murrica news of the day: state department spent over 600k on Facebook likes

no, abuse of power is not natural in government, nor is conflict of interest(in some forms of government). those are caused by imperfect implementation of governmental theory and an imperfect stock of government faculty. it is consistent and prevalent but not natural.frannkzappa

Yes, it is the natural condition in any situation when one is granted some form of power or authority over others. We must work against that natural inclination through checks and balances, and a healthy enforcement against conflicts of interest within the operating Government.

what you suggest is impossible with a universal voting pool. most are unable to recognize propaganda for what it is and are to easily manipulated. in the standard republican system there is nothing to stop elected officials from taking advantage of this, and thus they do. you must make a system were justice is rewarded more than injustice and the republican system does not reward justice, it rewards dishonesty and successful manipulation.frannkzappa

Letting an acting Government that has been elected through "dishonesty and successful manipulation" act using taxpayer dollars to pad their investment with astroturfing is no improvement. I don't have any reason to grant any Government (even a technocracy) some form of carte blanche on just any activity they choose to perform. I may only have a voice to say "phooey" when they do it, but I'll go ahead and do so resoundedly and resist attempts from anyone who tries to pad it over.

my mention of Plato and Aristotle were merely to showcase that the event in question is not surprising, it has nothing to do with you supporting or disagreeing with their philosophies.frannkzappa

When I said the event was part of the natural abuses that come with power, I basically was stating that events like this are not surprising, at least innately. The fact that they are not surprising is irrelevant though to whether they should be allowed to occur. Or whether there should not be consequences to those particular actions. The only thing we have in a structure such as this is to hold those in office to a particular standard beyond that of the elections that put them into office -- and by hold them, I mean demand it and refuse to remain silent about it, and stop making excuses for them when they cross the line.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] Your argument is weak. I'm not convinced. I do not deny it's term of success, my problem is the methods. Deception, covert infiltration, and quite possibly entrapment are all byproducts of social engineering which creates resentment, mistrust, anger and a revolutionary mindset against the governing body. This is just my observation.JJ_Productions

ooh this a very good point. very technocratically minded too.

i don't think we have the same definition of social engineering. you seem to be talking about it as malicious manipulation of an ignorant party, by a powerful second party.

this we can agree doesn't benefit the state, however social engineering can be more.

however, there are other applications of social engineering which don't have those inherent side effects. for instance the civil rights movement engineered opinions on racial equality, which in the end lead to a more logical society,

in times of defensive war, a government will need to build a "patriotic fervor" if you will, it unites the country and works to the benefit of all (again assuming this a defensive war and the army is a volunteer one).

if you search hard enough you will find most of the cultural aspects of our society were shaped by social engineering, not just by the government but also influential private groups.

oh yes there is potential for social engineering to be used for ill end. and i agree that what the government did with the Facebook thing was nothing less than stupid.

the only problem i had was that social engineering is not inherently "bad", though i admit it can be.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Don't you think it's a bit of hyperbole? Reading the link....it didn't actually say much of anything except they made it seem they had fans. Nothing substantive was mentioned as to the government "brainwashing" people into falling in line with their ideas. And while I agree it's a waste of money.....it just seems OT is a bit hysterical over something that didn't amount to much to start with vis a vis influence. The link said the target demographic wasn't reached and only 2% if people that did visit reacted in some way. Much ado about nothing.LJS9502_basic

No LJ. I think it's the only way to accurately describe these things. It doesn't matter how successful they were, it's that they tried this at all. I have an issue with the action, not the scale. The action isn't proper for a Government to be involved in. It's proper for political parties, but NOT Governments. I find it highly ironic frankly that a Government that works so hard to champion campaign finance reform, effectively limiting the political operations of organizations OUTSIDE of an actual functioning Government in attempts to win elections, would spend even a pittance on a scheme intended to gain some form of public acceptance for their agenda WHILE in office using taxpayer funds.

There is no whitewashing something like this.

