Posts Tagged ‘Singer’

What Do We Know, What Can We Do?

January 24, 2019

This is the twelfth post in a series of posts on a book by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking titled “Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media.” Having raised an enormous number of problems, it is fortunate that the authors also proposed possible solutions.

The military is already training and experimenting for the new environment. The Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana is a continuously operating field laboratory. The laboratory is good not only for training, but also for simulations to respond to different situations, so that possible solutions can be evaluated in a simulation prior to actual conflict. The Army needs to understand how to train for this war. Fort Polk has a brand-new simulation for this task: the SMEIR (Social Media Environment and Internet Replication). SMEIR simulates the blogs, news outlets, and social media accounts that intertwine to form a virtual battlefield.

The authors have also claimed that LikeWar has rules, and has tried to articulate them:

“First for all the sense of flux, the modern information environment is becoming stable. The internet is now the preeminent communications medium in the world; it will remain so for the foreseeable future. Through social media the web will grow bigger in size, scope, and membership, but its essential form and centrality to the information ecosystem will not change.”

“Second, the internet is a battlefield. It is a platform for achieving the goals of whichever actor manipulates it most effectively. Its weaponization, and the conflicts that erupt on it, define both what happens on the internet and what we take away from it.”

“Third, this battlefield changes how we must think about information itself. If something happens, we must assume that there’s likely a digital record of it that will surface seconds or years from now. But an event only carries power if people also believe that it happened. So a manufactured event can have real power, while a demonstrably true event can be rendered irrelevant. What determines the outcome isn’t mastery of the “facts,” but rather a back-and-forth battle of psychological, political, and algorithmic manipulation.”

“Fourth, war and politics have never been so intertwined. In cyberspace, the means by which the political or military aspects of this competition are won are essentially identical. Consequently, politics has taken on elements of information warfare, while violent conflict is increasingly influenced by the tug-of-war for online opinion. This also means that the engineers of Silicon Valley, quite unintentionally, have turned into global power brokers, Their most minute decisions shape the battlefield on which both war and politics are increasingly decided.”

“Fifth, we’re all part of the battle. We are surrounded by countless information struggles—some apparent, some invisible-all of which seek to alter out perceptions of the world. Whatever we notice whatever we “like,” whatever we share, become the next salvo. In this new war of wars, taking place on the network of networks, there is no neutral ground.”

“For governments, the first and most important step is to take this new battleground seriously. The authors write, “Today, a significant part of the American political culture is willfully denying the new threats to its cohesion. In some cases, it is colluding with them.”

“Too often, efforts to battle back against online dangers emanating from actors and home and abroad have been stymied by elements within the U.S. government, Indeed, at the time we write this in 2018, the Trump White House has not held a single cabinet-level meeting on how to address the challenges outlined in this book, while its State Department refused to increase efforts to counter online terrorist propaganda and Russian disinformation, even as Congress allocated nearly $80 million for the purpose.”

“Similarly, the American election system remains remarkably vulnerable, not merely to hacking of the voting booth, but also to the foreign manipulation of U.S. voters political dialogue and beliefs. Ironically, although the United States has contributed millions of dollars to help nations like Ukraine safeguard their citizens against these new threats, political paralysis has prevented the U.S. government from taking meaningful steps to inoculate its own population. Until this is reframed as a nonpartisan issue—akin to something as basic as health education—the United States will remain at grave risk.”

The Conflicts That Drive the Web and the World

January 23, 2019

This is the eleventh post in a series of posts on a book by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking titled “Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media.” The title to this post is identical to the subtitle of the chapter titled “Likewar.” In 1990 two political scientists with the Pentagon’s think tank at the RAND Corporation started to explore the security implications of the internet. John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt made their findings public in a revolutionary article titled “Cyberwar Is Coming!” in a 1993 article. They wrote that “information is becoming a strategic resource that may prove as valuable in the post-industrial era as capital and labor have been in the industrial age.” They argued that future conflicts would not be won by physical forces, but by the availability and manipulation of information. They warned of “cyberwar,” battles in which computer hackers might remotely target economies and disable military capabilities.

They went further and predicted that cyberwar would be accompanied by netwar. They explained: It means trying to disrupt, damage, or modify what a target population “knows” or thinks it knows about itself and the world around it. A network may focus on public or elite opinion, or both. It may involve public diplomacy, measures, propaganda and psychological campaigns, political and cultural subversion, deception of or interference with the local media…In other words, netwar represents a new entry on the spectrum of conflict that spans economic, political, and social as well as military forms of ‘war.’

Early netwar became the province of far-left activists undemocratic protesters, beginning with the 1994 Zapatista uprising in Mexico and culminating in the 2011 Arab Spring. In time, terrorists and far-right extremists also began to gravitate toward net war tactics. The balance shifted for disenchanted activists when dictators learned to use the internet to strengthen their regimes. For us, the moment came when we saw how ISIS militants used the internet not just to sow terror across the globe, but to win its battles in the field. For Putin’s government it came when the Russian military reorganized itself to strike back what it perceived as a Western information offensive. For many in American politics and Silicon Valley, it came when the Russian effort poisoned the networks with a flood of disinformation, bots, and hate.

