Putin's Internet Trolls Mercilessly Smear Finnish Reporter Simply For Pointing Them Out

from the disinformation-nation dept

We've noted numerous times now that a cornerstone of the Putin regime has been the use of internet trolls to flood the internet with propaganda. These armies of paid sockpuppets get paid 40,000 to 50,000 rubles ($800 to $1,000) a month to create proxied, viable fake personas -- specifically tasked with pumping the internet full of toxic disinformation 24 hours a day. The practice was recently exposed by journalist, activist and mother Lyuda Savchuk, who spent three months employed as such a troll -- before successfully suing the Russian government for a single ruble on principle.

Criticize this practice as a writer anywhere on the internet and you'll pretty quickly find yourself the target of anonymous attacks in the comment section -- or significantly worse. Finnish journalist Jessikka Aro recently found this out the hard way after profiling Putin's online propaganda efforts in a series of reports for Finland's state broadcaster Yle Kioski. Since the reports, Aro has found herself under attack by an ocean of internet pugilists that have filled the internet with claims Aro is everything from a professional drug dealer to a paid NATO stooge:

"In response to her reporting, pro-Russian activists in Helsinki organized a protest outside the headquarters of Yle, accusing it of being a troll factory itself. Only a handful of people showed up. At the same time, Ms. Aro has been peppered with abusive emails, vilified as a drug dealer on social media sites and mocked as a delusional bimbo in a music video posted on YouTube. “There are so many layers of fakery you get lost,” said Ms. Aro, who was awarded the Finnish Grand Prize for Journalism in March.

...She (also) received a call late at night on her cellphone from a number in Ukraine. Nobody spoke, and all she could hear was gunfire. This was followed by text and email messages denouncing her as a “NATO whore” and a message purporting to come from her father — who died 20 years ago — saying he was “watching her.”

Finland is an EU member but has contemplated joining NATO -- talks about which accelerated after Russia's not-so-subtle invasion of the Ukraine. Russia, in turn, has started leaning heavily on its online disinformation puppets to try and turn public sentiment against such a move. Part of the effectiveness of Putin's paid trolls is that it's impossible to differentiate them from the usual wash of vitriol and idiocy that coats online interactions on any given day. As such, it's not entirely unlike trying to have a fist fight with a running stream, reflected in the Finnish media's confusion on how to tackle the problem outside of things like "open letters":

"The false claim that Ms. Aro was a drug dealer triggered an unusual open letter signed by more than 20 Finnish editors infuriated by what they denounced as the “poisoning of public debate” with “insults, defamation and outright lies.” The Finnish police began an investigation into the website for harassment and hate speech.

“I don’t know if these people are acting on orders from Russia, but they are clearly what Lenin called ‘useful idiots,’” said Mika Pettersson, the editor of Finland’s national news agency and an organizer of the editors’ open letter. “They are playing into Putin’s pocket. Nationalist movements in Finland and other European countries want to destabilize the European Union and NATO, and this goes straight into Putin’s narrative.”

The European Union doesn't appear to be particularly prepared for this new world of online information warfare either, and has embraced arguably outdated concepts like "the truth" or by cataloging the most egregious claims in a weekly report dubbed the "Disinformation Review." And while disinformation and propaganda is certainly nothing new (especially here in the west), it's clear that Putin has taken online information warfare to an entirely new level. One the international community isn't quite ready for -- and is certain to respond to with no limit of bad ideas and even worse laws over time.

Full disclosure before you read about it in the comment section: I'm a former opium salesman paid by the CIA to unfairly malign absolutely everybody.

Filed Under: finland, internet, jessikka aro, propaganda, russia, trolls
Companies: yle kioski

Study: One Out Of Every 178 Posts To Chinese Social Media Is Government Propaganda

from the disinformation-nation dept

In Russia, we've talked about how Vladimir Putin employs a massive army of Internet trolls to ridicule and shout down political opponents and critics. In China, the government's tactics are notably different. According to a new study out of Harvard (pdf), the Chinese government posts about 488 million fake social media comments -- or roughly one day of Twitter's total global volume -- each year. In China, these propagandists have historically been dubbed the "50 Cent Party," because it was generally believed they were paid 50 Chinese cents for every social media post.

