Tripoli
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
- Messages
- 742
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Who knows? You could be one of them and you are just defending yourself and your comrades. LOL
Chinese government-backed social media users flood Web
- Thread starter boomslang
- Start date
xunzi
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,735
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
LOL but the articles said the main target of 50cent is to deflect the argument. I am always "into the subject" at any discussion.
kaka404
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
funny when you say that. cuz not to long ago most if not all of the discussions concerning a chinese fishing boat fishing illegally in natuna are gone (it the discussion about a chinese CG almost ram into the Indonesian authority ship to free them)
which make me believe somebody/some entity try to wipe it from this forum..... as if they don't want a certain group people to talk about it.. and i thought to myself: no way right??? and fyi in the newest incident the CG don't do anything like before...hmmm
how do i apply for that 50 c job? i know 4 languages, but i don't master any one of them. because of that, i'll take 20 c per post only. i should make decent money if i spam the same crap in different languages on multiple social network media webs 
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
The highlighted...
Why should I not believe them ? I asked, and they answered in the affirmative.
You guys can post all the purported CIA/NSA propaganda operations all you want. The bottom line is that the US government does not employ ordinary Americans to make favorable posts on Internet forums. No one, I guess except the PDF Chinese, believes that nonsense. On the other hand, it does not take a genius IQ to deduce what the Chinese government is doing on the Internet.You American are not embarrassed about what you do, why should we be?
Hamartia Antidote
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 35,188
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
Wow you really are willing to work on the cheap. I guess they really do have an unlimited supply of people in China willing to work for almost nothing. @LeveragedBuyout and I said if somebody wants to contact us for a job we'd happily offer to do it...at $100 per post!
Last edited:
TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
Information Warfare Is Not “Optional”
Mon, May 30, 2016 |
Originally appeared at journal-neo.org
Nations without information warfare capabilities in the 21st century are like nations without armies and navies in the 20th century. They are defenseless.
Imagine a nation without an army, a navy or an air force. What would its prospects be of defending itself against even moderate aggression? What if it had an army, even a formidable one, but was missing an air force and/or navy? Would its chances be any better?
Before the invention of human flight, war was fought in two dimensions by armies and navies upon the surface of the planet. With the introduction of aircraft to warfare, a new dimension was added. Nations that fell behind the curve building and rebuilding their air forces would find themselves consistently at a disadvantage. Those nations that stayed ahead of the curve would cite air power as key to their victories throughout recent history.
Today, undoubtedly, information warfare is no longer a novelty. It has been honed into a weapon of devastating effect able to confuse, divide and destroy nations in a dimension conventional warfare often cannot even reach.
The use of the Internet and information warfare soared to new heights during the Arab Spring. Hardly the spontaneous uprising it was portrayed as across the Western media, for years beforehand the US State Department together with tech-giants Google and Facebook prepared armies of information warriors to disrupt, divide, confuse and take over the information space in the respective nations the US targeted for regime change in 2011.
Like an air force entering undefended airspace, the US State Department’s information warfare capabilities met little resistance and quickly overwhelmed and assumed control over information space in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. Only Syria and Egypt’s immense conventional military and political power prevented tragedies like that which unfolded in Libya from repeating itself elsewhere. However, it cannot be denied that across the region, information warfare was neglected and unnecessary leverage was conceded to the US amid a much larger theater of conflict.
Vulnerabilities in the Information Space
While the Internet and its use in information warfare is relatively new, information warfare is not. The US and the British before them have spent over the decades, and for the British, centuries, investing in whatever forms of media existed at the time to ensure their voice among it was loudest if not the only voice to be heard.
Today, the US through a myriad of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reaches deep into a foreign nation’s information space and media creating entire fronts to broadcast their messages from.
With overseas scholarships and training programs they aim at luring young, ambitious journalists into becoming indoctrinated and reliable outlets of US propaganda and ideally, collaborators with US interests when opportunities present themselves.