I also don't care if it's anything new. Holding strictly to the status quo for the sake of the status quo isn't responsible politicking... or responsible anything for that matter.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

No LJ. I think it's the only way to accurately describe these things. It doesn't matter how successful they were, it's that they tried this at all. I have an issue with the action, not the scale. The action isn't proper for a Government to be involved in. It's proper for political parties, but NOT Governments. I find it highly ironic frankly that a Government that works so hard to champion campaign finance reform, effectively limiting the political operations of organizations OUTSIDE of an actual functioning Government in attempts to win elections, would spend even a pittance on a scheme intended to gain some form of public acceptance for their agenda WHILE in office using taxpayer funds.

There is no whitewashing something like this.

m0zart

I also don't care if it's anything new. Holding strictly to the status quo for the sake of the status quo isn't responsible politicking... or responsible anything for that matter.

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

ooh this a very good point. very technocratically minded too.

 

i don't think we have the same definition of social engineering. you seem to be talking about it as malicious manipulation of an ignorant party, by a powerful second party.

this we can agree doesn't benefit the state, however social engineering can be more.

however, there are other applications of social engineering which don't have those inherent side effects. for instance the civil rights movement engineered opinions on racial equality, which in the end lead to a more logical society,

in times of defensive war, a government will need to build a "patriotic fervor" if you will, it unites the country and works to the benefit of all (again assuming this a defensive war and the army is a volunteer one).

if you search hard enough you will find most of the cultural aspects of our society were shaped by social engineering, not just by the government but also influential private groups

frannkzappa

oh yes there is potential for social engineering to be used for ill end. and i agree that what the government did with the Facebook thing was nothing less than stupid.

the only problem i had was that social engineering is not inherently "bad", though i admit it can be.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Yes, it is the natural condition in any situation when one is granted some form of power or authority over others. We must work against that natural inclination through checks and balances, and a healthy enforcement against conflicts of interest within the operating Government.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]what you suggest is impossible with a universal voting pool. most are unable to recognize propaganda for what it is and are to easily manipulated. in the standard republican system there is nothing to stop elected officials from taking advantage of this, and thus they do. you must make a system were justice is rewarded more than injustice and the republican system does not reward justice, it rewards dishonesty and successful manipulation.m0zart

Letting an acting Government that has been elected through "dishonesty and successful manipulation" act using taxpayer dollars to pad their investment with astroturfing is no improvement. I don't have any reason to grant any Government (even a technocracy) some form of carte blanche on just any activity they choose to perform. I may only have a voice to say "phooey" when they do it, but I'll go ahead and do so resoundedly and resist attempts from anyone who tries to pad it over.

my mention of Plato and Aristotle were merely to showcase that the event in question is not surprising, it has nothing to do with you supporting or disagreeing with their philosophies.frannkzappa

When I said the event was part of the natural abuses that come with power, I basically was stating that events like this are not surprising, at least innately. The fact that they are not surprising is irrelevant though to whether they should be allowed to occur. Or whether there should not be consequences to those particular actions. The only thing we have in a structure such as this is to hold those in office to a particular standard beyond that of the elections that put them into office -- and by hold them, I mean demand it and refuse to remain silent about it, and stop making excuses for them when they cross the line.

In a technocracy peaceful protest,petitions,debates and opinions contrary to government policy are more than welcomed. in fact, these things are essential to a technocracy, it allows the government to asses public opinion and change policies based on it without actually letting the general population interact directly with government. thus i don't have any qualms with you disagreeing with the government and voicing your opinion.

did i ever say that it was?

that is implementation of governmental theory. if you implement your government perfectly(not possible) then there will be no unexpected outcomes and human nature won't matter. human nature can only affect government when government is imperfect(which it always will be). so like i said before abuse of power is not natural or inherent to governments it is brought about by imperfect implementation.

Do you rage over commercials that are favorable?LJS9502_basic

Depends on which commercials we're talking about.

If we're talking about a political commercial put out by a political party, then it depends on what they are saying and whether it lines up with my views, but even then it's a different kind of rage.

Again though we're talking about the scope of Government here and its proper operations vs. improprer ones, particularly those which are improper due to conflict of interest. If somehow by some miracle the perfect candidate were elected according to my views and he implemented a Government I loved in every respect EXCEPT that he also poured out little pittances of propaganda and attempted astroturfing schemes at taxpayer expense, then I would rage in that case too, because the issue here is not specifically the content of the message or the cost. It's about the scope of a Government that has been elected and their use of taxpayer funds, vs. the scope of external political organizations and candidates who are only trying to be elected and thus must sell their ideas.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Do you rage over commercials that are favorable?m0zart

Depends on which commercials we're talking about.