It's the first study of its kind, only made possible after a blogger by the name of "Xiaolan" leaked an archive of all 2013 and 2014 emails to and from the Zhanggong district's Internet Propaganda Office. Journalists had previously written news articles about the leaks, but the researchers in this case crafted custom code to thoroughly dissect and identify the posts across a wide variety of formats and track them to verified government accounts, leading researchers to conclude that an amazing one out of every 178 posts to Chinese social media was government propaganda.

But unlike Russia's tendency to pay ordinary citizens to parrot propaganda (which is ultimately what wound up exposing the practice), the study found that many of China's social media propagandists are government workers, for whom propaganda was just part of their overall job duties at existing agencies:

"Although those who post comments are often rumored to be ordinary citizens, the researchers were surprised to find that nearly all the posts were written by workers at government agencies including tax and human resource departments, and at courts. The researchers said they found no evidence that people were paid for the posts, adding the work was probably part of the employees’ job responsibilities. Fifty Cent Party is a derogatory term since it implies people are bought off cheaply."

And whereas Russia's online propaganda efforts tend to involve personally attacking critics, Chinese propaganda takes a notably different tack -- focusing more on feel-good nationalism and reminders of the Communist Party’s revolutionary past. Like any government, the study highlights that China's biggest fear isn't from abroad -- but the country's own people -- a threat best handled with distraction, not direct confrontation:

"The main threat perceived by the Chinese regime in the modern era is not military attacks from foreign enemies but rather uprisings from their own people,” they said. Revealing a paternalistic approach, the guiding policy of China’s Fifty Cent Party appears to be that distraction is better than conflict. “Letting an argument die, or changing the subject, usually works much better than picking an argument and getting someone’s back up (as new parents recognize fast),” they wrote.

Granted, distraction certainly isn't a new concept, and it only takes about five minutes watching U.S. cable news to realize we're pretty damn good at it here in the States. In fact, we're so good at distracting ourselves from issues of substance that it seems unlikely that the United States government would even need to spend money on an institutional-grade social media disinformation effort. Then again, maybe I was just paid fifty cents to say that.

Filed Under: china, propaganda, social media

Iran Joins The Using Video Game Footage To Pump Up Your Own Military's Reputation Arms Race

from the fake-it-til-you-make-it dept

I suppose this was inevitable. As video games become more refined as an artform and as those games evince more realistic graphics, animations, and all the rest, I suppose it had to be that some folks out there would try to pass game footage off as real footage depicting their own power. I just never really thought it would be established nations that otherwise purport to be players on the world stage doing this. Yet, as we have seen done by Egypt, North Korea, and even Russia in the past, so too do we now find that Iran is trying to brag about its own military capability using game footage.

This all started with Iran's state-run media releasing a video it claimed to be of an Iranian sniper taking out members of ISIS.

That guy's a really good shot, right? Well, if the above footage looks somewhat familiar to you, even through the grainy capture and the fact that it's clearly video shot of a television showing the actual video, that's probably because you're played the video game Medal Of Honor.

But something about this video doesn’t seem right. That’s because the footage is actually from the video game Medal of Honor. Several details show this. First of all, when this imaginary commando kills a supposed IS group terrorist, a little symbol pops up in the bottom of the screen. It’s exactly the same symbol that appears in Medal of Honor when a gamer shoots his enemy in the head (“a headshot”). Secondly, while the soldier is shooting, you can see the words "Mfou” and "Wfou” written at the bottom of the screen. These stand for the different visors that players can use in Medal of Honor.

Oops. This isn't to say that Iran doesn't indeed have military assets taking on ISIS/Daesh. They certainly do. But when an easily debunked effort to pass off video game footage as victory marks for the war effort is put out, it will only serve to make the world wonder just how well the real effort is going. Probably horribly, because, you know, war. War never changes (See? I can do it too!).

But we'll set that aside for the moment and instead welcome Iran into the group of fake-it-til-you-make-it folks. There are snacks in the back, but they're just pictures of Mario Bros. mushrooms, so, you know....

