Information Warfare 101

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events, politics and economics.
Post Reply
User avatar
SethRich
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:57 pm

Information Warfare 101

Post by SethRich » Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:08 am

Greetings,

This is a wide open-ended topic - feel free to pick up on any or all of the below questions, as you see fit. However, I strongly recommend you start by watching the short embedded video (with sound on) as it provides poignant context for the questions that follow.



What happens when 90% of the media is controlled and owned by just six corporations?

What happens when those same corporations are operated and controlled by a political ideology?

What happens when the news is no longer free from bias?

What happens when the news is no longer reliable and independent?

What happens when the news is no longer trustworthy?

What happens when the news simply becomes an extension, or arm of a political party?

Does fact become fiction?

Does fiction becomes fact?

When does news become propaganda?

How does the average person, who is under constant financial and time pressures find the time to research and discern fact from fiction?

Are the majority of people more prone to believe someone in power sitting behind a big brand ‘news’ name?

Does the human psyche cause most people to follow the ‘majority/mainstream viewpoint’ in fear of being isolated and/or shunned?

Is there an association with the ‘mainstream’ that if the majority of people believe something, then it must be true?

Why do ‘mainstream’ talking heads, across different organisations, always use the same keywords and/or catch phrases? (see video above)

Is this coordinated? By who? Is there an outside entity providing instructions to the mainstream media?

Do they count on the fact that people are more prone to believe something if heard over-and-over again by different ‘trusted’ sources?

Do ‘echo chamber’ tactics provide validation or credibility to the topic/point being discussed?

Is this a threat to intellectual freedom?

Would control over of these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?

When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes free and transparent, does it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative?

"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma. Do you need to be independently minded and stand outside of the "group think" echo chamber in order to exercise "free thought"?

:candle:

#HisNameWasSethRich
"Let us neither be perpetrators nor victims!" (DN26)

:candle: "...his name was Seth Rich..."

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Information Warfare 101

Post by fwiw » Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:08 am

I would recommend this 3 mn video from The Great Hack, with a sales pitch by Alexander Nix, former CEO of Cambridge Analytica, that got Trump elected


... in my opinion

SarathW
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:27 pm

Re: Information Warfare 101

Post by SarathW » Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:34 am

Well, now you are part of that too. I have seen the same in another forum.
:tongue:
By the way, I used to hate news when I heard the same in six channels.
Now I don't listen to the News.
The advent of the internet is a blessing.
Now I can choose what I want to watch.

User avatar
SethRich
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:57 pm

Re: Information Warfare 101

Post by SethRich » Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:45 am

Greetings Sarath,
SarathW wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:34 am
Now I can choose what I want to watch.
Which is good if you can maintain the intellectual discipline required for "free thought".

If not, this will serve only to pander to and solidify one's own attachment to views. In extreme situations, it has the potential to lead to great aversion, papanca and derangement.

:candle:
"Let us neither be perpetrators nor victims!" (DN26)

:candle: "...his name was Seth Rich..."

SarathW
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:27 pm

Re: Information Warfare 101

Post by SarathW » Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:18 am

Actually this is no difference to the printing press revolution except now information is in your fingertip at a fraction of the cost.
I am very negative about the internet revolution considering the fact that there are so many people whose minds are contaminated with attachment aversion and ignorance.

Bundokji
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: Information Warfare 101