In many nations, particularly throughout the developing world, governments do not take advances in information technology seriously, failing to recognize the importance of maintaining control over it and countering efforts to co-opt and use it against them. Their views of how to manage the media are very often outdated, leaving them particularly vulnerable across the entirety of their information space.
In these nations, information from the government’s point of view is often disseminated through press releases or government-owned broadcasters that hold little credibility both domestically and internationally.
Building Better Defenses for Information Space
Defending one’s information space depends on occupying it fully, first and foremost. This means making it difficult if not impossible for foreign nations to set up and operate media operations within a targeted nation’s borders to begin with.
Occupying Your Information Space: Russia’s relatively recent NGO laws forcing foreign-funded organizations to register as foreign agents undermines their legitimacy simply by demanding in reality the transparency these organizations often demand disingenuously as a means of attacking and undermining a targeted government.
By exposing the foreign-funded nature of their operations, effectively exposing the disingenuous intentions and financial motivations they harbor and making it difficult for them to operate while giving space to legitimate, indigenous and most importantly, constructive opposition, squeezes them out of a nation’s information space like a well planned garden crowds out weeds.
Controlling and Projecting From Your Information Space: Russia’s RT, China’s CCTV, Iran’s PressTV and South America TeleSUR are all examples of another means of filling and dominating one’s information space.
Not only do these news organizations adequately cover the news in their respective nations alongside a myriad of similar state-run media operations, they are able to communicate with, appeal to and persuade audiences well beyond their borders. It is a way of countering US and European propaganda both at home and abroad, balancing what has been for decades a lopsided information war.
Because these operations are run as professional, internationally aware and objective news organizations with minimal overt government influence, they are effective at appealing to foreign audiences.
For nations sorely lacking such news organizations, particularly across Southeast Asia, Africa and the Middle East, nations like Russia and China already exporting defense capabilities of a more conventional kind, could consider exporting defensive capabilities for information space.
Neglecting Information Warfare Invites Attack
Nations that have habitually neglected information warfare have invited attack. Nations with notoriously unsound defenses for their information space are often flooded with foreign NGOs who occupy and control it to such an extent, governments are forced to capitulate to otherwise easily countered propaganda campaigns.
Investing in information warfare is not “optional” any more so than investing in a properly trained and equipped conventional military. The reality of the 21st century is that wars are no longer fought merely on land, sea, and air. They are fought in information space as well and failure to understand and defend against such threats accordingly is as bad as leaving a nation’s borders undefended, its skies unwatched, and its shores unguarded.
@Chinese-Dragon , @vostok , @AndrewJin , @Jlaw , @Chinese Bamboo , @Beast , @ahojunk , et al.
Mon, May 30, 2016 |
Originally appeared at journal-neo.org
Nations without information warfare capabilities in the 21st century are like nations without armies and navies in the 20th century. They are defenseless.
Imagine a nation without an army, a navy or an air force. What would its prospects be of defending itself against even moderate aggression? What if it had an army, even a formidable one, but was missing an air force and/or navy? Would its chances be any better?
Before the invention of human flight, war was fought in two dimensions by armies and navies upon the surface of the planet. With the introduction of aircraft to warfare, a new dimension was added. Nations that fell behind the curve building and rebuilding their air forces would find themselves consistently at a disadvantage. Those nations that stayed ahead of the curve would cite air power as key to their victories throughout recent history.
Today, undoubtedly, information warfare is no longer a novelty. It has been honed into a weapon of devastating effect able to confuse, divide and destroy nations in a dimension conventional warfare often cannot even reach.
The use of the Internet and information warfare soared to new heights during the Arab Spring. Hardly the spontaneous uprising it was portrayed as across the Western media, for years beforehand the US State Department together with tech-giants Google and Facebook prepared armies of information warriors to disrupt, divide, confuse and take over the information space in the respective nations the US targeted for regime change in 2011.
