The Chinese government has built up the world’s largest known online disinformation operation and is using it to harass US residents, politicians, and businesses—at times threatening its targets with violence, a CNN review of court documents and public disclosures by social media companies has found.

The onslaught of attacks – often of a vile and deeply personal nature – is part of a well-organized, increasingly brazen Chinese government intimidation campaign targeting people in the United States, documents show.

The US State Department says the tactics are part of a broader multi-billion-dollar effort to shape the world’s information environment and silence critics of Beijing that has expanded under President Xi Jinping. On Wednesday, President Biden is due to meet Xi at a summit in San Francisco.

Victims face a barrage of tens of thousands of social media posts that call them traitors, dogs, and racist and homophobic slurs. They say it’s all part of an effort to drive them into a state of constant fear and paranoia.

  • Cosmic Cleric
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -31 year ago

    A foreign adversary isn’t a uninformed troll engaging in debate.

    How do you know? It could be his/her day off.

    They have a job to do.

    A “foreign adversary” has many jobs, not all of them is to shape a narrative on the Internet.

    Having said that, my use of the term was more generic in nature, as a country that has opposing motives/goals than we do (Iran, etc.).

    We’re dancing close enough to the Armageddon line at this point as it is, its ok to pull back a bit and try peaceful means to resolve issues, instead of just ‘pushing the button’. Generally speaking, the more we talk, the less we fight.

    • @Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Yes, but it makes a difference when that conversation is effectively controlled by whoever has the most bots and/or money. Especially when they’re using tactics like spam and just drowning out the conversation.

      I mean, you’ve seen Hexbear respond to things.

      • Cosmic Cleric
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, but it makes a difference when that conversation is effectively controlled by whoever has the most bots and/or money. Especially when they’re using tactics like spam and just drowning out the conversation.

        Very true, but that’s not the point being discussed, this is …

        A foreign adversary isn’t a uninformed troll engaging in debate. Their job is to attack a target.

        Using misinformation on the Internet is a generic response to shape a false narrative, and not to attack a specific target (though that can be a side effect result).

        And also, an adversary will use the Internet as you described, where the OP was (effectively) saying that they don’t use comments on forums on the Internet at all, but instead do physical attacks only.

    • @Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      You are ignoring the premise that these are identified foreign adversaries who are not looking for debate. There is no one to debate because the harassment if from fake accounts.

      The targets are being doxed, dogpiled, and “told to kill themselves”.

      • Cosmic Cleric
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        these are identified foreign adversaries who are not looking for debate.

        You are making an assumption (the italicized part).

          • Cosmic Cleric
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            Or do you actually support death threats?

            Ah damn it! You’ve discovered my nefarious plan! Curses!

            /s

            • @Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              The article was about an identified Chinese government department that was sending death threats to targeted individuals.

              But you keep saying “let them talk.”

              • Cosmic Cleric
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The article was about an identified Chinese government department that was sending death threats to targeted individuals.

                But you keep saying “let them talk.”

                I was replying to comments (including your own), and not the article specifically.

                • @Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  The original comment and I said “foreign adversaries” in reference to the article and I specifically distinguished them from normal uniformed trolls that you could debate. Yet you continued to defend the foreign adversaries. I have to assume you didn’t read the article about what the foreign adversaries were actually doing.

                  • Cosmic Cleric
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    01 year ago

                    Yet you continued to defend the foreign adversaries.

                    You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying, if you think that.

                    All I’m stating is that foreign adversaries have multiple roles and multiple jobs they do, not just the one thing you are mentioning.

                    That’s the whole point of my conversation with you, the point out that a foreign adversary can do more than just one single thing.

                  • Cosmic Cleric
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    0
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    The original comment and I said “foreign adversaries” in reference to the article and I specifically distinguished them from normal uniformed trolls that you could debate. Yet you continued to defend the foreign adversaries. I have to assume you didn’t read the article about what the foreign adversaries were actually doing.

                    I was speaking generally about foreign adversaries, and not the ones in the article (that I did read). Its not something we should really be arguing over, or for you to be so nitpicky over. Its not worth either of our time to do so.

                    The ORIGINAL comment that I replied to …

                    Freedom of speech should not extend to foreign adversaries.

                    Hot take incoming…

                    Actually, I would argue the opposite.

                    Now that we have global access to each other, we should be speaking to each other, and finding common ground. We all share the same planet.

                    And when speaking to adversaries, we should consider what they’re saying for truthfulness or if it’s just an attack, before deciding to ignore/block it or not.

                    And your first reply to my reply to the original comment …

                    A foreign adversary isn’t a uninformed troll engaging in debate. Their job is to attack a target. Supporting their right to attack is like supporting telemarketer scammers right to robocall everyone. You aren’t going to debate them out of scamming. They have a job to do.

                    You didn’t mention specific foreign adversaries just from the article. You used the generic terminology for all foreign adversaries.

                    My only point was that not all foreign adversaries, regardless if they were mentioned in the article or not, act in one single way, that they have multiple motives/actions. Thats all. No mention was made by me of specific foreign adversaries. You assumed as much, incorrectly, but I did not refer to them. I spoke generally.