Post by Bundokji » Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:28 am

SethRich wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:08 am
What happens when 90% of the media is controlled and owned by just six corporations?
Possibly, people become more predictable. For example, if you know one's position over a particular social or political issue (such as abortion or global warning) then you can predict with reasonable accuracy their position regarding other controversial social and political issues (such as guns control, immigration, gay marriage ...etc)
What happens when those same corporations are operated and controlled by a political ideology?
Worldly truths are constructed through commissions and omissions. The role of ideology is to filter what to be included through the act of exclusion. Partial truths encourage group behavior and becomes a source of meaning to individuals. If individuals do some soul searching, they might find that all controversial issues have very little meaning to them if they were left alone.
What happens when the news is no longer free from bias?
Then it would no longer be news. The bias begins with choosing what to present as "news". Excitement is associated with infrequency and the perception of danger. News without bias is simply the everyday life.
What happens when the news is no longer reliable and independent?
That would depend on the individual and how he/she came to the conclusion that news are no longer reliable and independent.
What happens when the news is no longer trustworthy?
Most would shed skepticism about a certain source of news. Few would begin to question themselves and how they fall prey to untrustworthy sources of information in the first place.
What happens when the news simply becomes an extension, or arm of a political party?
Those who support the party would claim that this particular source of news is reliable, and those who oppose the party would not spare an effort to expose the unreliability of this source of news.
Does fact become fiction?
Does fiction becomes fact?
There are no facts, only interpretations according to Nietzsche.
When does news become propaganda?
Propaganda happens when those who have deeper insight about the nature of worldly truths use their knowledge in evil ways. In other words, when truth is intentionally twisted, we call it propaganda, when its done through confirmation bias, we call it news.
How does the average person, who is under constant financial and time pressures find the time to research and discern fact from fiction?
From my limited observations, the average person watch news to distract himself from his meaningless life. Had he any interest in discerning facts from fiction, he would have turned his attention inward.
Are the majority of people more prone to believe someone in power sitting behind a big brand ‘news’ name?
The nature of second hand knowledge encourages such behavior. People would feel more justified when they associate their views with an authority figure. As the authority figure serves as a reference point (through an equal opportunity to access his views), then reliance on the authority figure would appear neutral, objective and justified, and when things go wrong, the authority figure can be used conveniently to avoid responsibility.
Does the human psyche cause most people to follow the ‘majority/mainstream viewpoint’ in fear of being isolated and/or shunned?
Of course. Fear is the main driver behind the collective mind.
Is there an association with the ‘mainstream’ that if the majority of people believe something, then it must be true?
It is assumed that if a certain belief was exposed to large number of individual, then it must have been falsified enough to make it reliable. Individuals reliance on this assumption is what makes "public facts" remain largely unchecked.
Why do ‘mainstream’ talking heads, across different organisations, always use the same keywords and/or catch phrases? (see video above)
When some phrases are given a god-like status such as "protecting our democracy" then such notions can be effectively used for virtue signalling and to align deluded individuals behind the noble cause.
Is this coordinated? By who? Is there an outside entity providing instructions to the mainstream media?
Virtue signaling is more intuitive than intentionally coordinated in my opinion. If appeal to such notions had its impact on me, then if i use them, they should have the same desired impact on others.
Do they count on the fact that people are more prone to believe something if heard over-and-over again by different ‘trusted’ sources?
In the market place of ideas, repetition is an effective tool due to human vulnerability to suggestions.
Do ‘echo chamber’ tactics provide validation or credibility to the topic/point being discussed?
Hype and appeal to basic instincts and drives is the decisive factor for choosing between opposing views.
Is this a threat to intellectual freedom?
Not necessarily. The attempt to influence does not equate forcing someone to believe.
Would control over of these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
The obsession to control is not limited to institutions, but to the vast majority of individuals. I particularly like a metaphorical description of the world by an ascetic Muslim scholar who likened the world to an impossible corpse where dogs keep on fighting over it.
When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes free and transparent, does it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative?
The "non-dogmatic" does not take the form of information, but more of presenting a reliable approach to investigation. The problem is: in the rare case of non-dogmatic individuals, respect to the intellectual and spiritual autonomy is evident. Such approach, unfortunately, is not as effective when compared to the more simplified version of brain washing.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma. Do you need to be independently minded and stand outside of the "group think" echo chamber in order to exercise "free thought"?
I think this should be the most basic form of peaceful rebellion.
'Too much knowledge leads to scepticism. Early devotees are the likeliest apostates, as early sinners are senile saints.' – Will Durant.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests