Jump to content

Pentagon to Monitor Military Social Media


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, kaputt said:

Has it been defined yet what “extremist” views are?

Can’t believe this is legal.

 

anything that the eavesdropper disagrees with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, kaputt said:

Has it been defined yet what “extremist” views are?

Can’t believe this is legal.

 

Anything from the right-wing terrorist Boogaloo clowns would qualify. Like the Air Force NCO from Travis who murdered two law enforcement officers a week apart.

 

What laws do you think this runs afoul of?

Edited by Waingro
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Waingro said:

Anything from the right-wing terrorist Boogaloo clowns would qualify. Like the Air Force NCO from Travis who murdered two law enforcement officers a week apart.

 

What laws do you think this runs afoul of?

"Although in the past the military has balked at surveilling service members for extremist political views due to First Amendment protections, the pilot program will rely on a private surveillance firm in order to circumvent First Amendment restrictions on government monitoring, according to a senior Pentagon official."

From the article...

I suppose circumventing first amendment protections is of no concern to you?

I'd also encourage you to read up on Bishop Garrison. I just did so from both left and right leaning sources, and that is not a man who is seeking to find extremism in just Boogaloo clowns; that is a man who thinks extremism is having voted for Trump for President. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, kaputt said:

"Although in the past the military has balked at surveilling service members for extremist political views due to First Amendment protections, the pilot program will rely on a private surveillance firm in order to circumvent First Amendment restrictions on government monitoring, according to a senior Pentagon official."

From the article...

I suppose circumventing first amendment protections is of no concern to you?

I'd also encourage you to read up on Bishop Garrison. I just did so from both left and right leaning sources, and that is not a man who is seeking to find extremism in just Boogaloo clowns; that is a man who thinks extremism is having voted for Trump for President. 

The first amendment doesn't protect one from consequences. You're welcome to put anything you'd like on your Facebook page, but there's nothing saying you won't face consequences from doing so. 

I think the "government monitoring" ship sailed back with the passage of the Patriot Act (a misnomer if there ever was one).

To me the real questions is why people type out their beliefs on social media anyway. Literally zero people care that someone is against kids in cages or that someone thinks the Covid vaccine is dangerous.

Edited to add: the Venn diagram of people who propagate/believe the Big Lie and those who hold extremist views is nearly a circle, and they're rarely shy about showing it online, so that makes this an easier endeavor. 

Edited by Waingro
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, your security clearance paperwork already asks if you're associated with terrorist organizations or associated with groups intent on overthrowing the USG, then someone investigates and verifies that info. That verification used to be a lot harder, but now that so much info is available online, it can provide more insight into the reliability of a person.

So nothing really new, but maybe they are saying the quiet part (anything you post online is visible during investigations) out loud now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first amendment doesn't protect one from consequences. You're welcome to put anything you'd like on your Facebook page, but there's nothing saying you won't face consequences from doing so. 
I think the "government monitoring" ship sailed back with the passage of the Patriot Act (a misnomer if there ever was one).
To me the real questions is why people type out their beliefs on social media anyway. Literally zero people care that someone is against kids in cages or that someone thinks the Covid vaccine is dangerous.
Edited to add: the Venn diagram of people who propagate/believe the Big Lie and those who hold extremist views is nearly a circle, and they're rarely shy about showing it online, so that makes this an easier endeavor. 

So to recap:

Opinion

“why does anyone put opinions on social media, no one cares what you think”

Edited to add: More opinion.

lolz


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HAWDINGL said:


So to recap:

Opinion

“why does anyone put opinions on social media, no one cares what you think”

Edited to add: More opinion.

lolz


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is social media? I was reading and having discussions with others back on the studentpilot.net forums many years before Facebook was a thing. People interact on forums because of the exchange of ideas. 

Weird that you'd even be here commenting while not knowing what social media is. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is social media? I was reading and having discussions with others back on the studentpilot.net forums many years before Facebook was a thing. People interact on forums because of the exchange of ideas. 
Weird that you'd even be here commenting while not knowing what social media is. 


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media

Social media is a broad term that by this Wikipedia definition, does encompass baseops. Interactive? Check. User generated content? Check. Profile? Check. Connecting one user’s profile to other users? Check.

