Google-backed RAND report recommends infiltrating & subverting online conspiracy groups from within

Found this while perusing older articles on conspiracy theories. This article is a year old.

Source

Google’s Jigsaw unit sponsors a RAND report that recommends infiltrating and subverting online conspiracy groups from within while planting authoritative messaging wherever possible.


With a focus on online chatter relating to alien visitations, COVID-19 origins, white genocide, and anti-vaccination, the Google-sponsored RAND report published last week shows how machine learning can help detect and understand the language used by “conspiracy theorists.”

It seems this is a program that is in full swing and it wouldn't surprise me to find that ATS is a primary target of the findings of this report.

It is quite telling to me how "authoritative" some appear to be when pushing the official narrative.

a reply to: LunaticPandora

This sounds like a conspiracy itself. A conspiracy against conspiracy theories.

You’re right, it’s pretty obvious that ATS is being targeted. They’re about as good at being convincing as they are at memeing.

Look for the ones who cherry pick their target topic. They ignore the hard questions and target the more absurd aspects of the theories. They adhere in to the party line and disrupt and derail all day long.

Doesn't matter. All you have to do is have a contrary opinion to the prevailing narrative and you are labeled a shill, a troll, or an agent by the ATS crowd with torches.

Obvious as can be.

originally posted by: schuyler
Doesn't matter. All you have to do is have a contrary opinion to the prevailing narrative and you are labeled a shill, a troll, or an agent by the ATS crowd with torches.

Some people have a constant contrary to any opinion that is not mainstream.
It is blatant, no matter the subject if against the mainstream lies they speak up and make fun and have a certain "tone"..

Well, it will learn from the internet which is highly censored by the left, so we won't even notice. Honestly, we may get more intelligent responses if a machine is doing it instead of one of the left-wing posters we already have here.

a reply to: LunaticPandora

You can see that here, too. People with low to new post histories doing hit and run comments. Followed by the overly aggressive countering of the first comment.
The assumption is that the sock puppets will always be spouting "the narrative" but it's been proven, controlled opposition, that sock puppeting the other way is just as good.
How many comments describe a need for a facist style cleansing of the "powers that be"?

a reply to: SeaWorthy
Well and some are very predictable. Observed this since I am here (2019) and when I see some of the members names being the last poster, I often know beforehand that it will be countering the OP or what is said in the title, no matter the topic.

It's a thing. Some just like to polarize no matter what. Some will defend their internal narrative by all means. And it makes them predictable.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: schuyler
Doesn't matter. All you have to do is have a contrary opinion to the prevailing narrative and you are labeled a shill, a troll, or an agent by the ATS crowd with torches.

Some people have a constant contrary to any opinion that is not mainstream. It is blatant, no matter the subject if against the mainstream lies they speak up and make fun and have a certain "tone"..

Yeah, it's funny how some people believe they have an inherent sixth-sense that allows them to pick up on "tone" and other attributes that prove someone is intentionally trolling or a paid shill. We see this when someone posts "Ten Ways to tell who is a troll on ATS." Then they post a laundry list of techniques they don't like.

The whole issue does not work well. For example, try posting a positive view on vaccinations on ATS, pointing out how the shrill extremism of this issue is contrary to a reasoned discussion of the issues and just see what the reaction is. Anyone who is paying attention to the "state of the board" will know it's not worth the grief to attempt such a discussion because you will get shouted down by people who seem to have a strong emotional and vested opinion on the subject such that contrary opinions are not allowed. You may as well yell, "Jesus is a crock" in a church or "Jesus is my Savior" at an atheist convention.

a reply to: LunaticPandora

Richard Dolan did a report summary on that RAND paper 1 year ago.

