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@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 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
          arrow-up
          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.

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

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

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

            You are making an assumption (the italicized part).

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not an assumption. It is the basis of the article! Or do you actually support death threats?

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 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
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  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.”

                  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    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.

    • seejur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the same problem with being tolerant with intolerants. While ideologically might make sense, it’s a losing battle that favors bad faith actors.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        While ideologically might make sense, it’s a losing battle that favors bad faith actors.

        That’s an assumption. You “trust but verify” (as a famous former president said), and if they’re not acting in good faith, then you move on from talking to other actions.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not the same problem at all. Intolerance is straight-up hate with no logical basis and it calls for harmful actions against groups of people. Meanwhile there is a lot of room for interpretation and disagreement in global politics. What we’re seeing here is a fight between global powers to control the narrative, and it’s not just China doing it either.