Hybrid Warfare: NATO Investigates Putin's Troll War against the West 1/3

  by Nomad

The role that social media outlets, like Twitter and Facebook, play in managing and influence public perception has really come to the forefront since the 2016 US election. Few would argue that social media's influence in this presidential election is stronger than it has ever been.
Immediately after the election, NPR pointed out how social media have changed our national political conversation, turning it into "a loud mess." The advent of fake news transformed what should have been a public discussion into a battle of conspiracy theories.

Experts are now studying whether it was some natural effect or whether all of the confusion was actually stage-managed by unseen hands?

NATO and Social Media 

In 2015, well before the election, one of those who took a keen interest in this subject was NATO, specifically the Strategic Communication -Centre of Excellence (NATO StratCom COE). This agency was asked to conduct a study on how social media has been transformed into a weapon of hybrid warfare.

The report that emerges presents a frightening snapshot of the methods, targets, and effectiveness of this new type of warfare.  

Ever since the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, for example, we have seen fake identities and accounts being created in order to "disseminate narratives through social media, blogs, and web commentaries in order to manipulate, harass, or deceive opponents."

Infiltration: How Karl Rove Tactics in Liberal Social Media are Attempting to Divide and Conquer

by Nomad

Would it really surprise you if the Republicans engaged in "dirty tricks" to try to win the election? It shouldn't. They have already announced the intention to infiltrate liberal sites and demoralize liberal voters.

Historian Will Durant once wrote:

The political machine triumphs because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority.

Probably nothing could better explain the success of the conservative wing of the Republican party than that sentence. For years, the GOP has allowed very little dissent among its ranks. The party motto has been "you are either with us or against us" since the heady days of the so-called Reagan revolution. 

Of late, this situation has been turned on its head. From a political strategist's point of view, the situation could hardly be more advantageous for the Left. Or at least, you'd think so.

The Ignored Warning

One man earlier on forewarned about this Republican problem.
His name was Karl Rove.
Forty years of Republican "success" was actually based in large part on Democratic failure, Rove said. But it could easily work in the opposite direction. He added this:

"But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party — in this case, the Democrat Party —  when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a mean to achieve the common goal."

In spite of Rove's warning, and largely under his command, the GOP fell into the very trap he warned about. 

Approved Speech: Tennessee Town Bans Negative Remarks and Criticism on Social Media

by Nomad

Yesterday we reported how one Russian governor decided that the best way of handling the national economic crisis was by banned the use of the word "crisis." 

Such a backward idea, right?

Well, Americans shouldn't laugh too hard at those crazy Ruskies. Bloomberg recently reported that a similar effort in Tennessee to silence discussion that local government approves of. 

No Expectation of Privacy Whatsoever

Earlier this month, the town of South Pittsburg, Tennessee, near Chattanooga, passed a resolution that prohibits anybody professionally connected to South Pittsburg, from “publicly discuss[ing] information about other employees and/or volunteers not approved for public communication” on social media. This includes employees, volunteers, and contractors. 

The resolution also wags a finger against posting anything on a personal Facebook page or on Twitter that anybody might consider either defamatory or libelous. The policy states that citizens "should have no expectation of privacy whatsoever."

The Chatanooga Times Free Press supports the Bloomberg piece:

It applies to all city elected representatives, appointed board members, employees, volunteers, vendors, contractors and anyone associated with the town in an official capacity who uses social networks. The policy says those persons can't post anything negative about the city, its employees or other associates.

The officials said that the tough policy was necessary because over the past year, their work has been "hampered by criticism and lies on social media."

Mayor Jane Dawkins defended the action, saying that this was "not a new concept." 
Nobody is arguing that. The question is whether it is legal or wise.