Filed Under: iran, medal of honor, propaganda, video games

When Even The Wall Street Journal Calls Out The USTR's Misleading Propaganda About The TPP...

from the lies,-damned-lies-and-statistics dept

Not too surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal has been a big booster of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement over the past year, repeatedly praising the deal and claiming it will save the world in all sorts of ways. Most of that is based on the faulty belief that the TPP is actually a "free trade" deal (it's actually the opposite), with some of it just being the standard WSJ faith-based belief that "if big businesses like it, it must be good."

Given that, it's a bit surprising that even the WSJ is now calling out the US Trade Rep (USTR) for its blatantly misleading propaganda about the TPP. As Glyn recently wrote about, the Peterson Institute for International Economics released a summary showing tiny economic gains from the TPP -- to the point that it makes you wonder what the fuss is. Some folks have already called into question the Peterson Institute's methodology, suggesting the results may be even worse, but even if we accept the organization's findings, the benefits to the TPP are miniscule: increasing GDP 0.5% by 2030.

But, no matter. The USTR decided to hype up this report... by tweeting out a chart so misleading that even the WSJ called it out as bogus propaganda. From the way that chart is drawn, it sure looks like a really big gap between "with TPP" and "without TPP." But, of course, it's really just the difference between $25,754 billion and $25,885 billion. Yes, $131 billion is nothing to sneeze at, but on an economic projection 15 years out, that's a rounding error. But the chart, of course, makes it look like a big deal. Here's the notoriously TPP-supporting WSJ explaining how ridiculous the chart is:

Notice anything wrong here? Look at those two values on the right side of the column. With the Trans-Pacific Partnership, U.S. real national income will be $25,885 billion in 2030. Without, it will only be $25,754 billion. That’s a difference of $131 billion. But the chart presents that gap as about the same, in size, as the gap between $18,154 billion and $25,754 billion. That’s a difference of $7.6 trillion. Yep, that’s trillion with a “t.”

The WSJ then tried to help out with its own, more accurate chart: But, of course, even that chart is somewhat misleading, since the y-axis is truncated (which the WSJ itself admits). So, to help out, we created our own chart based on Peterson's numbers (in Table 2, in case you're wondering): Notice how you basically can't see the difference between the two lines. Yeah. Compare that to the USTR's gloating above. And people wonder why we call out the USTR for being a secretive, totally dishonest organization.

Amusingly, when the WSJ reached out to the USTR, the USTR pretended that its original chart was an "error" and promised an "updated" chart:

“We noticed the error and are tweeting out updated, corrected graphics now,” said Andrew Bates, press secretary for the Office of the USTR.

So... what is the "updated, corrected graphics"? Here: So, uh, yeah, its "corrected" graphic is even more misleading in that it just hides the base altogether and makes it look like this change is some huge change. Oh, and the original graphic, which the USTR admits is an "error"? That one is still up. Because of course it is.

Filed Under: exaggeration, predictions, propaganda, tpp, ustr
Companies: peterson institute

Released Documents Show NSA Actually Surprised To Find Itself Portrayed Negatively In Popular Culture

from the we're-just-massive-dragnet-deployers,-not-murderous-goons! dept

The NSA may know lots of stuff about lots of people, but it's still fairly clueless about how the world works. Documents obtained by Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski show the NSA was shocked to find it hadn't been portrayed more favorably in a major motion picture.

The National Security Agency attempted a public relations makeover in 1998 via the Jerry Bruckheimer–produced spy thriller Enemy of the State, but the agency was disappointed it was portrayed as the “bad guys” in the film, internal emails between agency officials obtained by BuzzFeed News through the Freedom of Information Act show.

One employee wrote in 1998, “Unfortunately, the truth isn’t always as riveting as fiction and creative license may mean that ‘the NSA,’ as portrayed in a given production, bears little resemblance to the place where we all work.”

Even in the halcyon pre-Snowden days, it was unlikely a massive government spy agency would be depicted as "lawful neutral," much less "good" in any form of entertainment media. Shadowy agencies make for great conspiracy theories and potentially riveting entertainment (as for "Enemy of the State," YMMV…). Certainly, it's unlikely that the NSA would kill a congressional representative for opposing surveillance expansion and it probably doesn't have any "goons" to send out to intimidate witnesses (that's more of a CIA thing...). But for the NSA to expect it would be portrayed as the heroes -- despite holding meetings with the producers before the film's release -- is a pretty good indication of how isolated it is from the general public.