It doesn’t have to be a viral app of teens posting selfies to be social media…your early days of posting on studentpilot were social media before the term was coined.
  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

 


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media

Social media is a broad term that by this Wikipedia definition, does encompass baseops. Interactive? Check. User generated content? Check. Profile? Check. Connecting one user’s profile to other users? Check.

It doesn’t have to be a viral app of teens posting selfies to be social media…your early days of posting on studentpilot were social media before the term was coined.

 

Sure, it's a broad term. To me the difference is that a forum, for guns, motorcycles, military flying, sailboats, or whatever, exists to facilitate the exchange of opinions and ideas. They're generally somewhat anonymous and have no audience outside of those who deliberately seek it out. 

Facebook, Twitter, insta, etc are all broadcast platforms. I don't recall ever seeing a discussion of any real value occur on any of those platforms. It's the teens posting selfies like you said, and the boomers sharing stupid shit, and the too common "old man yells at cloud."

Man I hadn't thought about the political discussion side of studentpilot.net in a while, that was rowdy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Waingro said:

The first amendment doesn't protect one from consequences. You're welcome to put anything you'd like on your Facebook page, but there's nothing saying you won't face consequences from doing so. 

I think the "government monitoring" ship sailed back with the passage of the Patriot Act (a misnomer if there ever was one).

To me the real questions is why people type out their beliefs on social media anyway. Literally zero people care that someone is against kids in cages or that someone thinks the Covid vaccine is dangerous.

Edited to add: the Venn diagram of people who propagate/believe the Big Lie and those who hold extremist views is nearly a circle, and they're rarely shy about showing it online, so that makes this an easier endeavor. 

Oh I totally agree on the fact that posting political views on social media, especially as a military member  is a foolish endeavor regardless. 
 

But the issue I have with this is the fact that it appears an already existing road block to additional surveillance is being circumvented, and the individual heading the program leading this circumvention is a partisan political appointee who himself has some pretty extreme political views posted on his own social media. 
 

Which again begs the questions, what is our definition of extremism here? Is the NCO that posts about putting pigs in a blanket going to get the same attention as the NCO that posts election conspiracy theories? My guess is based on the man leading this effort, those are not going to be treated equally. Beyond that, where are we going to draw the line? If I never post anything on my social media but like or share a post to a family member from BabylonBee but the “algorithm” has determined that is “right wing misinformation” (attempts to label satire as misinformation have already happened) am I now f*cked? 
 

To me this is just another step down the slippery slope we are rapidly descending in this country to only have one “correct” way of thinking and everything else being silenced. 
 

And yes, I also agree that the Patriot Act was one of the first steps we took down this road and that it was ultimately a terrible direction for this country. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Waingro said:

Anything from the right-wing terrorist Boogaloo clowns would qualify. Like the Air Force NCO from Travis who murdered two law enforcement officers a week apart.

 

What laws do you think this runs afoul of?

41399e8532c2e47cf61c2886c0b9c5a6.jpg

 

Or the corollary:

Sure is nice to be the one deciding if your opinion/political views/lifestyle are "appropriate."

What could possible go wrong...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kaputt said:

Oh I totally agree on the fact that posting political views on social media, especially as a military member  is a foolish endeavor regardless. 
 

But the issue I have with this is the fact that it appears an already existing road block to additional surveillance is being circumvented, and the individual heading the program leading this circumvention is a partisan political appointee who himself has some pretty extreme political views posted on his own social media. 

Yeah, that's problematic. This seems like a solution in need of a problem. I think the mechanism for addressing bad judgement in that regard already exists.

Case in point, I had an airman make a blatantly racist comment regarding a former POTUS on a public and widely viewed Facebook page. CMSAF personally found it, it went at the speed of light through the wing leadership and to my desk to handle. I was on the fence about taking a stripe, settled on LOR with control roster though. Probably didn't warrant Art 15 and I wasn't convinced it was winnable if he declined the Art 15. Guy came close to ruining his career because he thought it was a good idea to blow hard on Facebook, it was unbelievable. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
Quote

 

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.

-Milton Friedman

 

Once something like this is kicked off and funded, it'll be impossible to kill.

More concerning, as is inevitable in any government program, Mission Creep will eventually set in.  While this program may have some good intentions at the start (even if I don't agree with them), there is no telling what it will end up as 10 years from now.