If we're talking about a political commercial put out by a political party, then it depends on what they are saying and whether it lines up with my views, but even then it's a different kind of rage.

Again though we're talking about the scope of Government here and its proper operations vs. improprer ones, particularly those which are improper due to conflict of interest. If somehow by some miracle the perfect candidate were elected according to my views and he implemented a Government I loved in every respect EXCEPT that he also poured out little pittances of propaganda and attempted astroturfing schemes at taxpayer expense, then I would rage in that case too, because the issue here is not specifically the content of the message or the cost. It's about the scope of a Government that has been elected and their use of taxpayer funds, vs. the scope of external political organizations and candidates who are only trying to be elected and thus must sell their ideas.

that is implementation of governmental theory. if you implement your government perfectly(not possible) then there will be no unexpected outcomes and human nature won't matter. human nature can only affect government when government is imperfect(which it always will be). so like i said before abuse of power is not natural or inherent to governments it is brought about by imperfect implementation.

frannkzappa

I know you said that. I disagree with you. I don't see any reason to believe that EVEN with your constant streaming of innert defitions of "technocracy". There is nothing I've seen so far that shows me how a group of people who belong to a practically dictatorial technocratic Government by any definition or piece-meal implementation you've espoused would somehow shed their human nature and in every possible case perfectly assert their authority without abuses of power or conflicts of interest. The most it seems to do is define those away through very poor wordplay.

In the history of humankind and its various Governments, abuses of power and conflicts of interest have been a regular and very NATURAL occurance. The way we try to handle that is to apply checks and balances in a competing interest to prevent them in various divisions of Government. Whether or not that is a useful way or there is a better way, you have not in any situation so far that I've read in your posts explained in any substantive way why technocracy will of all Government structures be immune to these.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

that is implementation of governmental theory. if you implement your government perfectly(not possible) then there will be no unexpected outcomes and human nature won't matter. human nature can only affect government when government is imperfect(which it always will be). so like i said before abuse of power is not natural or inherent to governments it is brought about by imperfect implementation.

m0zart

I know you said that. I disagree with you. I don't see any reason to believe that EVEN with your constant streaming of innert defitions of "technocracy". There is nothing I've seen so far that shows me how a group of people who belong to a practically dictatorial technocratic Government by any definition or piece-meal implementation you've espoused would somehow shed their human nature and in every possible case perfectly assert their authority without abuses of power or conflicts of interest. The most it seems to do is define those away through very poor wordplay.

In the history of humankind and its various Governments, abuses of power and conflicts of interest have been a regular and very NATURAL occurance. The way we try to handle that is to apply checks and balances in a competing interest to prevent them in various divisions of Government. Whether or not that is a useful way or there is a better way, you have not in any situation so far that I've read in your posts explained in any substantive way why technocracy will of all Government structures be immune to these.

This is little more than a commercial....and only going to be seen by those who choose to see it. Plus, do you ever really care how many likes something has? I don't think they are even that influential. Nonetheless....if you are arguing the scope of taxpayer fund usage there is more to disagree with than this.

LJS9502_basic

I believe you must be virtually "deaf". I've mentioned several times that this isn't about quantity or cost specifically. It's about the scope of Government actiivities. All of your attempts to return it to a quantitative judgement won't prevent me from equally returning it to a qualitative one.

The source of the commercial is absolutely important in how I would classify the activity of its creation, for reasons I've already stated. Some neo-Nazi might put a commercial for his agenda on TV, and I will certainly rage about it even if I am the only person who sees it. But that would be for a different reason than my complaint if a Government attempted to get likes on Facebook or "buy" them as the case may be, or put a commercial on urging the American people to support their agenda using taxpayer funds. I don't think this distinction is that hard to understand.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

that is implementation of governmental theory. if you implement your government perfectly(not possible) then there will be no unexpected outcomes and human nature won't matter. human nature can only affect government when government is imperfect(which it always will be). so like i said before abuse of power is not natural or inherent to governments it is brought about by imperfect implementation.

m0zart

I know you said that. I disagree with you. I don't see any reason to believe that EVEN with your constant streaming of innert defitions of "technocracy". There is nothing I've seen so far that shows me how a group of people who belong to a practically dictatorial technocratic Government by any definition or piece-meal implementation you've espoused would somehow shed their human nature and in every possible case perfectly assert their authority without abuses of power or conflicts of interest. The most it seems to do is define those away through very poor wordplay.