In 2011, DARPA’s research division launched the new Social Media in Strategic Communications program to study online sentiment analysis and manipulation. About the same time, the U.S. military’s Central Command began overseeing Operation Earnest Voice to fight jihadists across the Middle East by distorting Arabic social media conversations. One part of this initiative was the development of an “online persona management service,” which is essentially sockpuppet software, “to allow one U.S. serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.” Beginning in 2014, the U.S. State Department poured vast amounts of resources into countering violent extremism (CVE) efforts, building an array of online organizations that sought to counter ISIS by launching information offensives of their own.

The authors say national militaries have reoriented themselves to fight global information conflicts, the domestic politics of these countries have also morphed to resemble netwars. The authors write, “Online, there’s little difference in the information tactics required to “win” either a violent conflict or a peaceful campaign. Often, their battles are not just indistinguishable but also directly linked in their activities (such as the alignment of Russian sockpuppets and alt-right activists). The realms of war and politics have begun to merge.”

Memes and memetic warfare also emerged. Pepe the Frog was green and a dumb internet meme. In 2015, Pepe was adopted as the banner of Trump’s vociferous online army. By 2016, he’d also become a symbol of a resurgent timed of white nationalism, declared a hate symbol by the Anti-Defamation League. Trump tweeted a picture of himself as an anthropomorphized Pepe. Pepe was ascendant by 2017. Trump supporters launched a crowdfunding campaign to elect a Pepe billboard “somewhere in the American Midwest.” On Twitter, Russia’s UK embassy used a smug Pepe to taunt the British government in the midst of a diplomatic argument.

Pepe formed an ideological bridge between trolling and the next-generation white nationalist, alt-right movement that had lined up behind Trump. The authors note that Third Reich phrases like “blood and soil” filtered through Pepe memes, fit surprisingly well with Trump’s America First, anti-immigration, anti-Islamic campaign platform. The wink and note of a cartoon frog allowed a rich, but easily deniable, symbolism.

Pepe transformed again when Trump won. Pepe became representative of a successful, hard-fought campaign—one that now controlled all the levers of government. On Inauguration Day in Washington, DC, buttons and printouts of Pepe were visible in the crowd. Online vendors began selling a hat printed in the same style as those worn by military veterans of Vietnam, Korea, and WW II. It proudly pronounced its wearer as a “Meme War Veteran.”

The problem with memes is that by highjacking or chance, a meme can come to contain vastly different ideas than those that inspired it, even as it retains all its old reach and influence. And once a meme has been so redefined, it becomes nearly impossible to reclaim. Making something go viral is hard; co-opting or poisoning something that’s already viral can be remarkable. U.S Marine Corps Major Michael Prosser published a thesis titled: “Memetics—a Growth industry in US Military Operations.. Prosser’s work kicked off a tiny DARPA-Funded industry devoted to “military memetics.”

The New Wars for Attention and Power

January 22, 2019

This is the tenth post in a series of posts on a book by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking titled “Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media.” The title of this post is identical to the subtitle of the title “Win the Net, Win the Day” of a chapter in the book.

Brian Jenkins declared in a 1974 RAND Corporation report, “Terrorism is theater,” that became one of terrorism’s foundational studies. The difference between the effectiveness of the Islamic State and that of terror groups in the past was not the brains of the ISIS; it was the medium they were using. Mobile internet access could be found everywhere; smartphones were available in any bazaar. Advanced video and image editing tools were just one illegal download away, and an entire generation was well acquainted with their use. For those who weren’t, there were free online classes offered by a group called Jihadi Design. It promised to take ISIS supporters ‘from zero to professionalism’ in just a few sessions. The most dramatic change from terrorism was that distributing a global message was as easy as pressing ”send,” with the dispersal facilitated by a network of super-spreaders beyond any one state’s control.

ISIS networked its propaganda pushing out a staggering volume of online messages. In 2016 Charlie Winter counted nearly fifty different ISIS media hubs, each based in different regions with different target audiences, but all threaded through the internet. These hubs were able to generate over a thousand “official” ISIS releases, ranging from statements to online videos, in just a one-month period.

They spun a tale in narratives. Human minds are wired to seek and create narratives. Every moment of the day, our brains are analyzing new events and finding them in thousand of different narratives already stowed in our memories. In 1944 psychologists Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel produced a short film that showed three geometric figures (two triangles and a circle) bouncing off each other at random. They screened the film to a group of research subjects and asked them to interpret the shapes’ actions. All but one of the subjects described these abstract objects as living beings; most saw them as representations of humans. In the shapes’ random movements they expressed motives, emotions, and complex personal histories such as: the circle was “worried,” one triangle was “innocent” and the other was “blinded by rage.” Even in crude animation all but one observer saw a story of high drama.