This brief burst of reality led to a facesaving effort by the NSA, spearheaded by Michael Hayden, who invited CNN to profile the agency to counteract the negative portrayal. Fighting pop culture with pitched puff pieces is a terrible way to rehabilitate a reputation, but that's the NSA for you. It's never going to win hearts and minds. (I was originally going to add some qualifiers to the previous sentence but couldn't find any that worked.) Any effort expended in this area is wasted.

Even more hilarious than the NSA's dismay at this completely predictable pop culture portrayal is its employees' complaints about violated privacy.

“I was standing in the parking lot staring like an idiot, wondering why this helicopter with some strange object underneath it was hovering over me,” one employee complained after a production helicopter flew above the agency to get establishing shots. “Will Touchstone be getting in touch with me so I can get paid for my appearance in this movie? Because I have no intention of allowing my image to be used for free,” the employee concluded, unaware of public access laws…

One employee fretted that their car would now be seen in the film, while another complained that his window blinds were up during filming.

Yes, you can fly an aircraft over the NSA headquarters and no one can do anything about it. As long as you follow the FAA guidelines, you can capture establishing shots or vehicles in the parking lot or any "idiot" staring at your aircraft. The NSA is not a military base and very little about what goes on inside can be determined from 500 feet above the building.

Still, as Kaczynski notes, the negative portrayal of the agency and the intrusion of unwanted aerial "surveillance" did little to stifle employee enthusiasm for the upcoming film. Unfortunately, the released documents do not contain post-viewing comments from NSA staff after they'd shelled out $5 for the dubious privilege of watching their big screen counterparts murder a congressman and intimidate a witness.

Filed Under: culture, enemy of the state, nsa, pr, propaganda, surveillance

New North Korean Weapon Unleashed: Bad Video Editing

from the failure-to-launch dept

We've had some fun with our North Korean friends around these parts in the past, mostly revolving around the Pyongyang regime's adorable attempts to bolster its already nefarious reputation through its propaganda efforts. While the nation's Orwellian policies are both stark and serious, and it certainly does have troubling weapons in its arsenal, so many of its threats have amounted to bad propaganda devised through the liberal use of video game footage, music and bad attempts at Photoshop. Well, the arms race doesn't end, of course, which is why North Korea is pleased to display its latest weapon: bad attempts at video editing!

Who can help being inspired by the replay-launching of a submarine missile? What with all that heart-thumping music in the background? Now, I can't translate the speech, so I'm not absolutely certain of what is being said, but I'm pretty sure the narrator isn't explaining that, hey, this missile actually blew up in failure, but we cut the video together to make it look like it was super-explode-y successful! And, yet, that's exactly what the analysis done by a California think-tank suggests is the case.

Footage of a North Korean submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) test released by Pyongyang two days after it announced it had conducted the country's fourth nuclear test last week was faked, according to an analysis by a California-based think tank.

"The rocket ejected, began to light, and then failed catastrophically," said Melissa Hanham, a senior research associate at the California-based Middlebury Institute's James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS).

The CNS analysis shows two frames of video from state media where flames engulf the missile and small parts of its body break away.

"North Korea used heavy video editing to cover over this fact," Hanham said in an email. "They used different camera angles and editing to make it appear that the launch was several continuous launches, but played side by side you can see that it is the same event".

All of this comes on the heels of Pyongyang's announcement that it had successfully tested a more advanced nuclear bomb in recent weeks. That announcement too was met with narrow eyes from analysts and the US government, likely because of North Korea's long-standing fake-it-til-you-make-it weapons policy. The general consensus is still that North Korea isn't capable of fitting its nuclear arsenal, which is quite limited, onto any type of serious missile delivery system.

Which isn't to say that the regime isn't dangerous. It most certainly is, chiefly to its own population and to its southern neighbors, whom it continues to hold hostage in return for aid for its crumbling regime. Just keep all this in mind whenever you hear the hawks talk about how dangerous our enemies are.

