However, if the government is being unjustly accused of conspiracy in the "court of public opinion" I think it has a right to defend itself.
I think it's fine for the government openly to provide factual information, and even some analysis ("why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme"?). But I don't see that as a rationale for covert cognitive infiltration (which, I should point out for the benefit of people who have never looked at the article, is
one part of the idea that the paper briefly discusses). There might be some other rationale for covert ops (I was reaching for one with the Jonestown example), but I see a lot more downside.
The enterprise of striving to dismantle echo chambers is one I strongly favor.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