Edited by Blue
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Waingro said:

The first amendment doesn't protect one from consequences. You're welcome to put anything you'd like on your Facebook page, but there's nothing saying you won't face consequences from doing so. 

Let's extend that argument to it's logical (and historically practiced) conclusion:. You are free to say whatever you want, but if the government doesn't approve, it may fine, imprison, or kill you.  

 

...does that sound like "freedom of speech" to you?

 

I'd say your argument is dead nuts wrong.  The 1st Amendment is PRECISELY there so that you can voice opinion without government punishment.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Waingro said:

The first amendment doesn't protect one from consequences. You're welcome to put anything you'd like on your Facebook page, but there's nothing saying you won't face consequences from doing so. 

I think the "government monitoring" ship sailed back with the passage of the Patriot Act (a misnomer if there ever was one).

To me the real questions is why people type out their beliefs on social media anyway. Literally zero people care that someone is against kids in cages or that someone thinks the Covid vaccine is dangerous.

Edited to add: the Venn diagram of people who propagate/believe the Big Lie and those who hold extremist views is nearly a circle, and they're rarely shy about showing it online, so that makes this an easier endeavor. 

Just wait until you find out everyone who has posted in the "gun" thread is now considered a terrorist because they are "seeking to stockpile weapons".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kaputt said:

Oh I totally agree on the fact that posting political views on social media, especially as a military member  is a foolish endeavor regardless. 
 

But the issue I have with this is the fact that it appears an already existing road block to additional surveillance is being circumvented, and the individual heading the program leading this circumvention is a partisan political appointee who himself has some pretty extreme political views posted on his own social media. 
 

Which again begs the questions, what is our definition of extremism here? Is the NCO that posts about putting pigs in a blanket going to get the same attention as the NCO that posts election conspiracy theories? My guess is based on the man leading this effort, those are not going to be treated equally. Beyond that, where are we going to draw the line? If I never post anything on my social media but like or share a post to a family member from BabylonBee but the “algorithm” has determined that is “right wing misinformation” (attempts to label satire as misinformation have already happened) am I now f*cked? 
 

To me this is just another step down the slippery slope we are rapidly descending in this country to only have one “correct” way of thinking and everything else being silenced. 
 

And yes, I also agree that the Patriot Act was one of the first steps we took down this road and that it was ultimately a terrible direction for this country. 

Or even better...is merely following the wrong people on Twitter going to trigger the security apparatus?  What happens when they start associating elected leaders with extremist ideology?  For example, I think she's nutty...but what if you lived in Marjorie Taylor Green's district and followed her on Twitter and Facebook?  Are you now labeled an extremist?  

I have a lot of concern about how this will be used, on both sides.  Because it may start as "we're going to find people who posted clear threats online", but I think it will devolve into witch hunts for political purposes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Let's extend that argument to it's logical (and historically practiced) conclusion:. You are free to say whatever you want, but if the government doesn't approve, it may fine, imprison, or kill you.  
 
...does that sound like "freedom of speech" to you?
 
I'd say your argument is dead nuts wrong.  The 1st Amendment is PRECISELY there so that you can voice opinion without government punishment.


Generally agree with you, at least fair the general public. The difference here is that as a member of the military, we are in a position of trust (some positions now than others). It's why we have a security clearances with recurring investigations, and why we can handle classified materials and information not released to the general public.

So there becomes a balancing point between your individual right to free speech, and whether the opinions you express indicate you shouldn't be in a position of trust within the government.

However, trust works both ways. If the monitoring is overly aggressive or overly broad, it'll hurt morale (or degrade performance) in the military, and become a deterrent for people to join or stay in the military.

Then again, SERE beat out most of my desire to use most forms of social media (well, just reinforced my decision to stop using many forms of social media).
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Far too slippery of a slope to even venture down, yet here we are. Does following an account constitute restricted actions? A like? A share? Who is to determine if something is a joke? Oh, but nuance and context no longer matter...

At least the fighter pilot meme pages on IG are having a field day... For now. 

From the Army cartoon recruiting commercial advertising a woman who grew up with "two moms" who "marched for justice" to this... The leadership at the top has forgotten the reason we f***ing exist. 

Pathetic. 

Edited by VMFA187
  • Like 9
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...