The first rule in building effective narratives is simplicity. In 2000, the average attention span of an internet user was measured at twelve seconds. By 2015 it had shrunk to eight seconds. During the 2016 election Carnegie Mellon University researchers studied and ranked the complexity of the candidates language (using the Flesch-Kincaid score). They found that Trump’s vocabulary measured at the lowest level of all the candidates, comprehensible to someone with a fifth-grade education. This phenomenon is consistent with a larger historic pattern. Starting with George Washington’s first inaugural address, which was one of the most complex overall, American presidents communicated at a college level only when newspapers dominated mass communication. But each time a new technology took hold, complexity dropped. The authors write, “To put it another way: the more accessible the technology, the simpler a winning voice becomes. It may be Sad! But it is True!

The second rule of narrative is resonance. Nearly all effective narratives conform to what social scientists call “frames.” Frames are proud of specific languages and cultures that feel instantly and deeply familiar. To learn more about frames enter “frames” into the search block of the healthy memory blog.

The third and final rule of narrative is novelty. Just as narrative frames help build resonance, they also serve to make things predictable. However, too much predictability can be boring, especially in an age of microscopic attention spans and unlimited entertainment. Moreover, there seems to be no limit on the quality of narrative. Some messages far exceed the limits of credibility, yet they are believed and spread.

Additional guidelines are pull the heartstrings and feed the fury. Final guidance would be inundation: drown the web, run the world.

The Unreality Machine

January 21, 2019

This is the ninth post in a series of posts on a book by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking titled “Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media.” There was a gold rush in Veles, Macedonia. Teenage boys there worked in “media.” More specifically, American social media. The average U.S. internet is virtually a walking bag of cash, with four times the advertising dollars of anyone else in the world. And the U.S. internet user is very gullible. The following is from the book: “In a town with 25% unemployment and an annual income of under $5,000, these young men had discovered a way to monetize their boredom and decent English-language skills. They set up catch websites, peddling fad diets and weird health tips.” They relied on Facebook “shares” to drive traffic. Each click gave them a small slice of the pie from ads running along the side. Some of the best of them were pulling in tens of thousands of dollars a month.

Competition swelled, but fortunately the American political scene soon brought them a virtually inexhaustible source of clicks and resulting fast cash. This was the 2016 presidential election. Now back to the text “The Macedonians were awed by Americans’ insatiable thirst for political stories, Even a sloppy, clearly plagiarized jumble of text and ads could rack up hundreds of thousands of “shares.” The number of U.S. politics-related websites operated out of Veles swelled into the hundreds.

One of the successful entrepreneurs estimated that in six month, his network of fifty websites attracted some 40 million page views driven there by social media. This made him about $60,000. This 18-year-old then expanded his media empire. He outsourced the writing to three 15-year-olds, paying each $10 a day. He was far from the most successful of the Veles entrepreneurs. Some became millionaires, One rebranded himself as as “clickbait coach,” running a school where he taught dozens of others how to copy his success.

These viral news stories weren’t just exaggerations or products of political spin; they were flat-out lies. Sometimes the topic was the proof that Obama had been born in Kenya or that he was planning a military coup. Another report warned that Oprah Winfrey had told her audience that “some white people have to die.”

The following is from the book: “Of the top twenty best-performing fake stories spread during the election, seventeen were unrepentantly pro Trump. Indeed, the single most popular news story of the entire election—“Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President.” Social media provided an environment in which lies created by anyone, from anywhere, could spread everywhere, making the liars plenty of cash along the way”

In 1995 MIT media professor Nicholas Negroponte prophesied that there would be an interface agent that read every newswire and newspaper and catch every TV and radio broadcast on the planet, and then construct a personalized summary. He called this the “Daily Me.”

Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein argues that the opposite might actually be true. Rather than expanding their horizons, people were just using the endless web to seek out information with which they already agree. He called this the “Daily We.”

A few years later the creation of Facebook, the “Daily We,” an algorithmically created newsfeed became a fully functioning reality.

For example, flat-earthers had little hope of gaining traction in a post-Christopher Columbus, pre-internet world. This wasn’t just because of the silliness of their views, but they couldn’t easily find others who shared them. But the world wide web has given the flat-earth belief a dramatic comeback. Proponents now have an active community and aggressive marketing scheme.

This phenomenon is called ‘homophily,” meaning “love of the same.” Homophily is what makes us humans social creatures able to congregate in such like-minded groups. It explains the growth of civilization and cultures, It is also the reason an internet falsehood, once it begins to spread, can rarely be stopped.

Unfortunately falsehood diffused significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth. It becomes a deluge. The authors write, “Ground zero for the deluge, however, was in politics. The 2016 U.S. presidential election released a flood of falsehoods that dwarfed all previous hoaxes and lies in history. It was an online ecosystem so vast that the nightclubbing, moneymaking, lie-spinning Macedonians occupied only one tiny corner. There were thousands of fake website, populated by millions of baldly false stories, each then shared across people’s personal networks. In the final three months of the 2016 election, more of these fake political headlines were shared on Facebook than real ones. Meanwhile, in study of 22 million tweets, the Oxford Internet Institute concluded that Twitter users, too, and shared more disinformation, polarizing and conspiratorial content’ than actual news. The Oxford team called this problem “junk news.”