Filed Under: missile launch, north korea, propaganda, video editing

Law Professor: ISIS Is, Like, Totally Scary, So Let's Do Away With The First Amendment

from the and-probably-the-4th dept

Law professor Eric Posner is no fan of the First Amendment. Never has been. Back in 2012, he argued that Americans basically need to get over the First Amendment because free speech upsets people. Earlier this year, he argued for restricting the speech of college students because students are children who don't deserve free speech. A few months ago, he also argued that the US should adopt a "right to be forgotten," because sometimes it's better to make speech disappear entirely.

So it comes as little surprise that he's now arguing that we should just dump the First Amendment, because ISIS is, like, super scary, yo.

It has become increasingly clear that terrorist groups such as ISIS can extend their reach to American territory via the Internet. Using their own websites, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms, they lure young men and women to their mission—without having to risk the capture of foreign agents on U.S. soil. The Americans ensnared in ISIS’s net in turn radicalize others, send money to ISIS, and even carry out attacks.

Never before in our history have enemies outside the United States been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory in such an effective way—and by this I mean ideas that lead directly to terrorist attacks that kill people. The novelty of this threat calls for new thinking about limits on freedom of speech.

Posner's proposal? Make it a crime to even visit a website that supports ISIS or to make any vaguely pro-ISIS statement:

But there is something we can do to protect people like Amin from being infected by the ISIS virus by propagandists, many of whom are anonymous and most of whom live in foreign countries. Consider a law that makes it a crime to access websites that glorify, express support for, or provide encouragement for ISIS or support recruitment by ISIS; to distribute links to those websites or videos, images, or text taken from those websites; or to encourage people to access such websites by supplying them with links or instructions. Such a law would be directed at people like Amin: naïve people, rather than sophisticated terrorists, who are initially driven by curiosity to research ISIS on the Web.

He admits that this might interfere with actual research about ISIS, but says there can be an exemption for those with a "legitimate interest" which he defines as credentialed members of the press or those with academic associations. Of course, he then notes that, obviously, such law would violate the First Amendment. But, no problem, he says, let's just dump that... noting that prior to the 1960s, we never really took that whole First Amendment thing all that seriously anyway, and then cites a bunch of horrifically awful examples from history of the US not respecting free expression -- basically using some of the most embarrassing examples of our past to argue that we should go back to that sort of barbaric view of the world:

However, these rules go back only to the 1960s. Before then, in the United States, people could be punished for engaging in dangerous speech. The U.S. government prosecuted Nazi sympathizers during World War II, draft protesters during World War I, and Southern sympathizers in the Union during the Civil War. It’s common sense that when a country is embroiled in a war, it should counter propaganda that could populate a third column with recruits. The pattern in American history—and, in the other democracies as well, even today—is that during times of national emergency, certain limits on speech will be tolerated.

We do not currently face a national emergency comparable to a world war, but anti-propaganda laws may nonetheless be warranted because of the unique challenge posed by ISIS’s sophisticated exploitation of modern technology.

There are, of course, all sorts of problems with his argument -- not that I think he shouldn't be allowed to say it and reveal to the world his own issues. First off, it presumes, without any real evidence, that ISIS propaganda is actually effective. Multiple studies have shown this is simply not true. Nearly all recruitment into ISIS happens within established social circles, where people already know each other -- not because of ISIS tweeting out beheading videos.

Second, it's become something of a cliche to use the argument "that's exactly what ISIS/terrorists want..." but it really does seem to fit here. Scaring the living daylights out of "public intellectuals" so that they compromise the very principles on which their society is built on, seems like the pretty clear goal of terrorism. So, step on up, Eric Posner, you're posting pro-ISIS propaganda now. Under your own proposed law, you may have just committed a crime.

Third, it way overestimates the "threat" of ISIS. I am not saying that ISIS is not a legitimate threat to cause some damage, but of all the threats we've faced over the years, this is the one that we suddenly dump the First Amendment over? Really? Especially when there's no real evidence that its propaganda is effective at much beyond scaring the pants off of pretend intellectuals?

Fourth, are we really so weak minded and weak willed that people can't look at ISIS propaganda and realize "holy crap, those people are crazy" -- and that such information needs to be blocked? We've spent decades highlighting how attempts to suppress and block speech tend to do the opposite. It makes those whose expressions are blocked more resolved to speak out and also makes them feel more powerful, believing they've somehow "scared" those they're speaking against.