They identified and studied 4 conspiracy groups by linguistic analysis and developed recommendations for them. These were the groups in order of most harmful to least:
1. Anti-vaxxers
2. Covid-origin dissenters
3. "White Genocide" (WG) groups
4. UFO believers

Page 17: Alien Conspiracy Community



From the researcher in this video, the same software and profiling algo's along with London based cohort company "MoonShot CVE" that was used to track ISIS terrorists & sympathizers abroad is now being used on us, but in a heavily biased manner. He goes through the MoonShot toolkit showing how YOU are being classified and put into a profile category based on YOUR search queries, tweets, FB posts. It's all geared to the tag & tracking and manipulation of conservative right and far right. You know, the so-called dangerous insurrectionists and anyone else the algo's deem a threat to the Deutschland, err I mean Homeland.

a reply to: TDDAgain

I have no doubt there are paid shills of all persuassions on ATS and similar sites.
Creating confusion and dissension is a proven and effective tool for anyone trying push a specific agenda and/or to create division.

Some people here go against the mainstream regardless without applying any sort of reasoned or critical thought.
And some people go with mainstream opinion in exactly the same manner.

Personally I try not to post in threads where I agree with the general gist of the OP or if I feel I have nothing unique or of worth to post - some people may say I just post #e all the time....and they could be right!🤔
That harkens back to the old ATS when we were discouraged from posting what amounts to nothing more than 'I agree' or 'I disagree'.

Controlled Opposition !!!

It's already been going on for decades 😎

a reply to: Freeborn

Personally I try not to post in threads where I agree with the general gist of the OP or if I feel I have nothing unique or of worth to post - some people may say I just post #e all the time....and they could be right!🤔
That harkens back to the old ATS when we were discouraged from posting what amounts to nothing more than 'I agree' or 'I disagree'.

Much agreed

I share the sentiment to a point. It may come down to how much we look forward to social interaction on an individual level. Some people like me do not have those a lot offline, well at least not on the same level than here. That may be because of lifestyle, distant offline friends not seeing each other often, personal preferences, being introverted offline or whatever.

I treat ATS as a huge building with different rooms. I enjoy to listen to conversations. I can mingle in conversations. Sometimes these are serious, stern, beautifully deep, shallow, funny, disgusting. I don't see anything wrong in writing a reply that either quickly shows agree- or disagreement. This is how I get to know the people I interact better.

For example I can recall the few conversations we had. These were not a lot, we disagreed and agreed, talked about football/soccer, watched a game together, had it about natural given rights. And that's all fine, it makes me get to know you better and you me. I know a bit how you think and how you see the world. It gives me better understanding when I read the next post. It avoids misunderstandings.

And it's beautiful. I sometimes expect others to do this too but in the end everyone can handle it like they want. It may come down how people work internal and I work like that. I am interested in you, as well as I am interested in the next posters opinion.

For sure a simple "I agree" does not add a lot to the conversation but it adds to the picture I have about people here.

In a real life discussion, like standing in a circle, you can simply see from the faces if someone disagrees. Or by subtle shaking or nodding. Here this is not possible. So that is why I for example don't see anything wrong in short posts that just show the members agree or disagreement.

**Eyeballs all ATS members **

I see the great experiment as letting an AI with a clean slate learn about humans from what it can find on the internet.

I think they are trying to train an AI to have a globalist bias and then have it marshal the electronic world like the infamous Big Brother/sky net.

Nefarious and automated.

Interesting times.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

What I've seen in the last couple of weeks is the 'new hires' using seemingly innocent questions but leading question more designed towards drawing information from group members than a desire to learn, especially with anything vaccine related, political, arms and-most worrysome- anything to do with conservatives organizing.

Anything you ever want to know about how the general public feels on any given issue can be found on ATS and similar forums. TPTB are getting a good blueprint on where the most 'radical' operate on the net and how best to enact control.

I also enjoy ATS because it adds depth to my understanding and allows me to challenge my beliefs and develop informed opinions about diverse ideas.

a reply to: TDDAgain

It’s at best a controlled blueprint. We are forbidden from discussing and advocating some subjects, for the good of the whole surely, we are still presenting a sanitised version of our thoughts and opinions.

a reply to: nugget1