galloog1 @ galloog1 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

474

Joined

2 yr. ago

Meta is not the government. That's the difference.

Sorry, my autocorrect was acting up. Ducking hell.

Are you willing to extend the claim to that resources have never been withheld from minority regions in a socialist system?

Duck

That same liberal trash-think is what enables left leaning ideologies to have their own platforms despite the consistent problematic history with minorities.

There's giving data through API, and then there's complete access to everything your device sees. It's the difference between taking a trench and allowing your enemy to build a complete logistical hub behind your lines. It's an order of magnitude worse.

In that analogy, Facebook is armed but not even brandishing. People aren't doing anything because Facebook isn't waving their weapon around and threatening their families but instead was using their knives to cut up more food to sell you. Sorry, I'll use a more clear analogy next time.

We are talking about the preparation of the battlefield for the next conflict. It is pretty well documented in cyber warfare circles. conflicts are won and lost before they are fought. conflicts are mitigated when the chances of success are lower.

I cannot go into too much detail on a public forum but it makes traditional cyber warfare and information warfare much more effective and targeted. Machine Learning models can identify exactly the types of information, true or not, that are more likely to radicalize you and incite action at the intended moment. It takes the conversation from demographics to individualized and targeted propaganda. It then can be used to predict outcomes and effects based on location data, provide real-time feedback, and ensure that all of the individualized effects happen at the exact moment you need them to. For a real-world example that was not an attack, look at the 2014 Atlanta snowstorm. Individually, all of the problems were solvable. When the effects were combined at the same time, you had a complete collapse of public services and society for days.

These models are not possible with only API access.

You quite simply are not going to get a specific answer on this because it would reveal methods and techniques.

Read the title of this thread again. This thread is about if TikTok is a threat to national security. This thread is about war.

One of the clearest takeaways from the Ukraine conflict is how little the Russian MOD will regard civilian protections. We've also seen the same thing with the PLA. War is an extension of politics. If they can use tools to disrupt civilian life and logistics, they will if it means delaying a military response on the Taiwanese island by weeks. That is their goal. Using information warfare also makes it more likely that they can disrupt us enough without attacking our military. This makes an attack on Taiwan more likely, not less.

In terms of an actual threat, I detailed several ways that they can use the data to develop models of behavior and highly individualize it. It is combining the models and access with traditional and recently developed propaganda techniques that effects can be coordinated. Think of it more like traditional cyber warfare but much more effective and about combining individual actions. One person flushing a toilet does not do much but a whole town at the same time can create an issue.

Additionally, civilians are allowed on military bases. We are not in the habit of banning phone software at gate entries. There's no way to keep it out realistically speaking. Children have phones at home and largely follow their parents. With that level of data access and a 40+% marketshare, there is no escaping a CCP sensor at any given point now when you go out in public. It really does not take that much data to develop an information model and the more data we give them, the more accurate they will be.

That is just the short-term uses of the data. China now has data to use against future people with security clearances, politicians, and industry leadership that will aid their intelligence services for generations.

The only thing I can do at this point is to encourage you to trust that warfare has indeed changed in the last 200 years and that we (somewhat) know what we are doing at a strategic level.

Always on location enables machine learning models to be developed on movement. This applies to troop movements, critical civilian infrastructure, and maximizing civil disruption. Always on audio enables the fully automated development of models that sound just like you enabling fake orders to be developed, propaganda, and misinformation at an individual user level. Always on video enables the mapping of military bases and threat profiling. Access to biometric data enables readiness assessments. Combinations of all of the above enable the development of combined information warfare which has not been possible yet.

All of this has literally already been done, just not at scale yet but they are actively working on it. This is real and why we are working to deter it. It is no longer about individual networks anymore.

But the average people don't matter? Does the government have a responsibility to protect civilian networks the same as they do the rest of our critical infrastructure? Does it matter that 44% of US phones have now become always-on sensors for the PLA? Look again at the headline. It is not asking about you, but about national security as a whole.

Well, the entire DOD and national security apparatus disagrees with you about them being a threat. I am sure you know more about threat assessments.

Information dominance is our single greatest advantage in the West and has been since WWII. Code breakers did more to win in Europe than any bombing campaign alone and the Battle of Midway would not have been won otherwise. It is why Ukraine is doing so well to this day. Numbers only go so far.

Well, the majority of Americans disagree with you per this article. A world war with China absolutely would ruin a lot of lives. I cannot even comprehend how you could come to the conclusion otherwise.

One of the things that best prevents a conflict is deterrence. That is what this is. By not deterring, you make conflict more likely. It is absolutely worth entertaining and we do all the time. That is why you have such confidence that it won't happen. They are not a threat because we actively deter them from becoming one.

You keep trying and failing to ban all social media while China continues to gain a foothold under the current unchanged rules. We'll all be doing on the front lines of the next world war but at least in the end you can hold your head up high and say that it was worth it to take a stand.

It's like saying that you shouldn't ban murder because all weapons should be banned. How they use it matters.

People said the same thing about Russia. Politics play a massive part.

I'm not sure I can respect the argument if someone who's play with a world war as long as they can access a single social media site. You obviously are expecting to not be the one fighting it.

There is a real issue of good leadership not being willing to join sinking ships. How do you motivate people to join that have the best chance of turning things around without some type of compensation? Why would they join?

This is essentially the situations that creates this. In a non capitalist system there is nothing that can be done and you either force someone to do it or you attract worse leadership and things snowball.