Censorship, Disinformation, and the Burial of Truth

January 20, 2019

This is the eighth post in a series of posts on a book by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking titled “Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media. Initially, the notion that the internet would provide the basis for truth and independence was supported. The Arab Spring was promoted on the internet. The authors write, “Social media had illuminated the shadows crimes through which dictators had long clung to power, and offered up a powerful new means of grassroots mobilization.

Unfortunately, this did not last. Not only did the activists fail to sustain their movement, but they noticed that the government began to catch up. Tech-illiterate bureaucrats were replaced by a new generation of enforcers who understood the internet almost as well as the protestors. They invaded online sanctuaries and used the very same channels to spread propaganda. And these tactics worked. The much-celebrated revolutions fizzled. In Libya and Syria, digital activists turned their talents to waging internecine civil wars. In Egypt, the baby named Facebook would grow up in a country that quickly turned back to authoritarian government.

The internet remains under the control of only a few thousand internet service providers (ISPs). These firms run the backbone, or “pipes,” of the internet. Only a few ISPs supply almost all of he world’s mobile data. Because two-thirds of all ISPs reside in the United States, the average number across the rest of the world is relatively small. The authors note that, “Many of these ISPs hardly qualify as “businesses” at all. Rather, they are state-sanctioned monopolies or crony sanctuaries directed by the whim of local officials. Although the internet cannot be destroyed, regimes can control when the internet goes on or off and what goes on it.

Governments can control internet access and target particular areas of the country. India, the world’s largest democracy had the mobile connections in an area where violent protests had started out for a week. Bahrain instituted an internet curfew that affected only a handful of villages where antigovernment protests were brewing. When Bahrainis began to speak out against the shutdown, authorities narrowed their focus further, cutting access all the way down to specific internet users and IP addresses.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has poured billions of dollars into its National Internet Project. It is intended as a web replacement, leaving only a few closely monitored connections between Iran and the outside world. Italian officials describe it as creating a “clean” internet for its citizens, insulated from the “unclean” web that the rest of us use.

Outside the absolute-authoritarian state of North Korea (whose entire internet is a closed network of about 30 websites), the goal isn’t so much to stop the signal as it is to weaken it. Although extensive research and special equipment can circumvent government controls, the empower parts of the internet are no longer for the masses.

Although the book discusses China, that discussion will not be included here as there are separate posts on the book “Censored: Distraction and Diversion Inside China’s Great Firewall” by Margaret E. Roberts.

The Russian government hires people to create chaos on the internet. They are tempted by easy work and good money for work such as writing more than 200 blog posts and comments a day, assuming fake identities, hijacking conversations, and spreading lies. This is an ongoing war of global censorship by means of disinformation.

Russia’s large media networks are in the hands of oligarchs, whose finances are deeply intertwined with those of the state. The Kremlin makes its positions known through press releases and private conversations, the contents of which are then dutifully reported to the Russian people, no matter how much spin it takes to make them credible.

Valery Gerasimov has been mentioned in previous healthy memory blog posts. He channeled Clausewitz in speech reprinted in the Russian military newspaper that “the role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown. In many cases, they have exceeded the power of the force of weapons in their effectiveness.” This is known as the Gerasimov Doctrine that has been enshrined in the nation’s military strategy.

Individuals working at the Internet Research Agency assume a series of fake identities known as “sockpuppets.” The authors write, The job was writing hundreds of social media posts per day, with the goal of hijacking conversations and spreading lies, all to the benefit of the Russian government. For this work people are paid the equivalent of $1500 per month. (Those who worked on the “Facebook desk” targeting foreign audience received double the pay of those targeting domestic audiences).

The following is taken directly from the text:

“The hard work of a sockpuppet takes three forms, best illustrated by how they operated during the 2016 U.S. election. One is to pose as the organizer of a trusted group. @Ten_GOP called itself the “unofficial Twitter account of Tennessee Republicans” and was followed by over 136,000 people (ten times as many as the official Tennessee Republican Party Account). It’s 3,107 messages were retweeted 1,213,506 times. Each retweet then spread to millions more users especially when it was retweeted by prominent Trump campaign figures like Donald Trump Jr., Kellyanne Conway, and Michael Flynn. On Election Day 2016, it was the seventh most retweeted account across all of Twitter. Indeed, Flynn followed at least five such documented accounts, sharing Russian propaganda with his 1000,000 followers at least twenty-five times.

The second sockpuppet tactic is to pose as a trusted news source. With a cover photo image of the U.S. Constitution, @partynews presented itself as hub for conservative fans of the Tea Party to track the latest headlines. For months , the Russian front pushed out anti-immigrant and pro-Trump messages and was followed and echoed out by some 22,000 people, including Trump’s controversial advisor Sebastian Gorka.

Finally, sockpuppets pass as seemingly trustworthy individuals: a grandmother, a blue-collar worker from the midwest,a decorated veteran, providing their own heartfelt take on current events (and who to vote for). Another former employee of the Internet
Research Agency, Alan Baskayev, admitted that it could be exhausting to manage so many identities. “First you had to be a redneck from Kentucky, then you had to be some white guy from Minnesota who worked all his life, paid taxes and now lives in poverty; and in 15 minutes you have to write something in the slang of [African] Americans from New York.”