Like an air force entering undefended airspace, the US State Department’s information warfare capabilities met little resistance and quickly overwhelmed and assumed control over information space in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. Only Syria and Egypt’s immense conventional military and political power prevented tragedies like that which unfolded in Libya from repeating itself elsewhere. However, it cannot be denied that across the region, information warfare was neglected and unnecessary leverage was conceded to the US amid a much larger theater of conflict.
Vulnerabilities in the Information Space
While the Internet and its use in information warfare is relatively new, information warfare is not. The US and the British before them have spent over the decades, and for the British, centuries, investing in whatever forms of media existed at the time to ensure their voice among it was loudest if not the only voice to be heard.
Today, the US through a myriad of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reaches deep into a foreign nation’s information space and media creating entire fronts to broadcast their messages from.
With overseas scholarships and training programs they aim at luring young, ambitious journalists into becoming indoctrinated and reliable outlets of US propaganda and ideally, collaborators with US interests when opportunities present themselves.
In many nations, particularly throughout the developing world, governments do not take advances in information technology seriously, failing to recognize the importance of maintaining control over it and countering efforts to co-opt and use it against them. Their views of how to manage the media are very often outdated, leaving them particularly vulnerable across the entirety of their information space.
In these nations, information from the government’s point of view is often disseminated through press releases or government-owned broadcasters that hold little credibility both domestically and internationally.
Building Better Defenses for Information Space
Defending one’s information space depends on occupying it fully, first and foremost. This means making it difficult if not impossible for foreign nations to set up and operate media operations within a targeted nation’s borders to begin with.
Occupying Your Information Space: Russia’s relatively recent NGO laws forcing foreign-funded organizations to register as foreign agents undermines their legitimacy simply by demanding in reality the transparency these organizations often demand disingenuously as a means of attacking and undermining a targeted government.
By exposing the foreign-funded nature of their operations, effectively exposing the disingenuous intentions and financial motivations they harbor and making it difficult for them to operate while giving space to legitimate, indigenous and most importantly, constructive opposition, squeezes them out of a nation’s information space like a well planned garden crowds out weeds.
Controlling and Projecting From Your Information Space: Russia’s RT, China’s CCTV, Iran’s PressTV and South America TeleSUR are all examples of another means of filling and dominating one’s information space.
Not only do these news organizations adequately cover the news in their respective nations alongside a myriad of similar state-run media operations, they are able to communicate with, appeal to and persuade audiences well beyond their borders. It is a way of countering US and European propaganda both at home and abroad, balancing what has been for decades a lopsided information war.
Because these operations are run as professional, internationally aware and objective news organizations with minimal overt government influence, they are effective at appealing to foreign audiences.
For nations sorely lacking such news organizations, particularly across Southeast Asia, Africa and the Middle East, nations like Russia and China already exporting defense capabilities of a more conventional kind, could consider exporting defensive capabilities for information space.
Neglecting Information Warfare Invites Attack
Nations that have habitually neglected information warfare have invited attack. Nations with notoriously unsound defenses for their information space are often flooded with foreign NGOs who occupy and control it to such an extent, governments are forced to capitulate to otherwise easily countered propaganda campaigns.
Investing in information warfare is not “optional” any more so than investing in a properly trained and equipped conventional military. The reality of the 21st century is that wars are no longer fought merely on land, sea, and air. They are fought in information space as well and failure to understand and defend against such threats accordingly is as bad as leaving a nation’s borders undefended, its skies unwatched, and its shores unguarded.
@Chinese-Dragon , @vostok , @AndrewJin , @Jlaw , @Chinese Bamboo , @Beast , @ahojunk , et al.
CHN Bamboo
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
sweetgrape
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 2,780
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Hehe, It is very nature for you American making such kind of story, let me think of you American said Lybia has Nuke or kind of WMD as excuse to invade, finally, the one believing you find it is so stupid.The highlighted...
