Actually if you'd read beyond the first five words, you'd see that I'm actually making fun of your assertion that the use of military social media accounts is for the servicemembers' own jollies rather than propaganda.

So that "suspicion" you're denying was actually your own absurd implication. I know sarcasm is hard, but come on bro.

You're right, it was actually the article right after that from 2006--two years before--that detailed the actual effort, straight from the horse's mouth. My bad! The 2008 article instead details the planned creation of fake blogs to spread propaganda. Decent writeup here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

dun let the door hit ya on the way out.

Because I'm so sure that the military's top priority with enabling its workers to use facebook is so that they can trade cat pictures with their relatives, rather than spread the "information" their employer needs them to spread. Who do you think you're kidding?

Remember that the military put out an effort to secretly recruit bloggers back in 2008: http://www.wired.com/dangerroo...

Again, all the way back in 2008, the military was throwing money at web propaganda outlets in other languages, under phony names: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... The websites suggest a pattern of Pentagon efforts to promote its agenda by disseminating information through what appear to be independent outlets, says Marvin Kalb, a fellow at Harvard University's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

Yet, even further back in 2006, US Central Command publicly stated its efforts to "engage bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information".

http://www.defense.gov/news/ne... "We were given the mission to do electronic media engagement," Flowers said. "The idea was put forth that so many people are getting their news from online sources that we would be remiss if we neglected that audience."

But clearly when he says "people", he's talking about non-US citizens, right? Try to find some evidence of that in the entire article. Go ahead.


The notion that the US government was somehow *new* to web propaganda even in 2006, even compared to the Russians, is absolutely absurd. Just as blogs were targeted by the military after coming into vogue in the mid 2000s, using social media was the obvious next step. What "propaganda programs" do you think Leon Panetta was referring in that previous USA today article, that they wouldn't involve Americans? Especially considering the military propaganda budget was 580 million dollars by 2012: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

You didn't "rebut" anything, you simply mentioned that the Russians also had active propaganda programs, and that we don't know "what has become of that software development effort". I really love the way you tried to turn the thread back around to being about the Russians, even though that wasn't being discussed, and you just wanted an excuse to use that news link. It's very telling that you're more worried about Russians propagandizing to you than your own government.

The article specifically said that a 2.76 million dollar contract was awarded to Intrepid for their sockpuppet software. It would be incredibly naive to think the military threw down the money and forgot about the effort, especially considering their other web propaganda efforts (above) are evidenced at least back through 2006.

The article also mentioned "It would not disclose whether the multiple persona project is already in operation or discuss any related contracts." I'm sure you, in your neverending puppydog trust of our government's good-will, could only take that to mean that the programs were discontinued.

If you think the DoD would encourage its workers to use social media, and would not be willing to utilize sockpuppet software it had already paid for on Americans--at the very least after 2013 when this sort of propaganda is now technically legal!--you're more naive than anything else you've said thus far could possibly let on.

Oh *sure*, it was just one Pentagon contractor co-owner's social media flooding software which he cooked up for his own private use, rather than anything already created the propaganda contractor he headed. Are you fucking kidding me? It must have been all on his lonesome that he cooked up propaganda websites, too:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Try to explain how a propaganda contractor would have such a disinformation capacity, and yet would be loath to use it on behalf of the US government. Go ahead. I'm waiting.


P.S. Your tail is showing. Tell cold fjord I said hi.

I got plenty of citations

Military Announces New Social Media Policy (Feb. 26th 2010)
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com...
"Many months behind schedule, the Department of Defense on Friday issued a new policy that, on the surface, seems likely to expand access to popular social networking sites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter by troops using military computers."

Well, that's pleasant, but.. just how "expanded" has the "access" been?

Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media ( March 17th 2011)
Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tech...
"A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world."

Convinced yet? Want to explain why US contractors had an active online social media presence in 2011, if they couldn't make money off of it?

Propaganda programs hard to justify, Panetta says
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

"USA TODAY found that the owners of the top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan, Leonie Industries, had failed to pay $4 million in federal taxes on time despite earning more than $200 million in contracts from the government. Their tax bills were paid after the story was published.

Shortly after USA TODAY made inquiries about the tax bills, fake Facebook and Twitter accounts, as well as phony fan club websites, were set up to disparage USA TODAY reporters. The co-owner of the company, Camille Chidiac, admitted to setting up some of the sites but said he did not use company resources in doing so. He had been suspended from receiving federal contracts because of the campaign, but the military lifted the suspension late last year."

You're essentially claiming that it's in the best interest for US government trolls to out themselves as existing here on slashdot. Or maybe you're claiming he's a russian troll, just because he's stating the obvious? That's absurd, especially given how pro-russia trolling is virtually nowhere to be found on this site.

And "you doing it is ok"? How is that even relevant when the guy was posting as anon?

"I'm not in love with the fossil fuel industry, but.."

One of many things to say before/after defending the fossil fuel industry.

"Even i, a right-wing Greek,"

Oh, sure you are. Did you have to check your onscreen prompt to remind you which country your current sockpuppet is supposed to be from?