There have been many other posts about Russian interference in Trump’s election. Trump lost the popular vote, and it is clear that he would not have won the Electoral College had it not been for Russia. Clearly, Putin owns Trump.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Flynn

January 19, 2019

This is the seventh post in a series of posts on a book by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking titled “Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media. A former director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) said,”The exponential explosion of publicly available information is changing the global intelligence system…It’s changing how we tool, how we organize, how we institutionalize—everything we do.” This is how he explained to the authors how the people who once owned and collected secrets—professional spies—were adjusting to this world without secrets.

U.S. intelligence agencies collected open source intelligence (OSINT) on a massive scale through much of the Cold War. The U.S. embassy in Moscow collected OSINT on a massive scale. The U.S. embassy in Moscow maintained subscriptions to over a thousand Soviet journals and magazines, while the Foreign Broadcast Monitoring Service (FBIS) stretched across 19 regional bureaus, monitoring more than 3,500 publications in 55 languages, as well as nearly a thousand hours of television each week. Eventually FBIS was undone by the sheer volume of OSINT the internet produced. In 1993, FBIS was creating 17,000 reports a month; by 2004 that number had risen to 50,000. In 2005 FBIS was shuttered. The former director of DIA said, Publicly available information is now probably the greatest means of intelligence that we could bring to bear. Whether you’re a CEO, a commander in chief, or a military commander, if you don’t have a social media component…you’re going to fail.”

Michael Thomas Flynn was made the director of intelligence for the task force that deployed to Afghanistan. Then he assumed the same role for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the secretive organization of elite units like the bin Laden-killing navy SEAL team. He made the commandos into “net fishermen” who eschewed individual nodes and focused instead on taking down he entire network, hitting it before it could react and reconstitute itself. JSOC got better as Flynn’s methods evolved capturing or killing dozens of terrorists in a single operation, gathering up intelligence, and then blasting off to hit another target before the night was done. The authors write, “Eventually, the shattered remnants of AQI would flee Iraq for Syria, where they would ironically later reorganize themselves as the core of ISIS.

Eventually the Peter Principle prevailed. The Peter Principle is that people rise in an organization until they reach their level of incompetence. The directorship of DIA was that level for Flynn. Flynn was forced to retire after 33 years of service. Flynn didn’t take his dismissal well . He became a professional critic of the Obama administration, which brought him to the attention of Donald Trump. He used his personal Twitter account to push out messages of hate (Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL). He put out one wild conspiracy theory after another. His postings alleged that Obam wasn’t just a secret Muslim, but a “jihadi” who “laundered” money for terrorists, and that if Hillary Clinton won the election she would help erect a one-world government to outlaw Christianity (notwithstanding that Hillary Clinton was and is a Christian). He also claimed that Hillary was involved in “Sex Crimes w Children. This resulted in someone going into a Pizzeria, the supposed locus of these sex crimes with children, and shooting it up. He was charged by the FBI for lying about his contact with a Russian official. This was based on a recorded phone conversation. This was a singularly dumb mistake for a former intelligence officer

Crowdsourcing

January 18, 2019

This is the sixth post in a series of posts on a book by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking titled “Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media. The terrorist attack on Mumbai opened up all the resources of the internet using Twitter to defend against the attack. When the smoke cleared, the Mumbai attack left several legacies. It was a searing tragedy visited upon hundreds of families. It brought two nuclear powers to the brink of war. It foreshadowed a major technological shift. Hundreds of witnesses—some on-site, some from afar—had generated a volume of information that previously would have taken months of diligent reporting to assemble. By stitching these individual accounts together, the online community had woven seemingly disparate bits of data into a cohesive whole. The authors write, “It was like watching the growing synaptic connections of a giant electric brain.”

This Mumbai operation was a realization of “crowdsourcing,” an idea that had been on the lips of Silicon Valley evangelists for years. It had originally been conceived as a new way to outsource programming jobs, the internet bringing people together to work collectively, more quickly and cheaply than ever before. As social media use had sky rocketed, the promise of had extended a space beyond business.

Crowdsourcing is about redistributing power-vesting the many with a degree of influence once reserved for the few. Crowdsourcing might be about raising awareness, or about money (also known as “crowdfunding.”) It can kick-start a new business or throw support to people who might have remained little known. It was through crowdsourcing that Bernie Sanders became a fundraising juggernaut in the 2016 presidential election, raking in $218 million online.

For the Syrian civil war and the rise of ISIS, the internet was the “preferred arena for fundraising.” Besides allowing wide geographic reach, it expands the circle of fundraisers, seemingly linking even the smallest donor with their gift on a personal level. The “Economist” explained, this was, in fact, one of the key factors that fueled the years-long Syrian civil war. Fighters sourced needed funds by learning “to crowd fund their war by using Instagram, Facebook and YouTube. In exchange for a sense of what the war was really like, the fighters asked for donations via PayPal. In effect, they sold their war online.”