Fifth, why shouldn't we see what they say and then respond to it and highlight why it's barbaric and wrong? Or, at the very least, to have a better understanding of who we're dealing with. Trying to hide and stifle their speech doesn't do much in terms of better understanding the enemy.

Frankly, this really seems like Posner just looking for yet another excuse to wipe away the First Amendment. And we won't even get into the fact that he's no fan of the 4th Amendment either...

Filed Under: eric posner, first amendment, free speech, isis, propaganda

FBI Unveils Anti-Terrorist Edutainment Program For Schools

from the FBI:-'You-cut-the-strings.-We'll-reattach-them-later!' dept

The FBI wants to deputize the nation's schools into its anti-terrorism posse. At this point, it's unclear whether the program will escalate to the elaborate Rube Goldberg machinations the FBI currently employs to generate terrorism suspects (putting the "rube" back in "Rube Goldberg machinations"), but for now, it appears to be "edutainment" that applies a ridiculous metaphor with blunt force precision.

The program, according to those who saw it at F.B.I. headquarters, called “Don’t Be a Puppet,” leads the viewer through a series of games and tips intended to teach how to identify someone who may be falling prey to radical extremists. With each successful answer, scissors cut a puppet’s string, until the puppet is free.

RIP, Global Terrorism. The FBI is dismantling the forces of evil with the power of multiple choice quizzes. And it's doing so without listening to the concerns of the inadvertent stakeholders.

The F.B.I. had told the community organizations that the program would be available online as soon as Monday. The organizations’ leaders spoke to a reporter only after learning that the F.B.I. was likely to proceed despite their concern that the program would stigmatize Arab and Muslim students, who are already susceptible to bullying.

“Teachers in classrooms should not become an extension of law enforcement,” said Arjun S. Sethi, an adjunct professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center. Mr. Sethi, who specializes in counterterrorism and law enforcement, was invited by the F.B.I. to give feedback on the program.

“The program is based on flawed theories of radicalization, namely that individuals radicalize in the exact same way and it’s entirely discernible,” he said. “But it’s not, and the F.B.I. is basically asking teachers and students to suss these things out.”

BUT, BUT... INTERACTIVE LEARNING! Games and tips and string-cutting! How could this not be a good idea?

Maybe because it would simply encourage the sort of racial/religious profiling the DOJ heads off at local law enforcement agencies with consent decrees and many FBI agents themselves find mostly useless?

[Hoda Hawa, policy director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council] and others interviewed were particularly troubled by a question that she said asked the user to identify which of four or five posts on social media should raise alarm. Among the choices were a person posting about a plan to attend a political event, or someone with an Arabic name posting about going on “a mission” overseas. The correct answer was the posting with the Arabic name.

The "blowback" from groups the FBI consulted with pre-release did little to deter its plans to co-opt educational institutions into its puppet-making plans. It wasn't until the New York Times reported on the program's release that the FBI finally experienced developer's remorse. As Homeland Security News Wire reports, the FBI has now decided to hold off on the release of the controversial program.

Facing criticism, the FBI has decided to delay the release of “Don’t Be a Puppet,” an interactive program aiming to help teachers and students identify young people who show signs of flirting with radicalism and violent extremism.

The program was scheduled for release Monday.

The FBI doesn't appear to be nearly as concerned about the potential damage it might be doing to several million American citizens of foreign descent as it is about being perceived negatively by major media players. I guess that's something, but the run-up to the (now delayed) release suggests the only reason the agency "accepts" feedback from affected groups is to check that box off the project management checklist.

Filed Under: anti-terrorism, edutainment, fbi, propaganda

USTR Fishing For Academics To Astroturf In Favor Of TPP

from the if-you're-asking... dept

Now that the TPP deal is done, it appears that the USTR has decided to focus on pushing propaganda, rather than legitimately discussing the details with the American public. An anonymous recipient of a pitch from the USTR's "Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement," Mitch Gainer has passed along an email she or he recently received:

From: Gainer, Mitch <Mitchel_J_Gainer@ustr.eop.gov>
Date: Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:45 PM
Subject: USTR Trans-Pacific Partnership professor outreach
To: XXX

Dear Professor XXX,

The U.S Trade Representative is enthusiastic to inform you and your office that The Trans-Pacific Partnership has closed ministerial negotiations!

