The Times unraveled a financial network that stretches from Chicago to Shanghai and uses American nonprofits to push Chinese talking points worldwide.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
13 points

Is this illegal?

permalink
report
reply
28 points

No, but it’s scummy as fuck, and it’s interesting that an American is pushing Chinese talking points.

I think people are pretty well aware at this point that social engineering, on a macroscale, is extremely effective at changing people’s views (albeit slowly). Look at what happened with Qanon, look how many people supported that. That was the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen, and people are STILL backing it even after it’s been proven to not only be a sham, but run by a pedophile out of Southeast Asia. Imagine the damage that can be done by a disinformation or social engineering campaign backed by one of the largest nations in the world.

We are currently in a culture war - the implications of it could change everyone’s lives in the next couple of decades if we aren’t careful.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Doesn’t the U.S. do this in other countries? If America does it, and it’s not illegal, why can’t China? Weird that they didn’t mention that it’s legal in the article, right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

No one said they can’t. But we can and should call out propaganda for what it is. Especially when it comes from authoritarian, genocidal, despotic governments.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

This exchange reminds me of a key and peele sketch. Not illegal, but perfectly fine to admonish china for doing the thing that the us is constantly being admonished for, mx. Whataboutism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It’s scummy when the US does it.

It’s scummy when China does it.

I hope I could help you understand.

I also would love to talk about anything China without someone coming up with the Yankees. JFC.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I would like to learn more about what the U.S does to compete in the propaganda space. I worry about the fundamentally reduced agility in responding to competing powers that are much more centralized.

As far as I can tell, private industry leads American interest and since the private ownership is still spread amongst these individuals owners, there doesn’t seem to be a coordinated drive to spread propaganda without a more direct linkage to profit. However in other countries with more centralized power the national power can dictate the messaging and then private companies follow suit, which allows for a much more coordinated effort.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

it’s interesting that an American is pushing Chinese talking points

Maybe he just agrees with it? What is it about Americans that they wouldn’t be convinced of other perspectives? Americans can only align with US propaganda?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Ok, Mr Singham

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think with evidence provided that they should have to register under FARA as foreign agents for China here to spread Chinese propaganda. I’m sure the writer of the article informed them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Capitalism is global now and so is the internet. They don’t have to register because they’re not in America. The only way to stop this is to shut down the internet and isolate the country. This article is mad at China because it’s beating America with capitalism.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 14K

    Posts

  • 413K

    Comments