In the history of humankind and its various Governments, abuses of power and conflicts of interest have been a regular and very NATURAL occurance. The way we try to handle that is to apply checks and balances in a competing interest to prevent them in various divisions of Government. Whether or not that is a useful way or there is a better way, you have not in any situation so far that I've read in your posts explained in any substantive way why technocracy will of all Government structures be immune to these.

i have never said this. technocracy(in the real world) is not perfect, nothing is. i espouse that it will be better than the cycle of republic-democracy-tyranny.

i do not advocate changing human nature or ignoring it. i advocate platonic philosophy in government but that does not change how humans work.

checks and balances are part of governmental theory. if it works perfectly, no abuse of power. if it doesn't, abuse of power. you also seem to think i don't like the idea of checks and balances, this is not true. though i may support different ones than you.

it won't be

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

This is little more than a commercial....and only going to be seen by those who choose to see it. Plus, do you ever really care how many likes something has? I don't think they are even that influential. Nonetheless....if you are arguing the scope of taxpayer fund usage there is more to disagree with than this.

m0zart

I believe you must be virtually "deaf". I've mentioned several times that this isn't about quantity or cost specifically. It's about the scope of Government actiivities. All of your attempts to return it to a quantitative judgement won't prevent me from equally returning it to a qualitative one.

The source of the commercial is absolutely important in how I would classify the activity of its creation, for reasons I've already stated. Some neo-Nazi might put a commercial for his agenda on TV, and I will certainly rage about it even if I am the only person who sees it. But that would be for a different reason than my complaint if a Government attempted to get likes on Facebook or "buy" them as the case may be, or put a commercial on urging the American people to support their agenda using taxpayer funds. I don't think this distinction is that hard to understand.

I know what you've posted and I still think you are bit extreme over it. That is your opinion. That's fine...but lately I'm noticing an almost hartsick approach to threads from you. Yes...the government does stupid things. The government wastes money. There are many things to rage about vis a vis government....but this is such a tiny thing. The original source wasn't even clear about the government "liked". So I think it's just a little bit aggressive to decry it as the downfall of society....so to speak. I'm exaggerating because I think that is what you've been doing. All the government is going to do with likes...if they even get seen...is reinforce to the party that they cater to that hey....we're on the right track. It will certainly not sway opinion from alternate party/parties. Which is why I think you're a bit off about it. It would be fine to say you disagree with the cost. Hell...it's even fine to say you disagree with the ideology. But you make it eem much more than it really is if you'd step back a bit. And as I said...the article itself was very very vague.LJS9502_basic

You can attempt to insult me by comparing me to posters like hartsick all you like, and it won't really change my position. I've come to these positions specifically through a lot of hard thought over the many decades I've lived, not carelessly or frivolously, and it has been through a lot of observation on how abuses occur and what they usually result in. If ancient aliens are involved, I do not know it.

What I've noticed about you over the years (and frankly not me only, but many others if the sheer volume of complaints are to be believed) is that the only thing you know how to do is play devil's advocate relentlessly on topic after topic without really having any defensible opinion of your own. And when you can't win an argument, the only thing you can do is result to some kind of undercover insults. That makes you basically an operational troll (another accusation that has been leveled at you time and time again, and not without some strong justification).

So we both have reputations. If mine is in the conspiracy theorist crowd, I'll bear it proudly even if I don't see the association. I know where my concerns come from in these cases, so I know where to file those comparisons. Unless you have something other than that base attempt at an insult to counter those, can you think of any reason why I would need to continue this line of reasoning with you? It certianly can't be to provoke real introspection or learn something new from a knowledgeable individual on the subject.