In 2016 a hard-line Iraqi militia took to Instagram to brag about capturing a suspected ISIS fighter. The militia then invited its 75,000 online fans to vote on whether to kill or release him. Eager, violent comments rolled in from around the world, including many from the United States. Two hours later, a member of the militia posted a follow-up selfie; the body of the prisoner lay in a pool of blood behind him. The caption read, “Thanks for the vote.” In the words of Adam Lineman, a blogger and U.S. Army veteran, this represented a bizarre evolution in warfare: “A guy on the toilet in Omaha, Nebraska could emerge from the bathroom with the blood of some 18-year-old Syrian on his hands.”

Of course, crowdsourcing can be used for good as well as for evil.

Sharing

January 17, 2019

This is the fifth post in a series of posts on a book by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking titled “Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media.” The authors blame sharing on Facebook rolling out a design update that included a small text box that asked the simple question: “What’s on your mind?” Since then, the “status update” has allowed people to use social media to share anything and everything about their lives they want to, from musings and geotagged photos to live video and augmented-reality stickers.

The authors continue, “The result is that we are now our own worst mythological monster—not just watchers but chronic over-sharers. We post on everything from events small (your grocery list) to momentous (the birth of a child, which one of us actually live-tweeted). The exemplar of this is the “selfie,” a picture taken of yourself and shared as widely as possible online. At the current pace, the average American millennial will take around 26,000 selfies in their lifetime. Fighter pilots take selfies during combat missions. Refugees take selfies to celebrate making it to safety. In 2016, one victim of an airplane hijacking scored the ultimate millennial coup: taking a selfie with his hijacker.”

Not only are these postings revelatory of our personal experiences, but they also convey the weightiest issues of public policy. The first sitting world leader to use social media was Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper in 2008, followed by U.S. President Barack Obama. A decade later, the leaders of 178 countries had joined in, including former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who banned Twitter during a brutal crackdown, has changed his mind on the morality—and utility—of social media. He debuted online with a friendly English-language video as he stood next to the Iranian flag. He tweeted, “Let’s all love each other.”

Not just world leaders, but agencies at every level and in every type of government now share their own news, from some 4,000 national embassies to the fifth-grade student council of the Upper Greenwood Lake Elementary school. When the U.S. military’s Central Command expanded Operation Inherent Resolve against ISIS in 2016, Twitter users could follow along directly via the hashtag #TALKOIR.

Nothing actually disappears online. The data builds and builds and could reemerge at any moment. Law professor Jeffrey Rosen said that the social media revolution has essentially marked “the end of forgetting.”

The massive accumulation of all this information leads to revelations of its own. Perhaps the clearest example of this phenomenon is the first president to have used social media before running for office. Being both a television celebrity and a social media addict, Donald Trump entered politics with a vast digital trail behind him. The Internet Archive has a fully perusable, downloadable collection of more than a thousand hours of Trump-related video, and his Twitter account has generated around 40,000 messages. Never has a president shared so much of himself—not just words but even neuroses and particular psychological tics—for all the world to see. Trump is a man—the most powerful in the world—whose very essence has been imprinted on the internet. Know this one wonders how such a man could be elected President by the Electoral College.

Tom Nichols is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College who worked with the intelligence community during the Cold War explained the unprecedented value of this vault of information: “It’s something you never want the enemy to know. And yet it’s all out there…It’s also a window into how the President processes information—or how he doesn’t process information he doesn’t like. Solid gold info.” Reportedly Russian intelligence services came to the same conclusion, using Trump’s Twitter account as the basis on which to build a psychological profile of Trump.

The World Wide Web Goes Mobile

January 16, 2019

This is the fourth post in a series of posts on a book by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking titled “Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media.” On January 9, 2007, Apple cofounder and CEO Steve Jobs introduced the world to the iPhone. Its list of features: a touchscreen; handheld integration of movies, television, and music; a high quality camera; plus major advances in call reception and voicemail. The most radical innovation was a speedy, next-generation browser that could shrink and reshuffle websites, making the entire internet mobile-friendly.

The next year Apple officially opened its App Store. Now anything was possible as long as it was channeled through a central marketplace. Developers eagerly launched their own internet-enabled games and utilities, built atop the iPhone’s sturdy hardware (There are about 2.5 million such apps today). The underlying business of the internet soon changed with the launch of Google’s Android operating system and competing Google Play Store that same year, smartphones ceased to be the niche of tech enthusiast, and the underlying business of the internet soon changed.

There were some 2 billion mobile broadband subscriptions worldwide by 2013. By 2020, that number is expected to reach 8 billion. In the United States, where three-quarters of Americans own a smartphone, these devises have long since replaced televisions as the most commonly used piece of technology.

