US military to secretly influence online debate - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

TwitchKitty · #1 10-06-2011, 02:14 PM

US military creates fake online personas - Telegraph

Quote:

17 Mar 2011

The US military awarded a contract for software to create 500 fake personas on social networks in order to secretly influence online debate in its favour, it has been reported. The $2.76m contract was won by Ntrepid, a Californian firm, and called for an "online persona management service" that would enable 50 military spies to manage 10 fake identities each. The personas should be "replete with background , history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographacilly consistent", a US Central Command (Centcom) tender document said.

Conspiracy Theory - There, I said it first.

engatwork · #2 10-06-2011, 02:31 PM

You mean the gov't will pay me to be a fake online? Where do I apply?

HuskyMan · #3 10-06-2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty

US military creates fake online personas - Telegraph

Conspiracy Theory - There, I said it first.

perhaps you should check out this book, not all conspiracies are "theories".........

Amazon.com: The Unreality Industry: The Deliberate Manufacturing of Falsehood and What It Is Doing to Our Lives (9780195083989): Ian I. Mitroff, Warren Bennis: Books

Botnst · #4 10-06-2011, 06:27 PM

If that report is true, it's horrible, contemptible, and freaking dangerous. Why would Obama do it?

tbomachines · #5 10-06-2011, 09:54 PM

You guys should see what corporate marketers do

kerry · #6 10-06-2011, 09:59 PM

Any early prototype was named Larry Bible posting on . . .

kerry · #7 10-06-2011, 11:04 PM

So I guess that means you don't think Larry is a good example of the military point of view?

tbomachines · #8 10-06-2011, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjh

This is our bright college professor engaging in snide remarks and belittling comments.

When I first started posting with any frequency this Summer LB had left and many people made fun of him. I wondered what terrible offense the guy had committed.

Then he returns and I see his words. Now he's got views were we agree and were we differ. But his linguistic skills, caliber of intellect and civility are certainly above the norm for here.

And, while he expresses views that folks find polarizing his words, in general, are kinder than many, certainly kerry's comment above, and he retracts or apologizes when someone points out an error.

Haven't seen that from the prof.

In this thread? I don't see it.

There have been some nasty debates in the past on OD about sexuality, perceptions of such, and what is essentially a nature vs. nurture debate. It is one of those topics that gets everyone sore and up in arms since it hits upon religion, morality, and historical significance (i.e. how you were brought up). I have personally been a spectator to all this and respect everyone's opinions regardless if I actually agree with them or not. These debates have contributed to multiple members' departures (voluntary) and lengthy bans (involuntary). Most of the time I see OD as sort of like a bar or campfire where everyone is sort of shooting the ****, just conversing and throwing ideas at each other. When I choose to back off, others press further and reciprocally the opposing party does the same eventually resulting in some nasty consequences. The allusions to polarization (in general) I can only imagine are references to the members who clash with the offending party. The gut reaction from each side is to shoot from the hip--i.e. to demean the opposition when in fact, both sides are well educated, well experienced and have legitimate points of view. Honestly this is the best I can summarize the "OD experience", the short version is this--some folks get carried away, whether you agree with them or not.

tbomachines · #9 10-06-2011, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjh

Everyone doesn't get sore.

Not everyone (nor do I) but by nature its an extremely controversial subject that has elicited both bans and departures in the past from multiple members of this site. I was trying to connect this to the fact that the member you inquired about was receiving flak about their perspective and views on sexuality. I am trying to be as objective and somewhat ambivalent about this as possible since I do not want to imply one party is "right" while the other is "wrong" because I understand both sides of the coin and think that the individuals who represent each side are both intelligent and capable of critical conversation. The arguments just get heated to the point where infractions are incurred. The allusions to these events in the past are somewhat petty to me, and I think that as members of the MB community (and America as a whole) we need to accept each other for who they are regardless of personal religious or political beliefs...yes I know that is a "Kumbaya" sort of feeling but really, what's so hard about it (rhetorical, not directionary)?

tbomachines · #10 10-06-2011, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjh

When I first started posting with any frequency this Summer LB had left and many people made fun of him. I wondered what terrible offense the guy had committed.

Then he returns and I see his words. Now he's got views were we agree and were we differ. But his linguistic skills, caliber of intellect and civility are certainly above the norm for here.

I was trying to clarify on this, knowing you have been been posting on OD only relatively recently, perhaps without knowing all the admin changes, member departures, etc. (I know you've been on here, just to what extent I am not sure about--thought I would try and fill you in). Basically there's "OD drama" as I like to call it. No disrespect to either of you personally, I value both of your opinions.

tonkovich · #11 10-07-2011, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjh

This is our bright college professor engaging in snide remarks and belittling comments.

When I first started posting with any frequency this Summer LB had left and many people made fun of him. I wondered what terrible offense the guy had committed.

Then he returns and I see his words. Now he's got views were we agree and were we differ. But his linguistic skills, caliber of intellect and civility are certainly above the norm for here.

And, while he expresses views that folks find polarizing his words, in general, are kinder than many, certainly kerry's comment above, and he retracts or apologizes when someone points out an error.

Haven't seen that from the prof.

uh, aren't you the guy who said kerry was a "satan worshiper" ? or are you going to deny that?

do i need to go to the search thing, and bring that up? or will you be honest and admit that you did post that?

(somehow, i suspect you will try to weasel your way out of it.)