Ok, Yeah, You will or you like to believe them.
For me, I am also very interested in whether these "good" engineer has hired? or just have channel to know the "secret", they are “good”, if hired, the salary should be high, if not, so? whatever, fake or right is important? seems not, just depend on whether you like or not.
I don't want play words game here to you, whether you America government will or not, directly or indirectly, the ordinary American or ordinary non-American, ordinary or "talented and good" American, can get the envidence? you have proof that China government do what you believe? seems no.
take a genius IQ to deduce***, hehe, good try, it also doesn't take a genius IQ to deduce what you American government is doing on the internet, of course include that what you is doing here.
BTW, I also think No one, I guess except you kind of Americian, believes you US government doesn't employ people to make favorable post to America and make unfavorable to other country on the internet forums directly and indirectly.
ahojunk
RETIRED INTL MOD
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
- Messages
- 5,118
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
.Information Warfare Is Not “Optional”
Mon, May 30, 2016 |
Originally appeared at journal-neo.org
Nations without information warfare capabilities in the 21st century are like nations without armies and navies in the 20th century. They are defenseless.
Imagine a nation without an army, a navy or an air force. What would its prospects be of defending itself against even moderate aggression? What if it had an army, even a formidable one, but was missing an air force and/or navy? Would its chances be any better?
Before the invention of human flight, war was fought in two dimensions by armies and navies upon the surface of the planet. With the introduction of aircraft to warfare, a new dimension was added. Nations that fell behind the curve building and rebuilding their air forces would find themselves consistently at a disadvantage. Those nations that stayed ahead of the curve would cite air power as key to their victories throughout recent history.
Today, undoubtedly, information warfare is no longer a novelty. It has been honed into a weapon of devastating effect able to confuse, divide and destroy nations in a dimension conventional warfare often cannot even reach.
The use of the Internet and information warfare soared to new heights during the Arab Spring. Hardly the spontaneous uprising it was portrayed as across the Western media, for years beforehand the US State Department together with tech-giants Google and Facebook prepared armies of information warriors to disrupt, divide, confuse and take over the information space in the respective nations the US targeted for regime change in 2011.
Like an air force entering undefended airspace, the US State Department’s information warfare capabilities met little resistance and quickly overwhelmed and assumed control over information space in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. Only Syria and Egypt’s immense conventional military and political power prevented tragedies like that which unfolded in Libya from repeating itself elsewhere. However, it cannot be denied that across the region, information warfare was neglected and unnecessary leverage was conceded to the US amid a much larger theater of conflict.
Vulnerabilities in the Information Space
While the Internet and its use in information warfare is relatively new, information warfare is not. The US and the British before them have spent over the decades, and for the British, centuries, investing in whatever forms of media existed at the time to ensure their voice among it was loudest if not the only voice to be heard.
Today, the US through a myriad of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reaches deep into a foreign nation’s information space and media creating entire fronts to broadcast their messages from.
With overseas scholarships and training programs they aim at luring young, ambitious journalists into becoming indoctrinated and reliable outlets of US propaganda and ideally, collaborators with US interests when opportunities present themselves.
In many nations, particularly throughout the developing world, governments do not take advances in information technology seriously, failing to recognize the importance of maintaining control over it and countering efforts to co-opt and use it against them. Their views of how to manage the media are very often outdated, leaving them particularly vulnerable across the entirety of their information space.
In these nations, information from the government’s point of view is often disseminated through press releases or government-owned broadcasters that hold little credibility both domestically and internationally.
Building Better Defenses for Information Space
Defending one’s information space depends on occupying it fully, first and foremost. This means making it difficult if not impossible for foreign nations to set up and operate media operations within a targeted nation’s borders to begin with.
Occupying Your Information Space: Russia’s relatively recent NGO laws forcing foreign-funded organizations to register as foreign agents undermines their legitimacy simply by demanding in reality the transparency these organizations often demand disingenuously as a means of attacking and undermining a targeted government.
