the language of defending the homeland to launch an open-ended, offensive information war.

Something in the looming specter of Donald Trump and the populist movements of 2016 reawakened sleeping monsters in the West. Disinformation, a half-forgotten relic of the Cold War, was newly spoken of as an urgent, existential threat. Russia was said to have exploited the vulnerabilities of the open internet to bypass U.S. strategic defenses by infiltrating private citizens’ phones and laptops. The Kremlin’s endgame was to colonize the minds of its targets, a tactic cyber warfare specialists call “cognitive hacking.”

Defeating this specter was treated as a matter of national survival. “The U.S. Is Losing at Influence Warfare,” warned a December 2016 article in the defense industry journal, Defense One. The article quoted two government insiders arguing that laws written to protect U.S. citizens from state spying were jeopardizing national security. According to Rand Waltzman, a former program manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, America’s adversaries enjoyed a “significant advantage” as the result of “legal and organizational constraints that we are subject to and they are not.

The point was echoed by Michael Lumpkin, who headed the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), the agency Obama designated to run the U.S. counter-disinformation campaign. Lumpkin singled out the Privacy Act of 1974, a post-Watergate law protecting U.S. citizens from having their data collected by the government, as antiquated. “The 1974 act was created to make sure that we aren’t collecting data on U.S. citizens. Well, … by definition the World Wide Web is worldwide. There is no passport that goes with it. If it’s a Tunisian citizen in the United States or a U.S. citizen in Tunisia, I don’t have the ability to discern that … If I had more ability to work with that [personally identifiable information] and had access … I could do more targeting, more definitively, to make sure I could hit the right message to the right audience at the right time.

The message from the U.S. defense establishment was clear: To win the information war—an existential conflict taking place in the borderless dimensions of cyberspace—the government needed to dispense with outdated legal distinctions between foreign terrorists and American citizens.

Since 2016, the federal government has spent billions of dollars on turning the counter-disinformation complex into one of the most powerful forces in the modern world: a sprawling leviathan with tentacles reaching into both the public and private sector, which the government uses to direct a “whole of society” effort that aims to seize total control over the internet and achieve nothing less than the eradication of human error.

Step one in the national mobilization to defeat disinfo fused the U.S. national security infrastructure with the social media platforms, where the war was being fought. The government’s lead counter-disinformation agency, the GEC, declared that its mission entailed “seeking out and engaging the best talent within the technology sector.” To that end, the government started deputizing tech executives as de facto wartime information commissars.

At companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Amazon, the upper management levels had always included veterans of the national security establishment. But with the new alliance between U.S. national security and social media, the former spooks and intelligence agency officials grew into a dominant bloc inside those companies; what had been a career ladder by which people stepped up from their government experience to reach private tech-sector jobs turned into an ouroboros that molded the two together. With the D.C.-Silicon Valley fusion, the federal bureaucracies could rely on informal social connections to push their agenda inside the tech companies.

In the fall of 2017, the FBI opened its Foreign Influence Task Force for the express purpose of monitoring social media to flag accounts trying to “discredit U.S. individuals and institutions.” The Department of Homeland Security took on a similar role.

At around the same time, Hamilton 68 blew up. Publicly, Twitter’s algorithms turned the Russian-influence-exposing “dashboard” into a major news story. Behind the scenes, Twitter executives quickly figured out that it was a scam. When Twitter reverse-engineered the secret list, it found, according to the journalist Matt Taibbi, that “instead of tracking how Russia influenced American attitudes, Hamilton 68 simply collected a handful of mostly real, mostly American accounts and described their organic conversations as Russian scheming.” The discovery prompted Twitter’s head of trust and safety, Yoel Roth, to suggest in an October 2017 email that the company take action to expose the hoax and “call this out on the bullshit it is.

In the end, neither Roth nor anyone else said a word. Instead, they let a purveyor of industrial-grade bullshit—the old-fashioned term for disinformation—continue dumping its contents directly into the news stream.