We believe that your expertise in labor standards in international trade would be significant in expanding the conversation about the benefits of this historic trade agreement to your larger community. I would be delighted to set up a call if you are interested in writing an op-ed, writing a blog post, doing research, or being on background for reporters – to highlight the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We would love to provide you with as much information as we can and answer any questions.

For more information about the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership take a look at www.ustr.gov/tpp. It has detailed issue-by-issue fact sheets for the areas that TPP will address.

Please let me know if there is time that works for you in the next two weeks to talk. When you respond, please include Catherine Vegis at Catherine_A_Vegis@ustr.gov – thank you!

Best,
Mitch

Mitch Gainer
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Mitchel_J_Gainer@ustr.eop.gov

Of course, if the person in charge of "public engagement" were truly interested in "public engagement" he'd be focused on actually releasing the document, so that the public can actually engage, rather than fishing around for an op-ed, blog post, research or being a source for reporters. Notice that Gainer points the person to the laughably misleading sets of "facts" that the USTR has posted to its website, rather than the actual documents. Funny how that works.

Also, given how we've seen this kind of propaganda appear before, you have to wonder how much of it is orchestrated by the USTR. The very fact that the USTR seems to think its job is selling this to the American public, rather than hearing from the American public says an awful lot about the way the USTR is approaching everything related to the TPP, and confirms that it's not serving the interests of the US public at all.

Filed Under: astroturf, mitch gainer, propaganda, tpp, ustr

Russia 'Investigating' Apple Over The Diabolical Menace That Is LGBT-Friendly Emojis

from the sanctioned-bigotry dept

Russia's been nothing but busy since passing its 2013 LGBT propaganda law, designed to protect minors from the terrifying menace of "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships" while upholding "family values" through government-encouraged discrimination and hatred. The law has had two major benefits for the Russian government; allowing Putin and friends to use homophobia to encourage distrust of heathens in the West (at the cost of increased violence against the LGBT community), while providing feeble justification for the country's heavy-handed censorship efforts.

Most attempted enforcement of the law is comical in nature, like the government's apparent decision recently to "investigate" Apple for violating the law with a several-year-old set of LGBT-friendly....emojis (which Apple included back in iOS update 8.3). The "investigation" was apparently prompted by a Russian lawyer by the name of Yaroslav Mikhailov, who has previously had political opposition journalists investigated for their comical posts to Instagram:

"The case, brought by police in Russia's Kirov region 600 miles northeast of Moscow, follows a complaint by a local attorney named Yaroslav Mikhailov, Russian newspaper Gazeta reported. Mikhailov argued that that Apple is violating Russia's ban on so-called "gay propaganda" in the presence of minors by including the emojis in the iOs 8.3 package. The case, opened last month, is awaiting expert analysis of the cartoon motifs to determine whether they count as "gay propaganda," the newspaper reported.

According to an older report by Russia's Izvestia newspaper, the investigation was also prompted by a complaint from Mikhail Marchenko, a Russian senator who apparently believes the more racially diverse and LGBT-inclusive emojis somehow "disrespect" traditional families:

"Mr Marchenko claims the symbols - which depict smiley-faced same-sex couples - violate a controversial 2013 law which prohibits promotion of non-traditional sexual relationships. The law allows Russian authorities to block access to websites deemed to promote homosexuality. Mr Marchenko said in his complaint that the emojis "promoted non-traditional sexual relationships", "denied family values" ​​and showed "disrespect for parents and other family members."

These are, apparently, the moral-fabric-eroding cartoon representations that have some so deeply, deeply offended: Diabolical indeed. Should Apple be found "guilty" of the offense, the company could be fined the Russian equivalent of roughly $15,000 in Tim Cook couch change, and sales of its products could be suspended in the country for three months. Again, this kind of blisteringly-idiotic behavior would be funny were it not for the fact that the Russian-government-sanctioned bigotry has resulted in a dramatic spike in violence against the LGBT community.

Filed Under: emoji, investigation, lgbt, propaganda, russia
Companies: apple