The following is taken directly from the text: “The smartphone combined with social media to clear the last major hurdle in the race started thousands of years ago. Previously, even if internet services worked perfectly, users faced a choice. They could be in real life but away from the internet. Or they could tend to their digital lives in quiet isolation, with only a computer screen to keep them company. Now, with an internet-capable device in their pocket, it became possible for people to maintain both identities simultaneously. Any thought spoken aloud could be just as easily shared in a quick post. A snapshot of a breathtaking sunset or plate of food (especially food) could fly thousands of miles away before darkness had fallen or the meal was over. With the advent of mobile livestreaming, online and offline observers could watch the same even unfold in parallel.”

Twitter was one of the earliest beneficiaries of the smartphone. Silicon Valley veterans who were hardcore free speech advocates founded the companion 2006. The envisioned a platform with millions of public voices spinning the story of their lives in 140-character bursts. This reflected the new sense that it was the network, rather than the content on it, that mattered.

Twitter grew along with smartphone use. In 2007, its users were sending 5,000 tweets per day. By 2010, that number was up to 50 million; by 2015, 500 million. The better web technology offered users the chance to embed hyperlinks, images, and video in their updates.

The most prominent Twitter user is Donald Trump, who likened it to “owning your own newspaper.” What he liked most about it was that it featured one perfect voice: his own.
It appears that it is his primary means of communications. It also highlights the risks inherent in using Twitter impulsively.

An Early Example of the Weaponization of the Internet

January 15, 2019

This is the third post in a series of posts on a book by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking titled “Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media.” In early 1994 a force of 4,000 disenfranchised workers and farmers rose up in Mexico’s poor southern state of Chiapas. They called themselves the Zapista National Liberation Army (EZLN). They occupied a few towns and vowed to march on Mexico City. This did not impress the government. Twelve thousand soldiers were deployed, backed by tanks and air strikes, in a swift and merciless offensive. The EZLN quickly retreated to the jungle. The rebellion teetered on the brink of destruction. But twelve days after it began the government declared a sudden halt to combat. This was a real head-scratcher, particularly for students of war.

But there was nothing conventional about this conflict. Members of the EZLN had been talking online. They spread their manifesto to like-minded leftists in other countries, declared solidarity with international labor movements protesting free trade (their revolution had begun the day the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, established contact with organizations like the Red Cross, and urged every journalist they could find to come and observe the cruelty of the Mexican military firsthand. They turned en masse to the new and largely untested power of the internet.

It worked. Their revolution was joined in solidarity by tens of thousands of liberal activists in more than 130 countries, organizing in 15 different languages. Global pressure to end the small war in Chiapas built quickly on the Mexican government. And it seemed to come from every direction, all at once. Mexico relented.

But this new offensive did not stop after the shooting had ceased. The war became a bloodless political struggle, sustained by the support of a global network of enthusiasts and admirers, most of whom had never heard of Chiapas before the call to action went out. In the years that followed, this network would push and cajole the Mexican government into reforms the local fighters had been unable to obtain on their own. The Mexican foreign minister, Jose Angel Gurria lamented in 1995, “The shots lasted ten days, but ever since the war has been a war of ink, of written word, a war on the internet.”

There were signs everywhere that the internet’s relentless pace of innovation was changing the social and political fabric of the real world. The webcam was invented and the launch of eBay and Amazon; the birth of online dating; even the first internet-abetted scandals and crimes, one of which resulted in a presidential impeachment, stemming from a rumor first reported online. In 1996, Manual Castells, one of the world’s foremost sociologists, made a bold prediction: “The internet’s integration of print, radio, and audiovisual modalities into a single system promise an impact on society comparable to that of the alphabet.”

The authors note that most forward-thinking of these internet visionaries was not an academic. In 1999, musician David Bowie sat for an interview with the BBC. Instead of promoting his albums, he waxed philosophical about technology’s future. He explained that the internet would not just bring people together; it would also tear them apart. When asked by the interviewer about his surety about the internet’s powers, Bowie said that he didn’t think we’ve even seen the tip of the iceberg. “I think the potential of what the internet is going to do to society, both good and bad, is unimaginable. I think we’re actually on the cusp of something, exhilarating and terrifying…It’s going to crush our ideas of what mediums are all about.”

Could Sputnik be Responsible for the Internet?

January 14, 2019

This is the second post in a series of posts on a book by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking titled “Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media.” Probably most readers are wondering what is or was Sputnik? Sputnik was the first space satellite to orbit the earth. It was launched by the Soviet Union. The United States was desperately trying to launch such a satellite, but was yet to do so. A young HM appeared as part of a team of elementary school presenters on educational TV that made a presentation on Sputnik and on the plans of the United States to launch such a satellite. The young version of HM explained the plans for the rocket to launch a satellite. Unfortunately, the model briefed by HM failed repeatedly, and a different rocket was needed for the successful launch.

The successful launch of Sputnik created panic in the United States about how far we were behind the Russians. Money was poured into scientific and engineering research and into the education of young scientists and engineers. HM personally benefited from this generosity as it furthered his undergraduate and graduate education.