It was not enough for a few powerful agencies to combat disinformation. The strategy of national mobilization called for “not only the whole-of-government, but also whole-of-society” approach, according to a document released by the GEC in 2018. “To counter propaganda and disinformation,” the agency stated, “will require leveraging expertise from across government, tech and marketing sectors, academia, and NGOs.

This is how the government-created “war against disinformation” became the great moral crusade of its time. CIA officers at Langley came to share a cause with hip young journalists in Brooklyn, progressive nonprofits in D.C., George Soros-funded think tanks in Prague, racial equity consultants, private equity consultants, tech company staffers in Silicon Valley, Ivy League researchers, and failed British royals. Never Trump Republicans joined forces with the Democratic National Committee, which declared online disinformation “a whole-of-society problem that requires a whole-of-society response.

Even trenchant critics of the phenomenon—including Taibbi and the Columbia Journalism Review’s Jeff Gerth, who recently published a dissection of the press’s role in promoting false Trump-Russia collusion claims—have focused on the media’s failures, a framing largely shared by conservative publications, which treat disinformation as an issue of partisan censorship bias. But while there’s no question that the media has utterly disgraced itself, it’s also a convenient fall guy—by far the weakest player in the counter-disinformation complex. The American press, once the guardian of democracy, was hollowed out to the point that it could be worn like a hand puppet by the U.S. security agencies and party operatives.

It would be nice to call what has taken place a tragedy, but an audience is meant to learn something from a tragedy. As a nation, America not only has learned nothing, it has been deliberately prevented from learning anything while being made to chase after shadows. This is not because Americans are stupid; it’s because what has taken place is not a tragedy but something closer to a crime. Disinformation is both the name of the crime and the means of covering it up; a weapon that doubles as a disguise.

The crime is the information war itself, which was launched under false pretenses and by its nature destroys the essential boundaries between the public and private and between the foreign and domestic, on which peace and democracy depend. By conflating the anti-establishment politics of domestic populists with acts of war by foreign enemies, it justified turning weapons of war against Americans citizens. It turned the public arenas where social and political life take place into surveillance traps and targets for mass psychological operations. The crime is the routine violation of Americans’ rights by unelected officials who secretly control what individuals can think and say.

What we are seeing now, in the revelations exposing the inner workings of the state-corporate censorship regime, is only the end of the beginning. The United States is still in the earliest stages of a mass mobilization that aims to harness every sector of society under a singular technocratic rule. The mobilization, which began as a response to the supposedly urgent menace of Russian interference, now evolves into a regime of total information control that has arrogated to itself the mission of eradicating abstract dangers such as error, injustice, and harm—a goal worthy only of leaders who believe themselves to be infallible, or comic-book supervillains.

The first phase of the information war was marked by distinctively human displays of incompetence and brute-force intimidation. But the next stage, already underway, is being carried out through both scalable processes of artificial intelligence and algorithmic pre-censorship that are invisibly encoded into the infrastructure of the internet, where they can alter the perceptions of billions of people.

Something monstrous is taking shape in America. Formally, it exhibits the synergy of state and corporate power in service of a tribal zeal that is the hallmark of fascism. Yet anyone who spends time in America and is not a brainwashed zealot can tell that it is not a fascist country. What is coming into being is a new form of government and social organization that is as different from mid-twentieth century liberal democracy as the early American republic was from the British monarchism that it grew out of and eventually supplanted. A state organized on the principle that it exists to protect the sovereign rights of individuals, is being replaced by a digital leviathan that wields power through opaque algorithms and the manipulation of digital swarms. It resembles the Chinese system of social credit and one-party state control, and yet that, too, misses the distinctively American and providential character of the control system. In the time we lose trying to name it, the thing itself may disappear back into the bureaucratic shadows, covering up any trace of it with automated deletions from the top-secret data centers of Amazon Web Services, “the trusted cloud for government.

