Once again an interesting and thought provoking article, even if a bit hyperbolic in places. You have identified the problem posed by social media (their ability to censor content) although one could just as easily make the same allegations against main stream journalism (have you watched the BBC lately?).
I find your proposed solution (Federally imposed oversight) more than a bit troubling. Have you thought through what forms this bureaucratic oversight would take? At first blush it appears to mimic Oceania's Ministry of Truth to keep the proles in line. Surely you are not thinking that Orwellian, are you? It is already bad enough that we have the outlines of the Ministry of Plenty (Bidenomics, anyone?) and the Ministry of Peace (Washington sleepwalking into WWIII) in place. I can't wait to see the rollout for the Ministry of Love.
As an aside, did I understand you correctly to say you have been thrown off LinkedIn again? I guess the Ministry of Truth is already up and running. If so, this is truly a shame. LI is so plain Vanilla bland without you.
I do agree with you wholeheartedly about the inept nature of the USG's efforts at influence and strategic messaging. I sat through so many meetings where so called government experts were debating "happy" or "glad" in their proposed messaging campaign to last a dozen lifetimes. As a "Back to the Future" alternative, I would suggest the 800-pound brains in DC dust off William "Wild Bill" Donovan's OSS playbook from WWII with a particular emphasis on using ridicule to laugh at our enemies. Four brilliant examples from Hollywood (when they were still patriotic) are Walt Disney's "Donald Duck in Nutziland" and The Three Stooges "You Nazty Spy" and "I'll Never Heil Again." And perhaps the all time classic is Charlie Chaplain's "The Great Dictator." Ahh, those were the days.
Thanks for the in-depth input and we are not in disagreement. Here's the problem and why I am not advocating government censorship but true Intelligence oversight of social media platform activities.
First, digital oversight is easy for CYBER related IC entities, and they must know how social media is operating in order to share PSA's regarding SM platforms. My case with LinkedIn, Zuckerberg's sellout of democracy, armed insurrection by the Truth Social and similar crowds, etc. Warning does not constitute censorship, it's more of "caveat emptor" for all citizens who do not have common-sense, our professional background or whose Narrative Identity has been malignly influenced.
Secondly, the only thing I can stay without flinching about the National Security community's dangerous negligence in the realm of defending what is between the ears of our citizens: "the community at large is 'fiddling" while American Democracy burns.'"
Thanks for your clarification differentiating oversight from censorship . I had assumed this was your intent in the original post but did not have a warm fuzzy feeling upon reading it for the first time.
As to the NATSEC community's negligence on this topic I would suggest this could be a worthy exposition for an in-depth, deep dive analysis. I find it hard to accept that gross incompetence is the only answer. That seems far too simplistic for this problem set. For what it is worth, I can relate several examples from our former place of mutual employment where my team was waived off from pursuing IO or SC counter narratives to thwart or diffuse adversarial (read foreign) narratives., all for reasons that made no common sense within the context in which they were made. It was as if they either (A) did not want to be bothered with the concept or (B) they did not want to offend the sensibilities of our adversaries. Any ideas???
We are in full agreement my friend. I'm writing a little something today and I have written often on this topic. Agreed though that another truly deep dive is in order. We may need to co-write or write a series on this topic. Something to consider over breakfast.
Hi Paul,
Once again an interesting and thought provoking article, even if a bit hyperbolic in places. You have identified the problem posed by social media (their ability to censor content) although one could just as easily make the same allegations against main stream journalism (have you watched the BBC lately?).
I find your proposed solution (Federally imposed oversight) more than a bit troubling. Have you thought through what forms this bureaucratic oversight would take? At first blush it appears to mimic Oceania's Ministry of Truth to keep the proles in line. Surely you are not thinking that Orwellian, are you? It is already bad enough that we have the outlines of the Ministry of Plenty (Bidenomics, anyone?) and the Ministry of Peace (Washington sleepwalking into WWIII) in place. I can't wait to see the rollout for the Ministry of Love.
As an aside, did I understand you correctly to say you have been thrown off LinkedIn again? I guess the Ministry of Truth is already up and running. If so, this is truly a shame. LI is so plain Vanilla bland without you.
I do agree with you wholeheartedly about the inept nature of the USG's efforts at influence and strategic messaging. I sat through so many meetings where so called government experts were debating "happy" or "glad" in their proposed messaging campaign to last a dozen lifetimes. As a "Back to the Future" alternative, I would suggest the 800-pound brains in DC dust off William "Wild Bill" Donovan's OSS playbook from WWII with a particular emphasis on using ridicule to laugh at our enemies. Four brilliant examples from Hollywood (when they were still patriotic) are Walt Disney's "Donald Duck in Nutziland" and The Three Stooges "You Nazty Spy" and "I'll Never Heil Again." And perhaps the all time classic is Charlie Chaplain's "The Great Dictator." Ahh, those were the days.
V/R
Doc B
Thanks for the in-depth input and we are not in disagreement. Here's the problem and why I am not advocating government censorship but true Intelligence oversight of social media platform activities.
First, digital oversight is easy for CYBER related IC entities, and they must know how social media is operating in order to share PSA's regarding SM platforms. My case with LinkedIn, Zuckerberg's sellout of democracy, armed insurrection by the Truth Social and similar crowds, etc. Warning does not constitute censorship, it's more of "caveat emptor" for all citizens who do not have common-sense, our professional background or whose Narrative Identity has been malignly influenced.
Secondly, the only thing I can stay without flinching about the National Security community's dangerous negligence in the realm of defending what is between the ears of our citizens: "the community at large is 'fiddling" while American Democracy burns.'"
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your clarification differentiating oversight from censorship . I had assumed this was your intent in the original post but did not have a warm fuzzy feeling upon reading it for the first time.
As to the NATSEC community's negligence on this topic I would suggest this could be a worthy exposition for an in-depth, deep dive analysis. I find it hard to accept that gross incompetence is the only answer. That seems far too simplistic for this problem set. For what it is worth, I can relate several examples from our former place of mutual employment where my team was waived off from pursuing IO or SC counter narratives to thwart or diffuse adversarial (read foreign) narratives., all for reasons that made no common sense within the context in which they were made. It was as if they either (A) did not want to be bothered with the concept or (B) they did not want to offend the sensibilities of our adversaries. Any ideas???
V/R
Doc B
We are in full agreement my friend. I'm writing a little something today and I have written often on this topic. Agreed though that another truly deep dive is in order. We may need to co-write or write a series on this topic. Something to consider over breakfast.