Licklider and Taylor the authors of the seminal paper, “The Computer as a Communication Device” were employees of the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA). An internetted communications system was important for the U.S. military was that it would banish its greatest nightmare: the prospect of the Soviet Union being able to decapitate U.S. command and control with a single nuclear strike. But the selling point for the scientists working for DARPA was that linking up computers would be a useful way to share what was at the time incredibly rare and costly computer time. A network could spread the load and make it easier on everyone. So a project was funded to transform the Intergalactic Computer Network into reality. It was called ARPANET.

It is interesting to speculate what would have been developed in the absence of the Soviet threat. It is difficult to think that this would have been done by private industry.
Perhaps it is a poor commentary on homo sapiens, but it seems that many, if not most, technological advances have been developed primarily for warfare and defense.

It is also ironic to think that technology developed to thwart the Soviet Union would be used by Russia to interfere in American elections to insure that their chosen candidate for President was elected.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Patient

May 12, 2016

The third cryptomind discussed in “The Mind Club” is the Patient.  The authors expand the concept of patient well beyond the medical context.  “Patients are perceived to have experiences and to be sensitive and susceptible to the actions of others.  Whereas agents are the thinking doers of the world, patients are the vulnerable feelers.  The word patient is likely to bring to mind the concept of pain.  The experience of pain  forces to focus on the present and how to deal with it.”

The authors wrote “Pain may have overwhelming psychological power, but the physical reality is comparatively unsubstantial.  Pain is a mental construction resulting from a handful of nerve signals.  The intensity of pain  stems only from the microscopic electrical pulses of neurons.  Moreover, pain can be triggered by nothing at all as in the case of people with neuropathic pain who live in constant agony due to a few rogue neurons.

Phantom limb pain, although quite real, indicates the fickleness.  This pain is the pain amputees feel in their amputated limb.  Neuroscientist V.S. Ramachanadran developed a special box with a mirror and two holes into which the patients place each of their arms.  The mirror faced the still-presents right hand and its reflection provided he patient with what appeared to be an intact missing limb.  Seeing this illusion significantly reduced the patient’s pain.

The placebo effect provides strong evidence on the mind’s power to influence pain.  Studies of popular drugs such as Tylenol or paracetamol for back pain, and Prozac, Effexor, or Paxil of mild depression suggest that they are no more effective than the combination of sugar pills and optimism.  Previous healthy memory blog posts have reported research in which placebos are effective even when the patients know they are placebos.

As you should know from previous healthy memory blog posts there is also a nocebo effect.  One study  found that people felt real pain after researchers put sham electrodes onto their heads  and pretended to send electric current through them.

Neuroimaging studies suggest that there is both a sensory component and an affective component to pain.  The sensory component represents actual tissue damage.  The affective component is its felt badness, its aversiveness and unpleasantness.  These components can be dissociated.  For example, morphine eliminates the aversive affect while keeping the sensory experience.    A car-accident victim treated with morphine described his experience of traumatic injury as “Pain…but not painful.”  That is the unpleasantness was dulled, but specific sensations remained intact.

In some circumstances tissue damage does not automatically translate to pain even without drugs as has been found in combat situations where soldiers carry on the battle even after having suffered grievous injuries.

Empathy is an important concept and an important skill.  Proximity is an important factor affecting empathy.   The philosopher Peter Singer formulated this thought experiment.  Imagine you are walking by a pond, wearing a new three-hundred dollar suit, when you see a drowning child.  Should you save the child even if doing so would ruin the suit?  You likely wouldn’t hesitate  to dive in.  Now consider a different scenario.  You are walking down he street after payday when a charity canvasser tells you that twenty dollars will save the life of a starving child.  Chances are you would keep your money and let the child die, even though saving the child costs a fraction of the cost of the suit.  Of course, there are factors in the comparison other than proximity.  You can actually see the drowning child, but you might have questions about the honesty of the solicitor.  But you should get the general point.

Our capacity for empathy is limited.  Although some empathy is helpful, too much can be counterproductive causing our empathy to shut down.  Psychologists Daryl Cameron and Keith Payne did an experiment illustrating the “collapse of compassion.”  They presented participants with pleas from either one or eight suffering victims.  In spite of the objectively greater total suffering of eight victims, the participants were overwhelmed by it and demonstrated less compassion.

The authors note how the Patient Mind can be mistreated as the Machine Mind.  Recent advances in neurobiology have focused attention away from human suffering and feelings and toward drugs that influence brain circuits and neurotransmitters..  Thomas Szasz has described this new psychiatry as mechanomorphic, treating patients like “defective machines” rather than fellow human beings.  The authors note “Paradoxically, physicians of the mind may fail to see their patients as members of the mind club.”

Research by Stephanie Brown of the University of Michigan has revealed that helping others can add years to your life.  She examined the mortality of older people who were the pimrary caregivers of their ill spouses.  This is a highly stressful role as caregiver must manage every aspect of their spouses’s treatment and take ultimate responsibility for the spouse’s life.  In spite of stress being linked to early death, these caregivers lived significantly longer, presumably because of increased feelings of agency.

Some time will be given to plants before ending this post.  Taking care of plants can increase longevity.  In one study,m nursing home residents given responsibility  for a houseplant outlived those who had plants that were looked after by nursing home staff.