By exposing the foreign-funded nature of their operations, effectively exposing the disingenuous intentions and financial motivations they harbor and making it difficult for them to operate while giving space to legitimate, indigenous and most importantly, constructive opposition, squeezes them out of a nation’s information space like a well planned garden crowds out weeds.
Controlling and Projecting From Your Information Space: Russia’s RT, China’s CCTV, Iran’s PressTV and South America TeleSUR are all examples of another means of filling and dominating one’s information space.
Not only do these news organizations adequately cover the news in their respective nations alongside a myriad of similar state-run media operations, they are able to communicate with, appeal to and persuade audiences well beyond their borders. It is a way of countering US and European propaganda both at home and abroad, balancing what has been for decades a lopsided information war.
Because these operations are run as professional, internationally aware and objective news organizations with minimal overt government influence, they are effective at appealing to foreign audiences.
For nations sorely lacking such news organizations, particularly across Southeast Asia, Africa and the Middle East, nations like Russia and China already exporting defense capabilities of a more conventional kind, could consider exporting defensive capabilities for information space.
Neglecting Information Warfare Invites Attack
Nations that have habitually neglected information warfare have invited attack. Nations with notoriously unsound defenses for their information space are often flooded with foreign NGOs who occupy and control it to such an extent, governments are forced to capitulate to otherwise easily countered propaganda campaigns.
Investing in information warfare is not “optional” any more so than investing in a properly trained and equipped conventional military. The reality of the 21st century is that wars are no longer fought merely on land, sea, and air. They are fought in information space as well and failure to understand and defend against such threats accordingly is as bad as leaving a nation’s borders undefended, its skies unwatched, and its shores unguarded.
@Chinese-Dragon , @vostok , @AndrewJin , @Jlaw , @Chinese Bamboo , @Beast , @ahojunk , et al.
When you look at the overall scheme of things, scope of the media and information warfare, now I can say that China is incredibly smart to have the "Internet Firewall" that prevents the access to unwanted websites. China has incredible foresight!
I have read that Russia is seeking China's assistance in setting up a similar Russian firewall.
TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
Yes. Russia is considering a similar security system against hostile cyber activities.
China got inspired hugely by Russia's NGO law, especially the requirement to register as a foreign NGO, just as they are, instead of hiding in the shades of illegal activities.
I see a very positive cooperation between the two closest strategic partners.
I also admit that Russia's media is better in information warfare than China's media. This is one area we need to make steady progress to catch the information manipulation and discourse making leaders such as the US and the UK.
@Jlaw
Jlaw
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 9,693
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
I don't understand why China doesn't have it's own version of RT. A Chinese version and English version. Money will buy western journalists to combat fake mainstream western media propaganda.
The NGO laws is long overdue. I think it may be too late as the infiltration is too great. Look at Chinese people converting themselves to Christians is a prime example.
TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
Yes, and I am hoping this would come from a public-private venture rather than by the government, exclusively. This way the company would also be profit-oriented while aggressively pushing back the Western narrative and create an indigenous discourse.
Why are the U.S. shills so worried?
This creates more business for U.S. government backed shills to prevent spread of the "wrong" information and "wrong" opinions in their "free" nation before their "free" citizens can use their own mind to decide whats "wrong".
More U.S. jobs. Exactly what the slowing and instable bubble economy of the U.S.A. needs after just releasing a frightening job report.
This creates more business for U.S. government backed shills to prevent spread of the "wrong" information and "wrong" opinions in their "free" nation before their "free" citizens can use their own mind to decide whats "wrong".
More U.S. jobs. Exactly what the slowing and instable bubble economy of the U.S.A. needs after just releasing a frightening job report.
TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
In my opinion, China also needs to have certain software to implant comments on US news portals' comments sections, especially regarding news on race issues.
Some enlightening posts would do no harm as they would instill further class consciousness.
Similar threads
