Feindliche Staaten nutzen britische Journalisten und soziale Medien aus
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hostile-states-exploit-uk-journalists-and-social-media/
Von do_or_pie
Feindliche Staaten nutzen britische Journalisten und soziale Medien aus
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hostile-states-exploit-uk-journalists-and-social-media/
Von do_or_pie
7 Kommentare
Journos are easy to exploit when the paper owners are as right wing as they are.
Twitter revealing where accounts are based really lifted the veil for some people.
Loads of right wing accounts who lament the “loss of their country” because “immigrants” and “Muslims” are based in India.
And considering how cheap it is to bribe (for lack of a better word) UK MPs, I’d be surprised if it took more than a packet of crisps and a Mars bar to exploit/bribe UK journalists either.
This is one area the government should focus their attention on.
Wow! Catching on now after the past 2 years of divisive articles?
It’s becoming obvious that many people now get their understanding of world events directly from individuals on the ground, not just from traditional news outlets. When thousands of people are sharing lived, real‑time experiences through daily videos, a handful of tabloids or even the BBC can’t realistically compete with that narrative.
Why are Russia and China considered hostile states but not the USA and Israel?
… and politicians. Don’t forget that nice Reform politician who got convicted of bribery after being exploited by a „hostile state.“
Of course his mistake was doing it in the European Parliament, where it could get him in actual trouble, rather than in the UK Parliament where he would have been fine.
Nearly 20 years ago I worked for the community engagement department of a large well known company.
It was well known in the industry that you could pay for likes, comments and engagement on Twitter, in fact the large majority of followers were purchased despite the company being a household name because it was so unbelievably cheap.
There were several groups you could go to for purchasing engagement, which ranged from £1 per follower to £5. You could increase the followers by a few thousand every month for cheaper than hosting a small event.
These groups were usually based out of Brazil and were just warehouses filled with people executing thousands upon thousands of accounts. Exploitative and slave labour seemed likely but the company didn’t need to worry about the ethics of activities half a planet away.
You could literally pretend you were popular or doing well for shareholders, paint whatever narrative you wanted.
That was 20 years ago. To think that this practice hadn’t advanced, expanded and become even more unethical is beyond naivety.
Whether it’s bots in the literal sense or bots in the warehouse filled with employees spreading a specific message sense, it’s clear that trusting any online, social or mass market information is the same as trusting the person with the most money.