    When the blackbird flew out of sight,
    It marked the edge
    Of one of many circles.


In a technical or structural sense, the censorship regime’s aim is not to censor or to oppress, but to rule. That’s why the authorities can never be labeled as guilty of disinformation. Not when they lied about Hunter Biden’s laptops, not when they claimed that the lab leak was a racist conspiracy, not when they said that vaccines stopped transmission of the novel coronavirus. Disinformation, now and for all time, is whatever they say it is. That is not a sign that the concept is being misused or corrupted; it is the precise functioning of a totalitarian system.

If the underlying philosophy of the war against disinformation can be expressed in a single claim, it is this: You cannot be trusted with your own mind. What follows is an attempt to see how this philosophy has manifested in reality. It approaches the subject of disinformation from 13 angles—like the “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird,” Wallace Stevens’ 1917 poem—with the aim that the composite of these partial views will provide a useful impression of disinformation’s true shape and ultimate design.

Source:


[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The real reason Zionists and their US-Western imperialist buddies are slaughtering Palestinian children in Gaza

globinfo freexchange   Gaza is gas-rich. At least 1.4 trillion cubic feet rich. Geologists and natural resources economists have confirmed that the occupied Palestinian territory lies above sizeable reservoirs of oil and natural gas wealth, in area C of the occupied West Bank and the Mediterranean coast off the Gaza Strip. Back in 1999, the Palestinian authority signed a deal with British Gas. Just off the Gaza coast two wells were drilled. It was a multi-billion dollar gift from God and economic boom for both home and abroad.    In 2007, Hamas came to power and Israel launched an offensive on Gaza Strip, leaving behind 1,400 dead Palestinians, but taking with it the gas fields. Within a year, Israel announced the discovery of the Leviathan natural gas field, which did include Gaza's riches, valued at 453 billion dollars. But Gazans have been denied around 47 billion dollars in revenue. As for Tel Aviv, it's gunning to become a new hub.   As Andy Rowell of priceofoil.org repo

Roger Waters & Abby Martin on Gaza Genocide

Empire Files   Legendary Pink Floyd musician Roger Waters joins Empire Files to discuss his longtime advocacy for Palestine and the crisis in Gaza.       

Roger Waters on rise of neoliberalism, fascism & far-right - Julian Assange - Ukraine & Gaza strip

Kontra Channel   A global exclusive by journalist Panos Charitos on Kontra News 21:30 - Roger Waters interview 30 November 2023 on Kontra's main news bulletin.

Time for the anti-imperialist powers to take the keys of the planet from the declining and morally bankrupt West

It's time for China, Russia, the Global South and the Arab World to form a robust coalition with the mission to make sure that international law will truly apply to everyone   by system failure   We are witnessing a genocide in real-time. Israeli Apartheid state has launched another ethnic cleansing operation against Palestinians, not only in Gaza, but in the West Bank too. And the level of brutality of this operation shows that the Zionists of Netanyahu regime are absolutely determined this time to complete what the Israel is trying to do for decades: wipe out Palestinians from their land.   Therefore, in essence, this is just the culmination of an ongoing ethnic cleansing operation against Palestinians that is going on since 1948.   However, there are some new facts in this re-boosted cycle of violence this time, apart from the level of brutality against Palestinian civilians. One, is the fact that the US-Israeli propaganda doesn't seem to be very effective, despit

Ο λόγος που οι δημοσκοπήσεις δείχνουν δεύτερο κόμμα το ΠΑΣΟΚ

του system failure     Σε προηγούμενο άρθρο , αμέσως μετά τις επαναληπτικές εκλογές του Ιουνίου, είχαμε επισημάνει ότι οι τρεις στόχοι που δεν κατάφερε να πετύχει η ντόπια ολιγαρχία είναι συνοπτικά, η στρατηγική ήττα ΣΥΡΙΖΑ και αντικατάστασή του από το ΠΑΣΟΚ, η απομάκρυνση Μητσοτάκη και το "ρετουσάρισμα" της ΝΔ, η αποτροπή εισόδου ακροδεξιών κομμάτων στη βουλή που θα μπορούσαν να αποτελέσουν πόλο έλξης μερίδας ψηφοφόρων της ΝΔ στο μέλλον.  Αναλυτικότερα, ο στόχος της ολοκληρωτικής ήττας του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ και η επιστροφή του στο 3% απέτυχε. Είναι χαρακτηριστικό ότι ο στρατός των διαδικτυακών τρολ του καθεστώτος Μητσοτάκη, επιδόθηκε σε ομοβροντία "λυσσασμένων" αναρτήσεων με κεντρικό θέμα την επιστροφή στο 3%, όπως είχε γίνει και στις εκλογές του 2019. Φάνηκε ότι ο διακαής πόθος του κατεστημένου ήταν να ξεφορτωθεί μια και καλή το κόμμα της Αριστεράς που, απ'ότι φαίνεται, θεωρείται, ακόμα, ένας μη ελεγχόμενος παράγοντας και άρα ένας συστημικός κίνδυνος που μπο

How US media legitimise Israel's barbarism against the Palestinians

By presenting Israel's terror campaign against Palestinians as if it were defensible, the US media are doing their part to help it continue   by Gregory Shupak   Part 4 - An ethical veneer Similarly, The Los Angeles Times declared that " Israel has every right to use military force to prevent " attacks like the ones that Hamas carried out on 7 October and that Israel " must stay true to its values by doing everything possible to minimize the suffering of innocent Palestinian residents of Gaza. " The piece applauds Biden for saying he will ask Congress for " an unprecedented support package for Israel's defense " and for vaguely suggesting that Israel reflect on whether killing thousands of Palestinians will help it " achieve [its] objectives ". The editorial then asserts: " That Israel does not target civilians is small comfort for the families of those killed or wounded. " Perhaps the authors think it magnanimous to mention th

Who controls agricultural land in Ukraine?

The total amount of land controlled by oligarchs, corrupt individuals, and large agribusinesses is thus over nine million hectares, exceeding 28 percent of the country’s arable land. The rest is used by over eight million Ukrainian farmers.   Part 9 - How will the post-war reconstruction plans proposed by international financial institutions affect the agricultural sector?   Ukraine’s staggering and growing foreign debt – estimated at US$132 billion in 2020 – makes it likely that reconstruction will be dictated by international financial institutions and foreign interests, which have already indicated that they will use their leverage to further privatize numerous sectors, including agriculture.    For instance, the World Bank has asserted that Ukraine’s reconstruction must be accompanied by “ further liberalization of the agricultural land market, ” while the Ukraine Reform Tracker, presented at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in July 2022, states that the post-war moment presents th

The BANNED Video Israel Doesn't' Want You To See

Double Down News   Is this what they don't want you to know? 

Gaza 'Textbook Case of GENOCIDE' - Holocaust Scholar

Owen Jones   Raz Segal - an Israeli associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University in the US - is someone you need to listen to. When he uses the term 'genocide', it is not done lightly - it is with precision. Here he sets out the case that the Israeli state is committing an ongoing genocide in Gaza - and questions of intent, incitement, prevention and accountability.  

Zionist anti-Palestine censorship is surging

The Real News Network   Dylan Saba, a lawyer for Palestine Legal, was asked to write a piece on the silencing of pro-Palestine voices by The Guardian —only to then be informed at the last minute that his piece had been killed. Saba joins countless pro-Palestine activists and voices who have been targeted with termination, doxxing, harassment, censorship, and even death threats. Saba joins The Chris Hedges Report to discuss the intensifying war on civil liberties unfolding as public revulsion at Israel's crimes in Gaza grows.