In other words M0zart..... I could see your stance if say the government was infiltrating schools and trying to sway opinion at a young age. That would be in line with what you're thinking. And I'd be behind you all the way. But FB likes are just such frivolous thing with no bite that I can't get behind the whole government is out of control...we're doomed idea. The cost sucks....but then we waste much too much money and I gave a list earlier.LJS9502_basic

And I don't see any point in limiting the list. The list should be as comprehensive as it actually is, even if there are bigger fish to fry on that list.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I know what you've posted and I still think you are bit extreme over it. That is your opinion. That's fine...but lately I'm noticing an almost hartsick approach to threads from you. Yes...the government does stupid things. The government wastes money. There are many things to rage about vis a vis government....but this is such a tiny thing. The original source wasn't even clear about the government "liked". So I think it's just a little bit aggressive to decry it as the downfall of society....so to speak. I'm exaggerating because I think that is what you've been doing. All the government is going to do with likes...if they even get seen...is reinforce to the party that they cater to that hey....we're on the right track. It will certainly not sway opinion from alternate party/parties. Which is why I think you're a bit off about it. It would be fine to say you disagree with the cost. Hell...it's even fine to say you disagree with the ideology. But you make it eem much more than it really is if you'd step back a bit. And as I said...the article itself was very very vague.m0zart

You can attempt to insult me by comparing me to posters like hartsick all you like, and it won't really change my position. I've come to these positions specifically through a lot of hard thought over the many decades I've lived, not carelessly or frivolously, and it has been through a lot of observation on how abuses occur and what they usually result in. If ancient aliens are involved, I do not know it.

What I've noticed about you over the years (and frankly not me only, but many others if the sheer volume of complaints are to be believed) is that the only thing you know how to do is play devil's advocate relentlessly on topic after topic without really having any defensible opinion of your own. And when you can't win an argument, the only thing you can do is result to some kind of undercover insults. That makes you basically an operational troll (another accusation that has been leveled at you time and time again, and not without some strong justification).

So we both have reputations. If mine is in the conspiracy theorist crowd, I'll bear it proudly even if I don't see the association. I know where my concerns come from in these cases, so I know where to file those comparisons. Unless you have something other than that base attempt at an insult to counter those, can you think of any reason why I would need to continue this line of reasoning with you? It certianly can't be to provoke real introspection or learn something new from a knowledgeable individual on the subject.

*shrug*  In other words.....don't have an opinion that is different.  I'm rather disappointed in  you for that one.  In any substantive thread I've discussed I have always.....that's ALWAYS ...used a source to back up my arguments.  Or...I've just picked a part what someone stated becase it was not well thought out.  If they cry about that....so be it.   And if you want to misuse the word troll as such...so be that.  I had noticed a change in your behavior when you bought into a certain mindset.  Yes.  But I didn't comment on it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]In other words M0zart..... I could see your stance if say the government was infiltrating schools and trying to sway opinion at a young age. That would be in line with what you're thinking. And I'd be behind you all the way. But FB likes are just such frivolous thing with no bite that I can't get behind the whole government is out of control...we're doomed idea. The cost sucks....but then we waste much too much money and I gave a list earlier.m0zart

And I don't see any point in limiting the list. The list should be as comprehensive as it actually is, even if there are bigger fish to fry on that list.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]In other words M0zart..... I could see your stance if say the government was infiltrating schools and trying to sway opinion at a young age. That would be in line with what you're thinking. And I'd be behind you all the way. But FB likes are just such frivolous thing with no bite that I can't get behind the whole government is out of control...we're doomed idea. The cost sucks....but then we waste much too much money and I gave a list earlier.LJS9502_basic

And I don't see any point in limiting the list. The list should be as comprehensive as it actually is, even if there are bigger fish to fry on that list.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="m0zart"]

And I don't see any point in limiting the list. The list should be as comprehensive as it actually is, even if there are bigger fish to fry on that list.

JJ_Productions

Edit:  Though at this point you're doing the trolling since this isn't the topic.  Hypocrite.

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Usually it's people that can't handle different opinions that use that term. ;)LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] Called troll twice in one day? You know that they say, if the shoe fits....JJ_Productions

be reasonable, ljs is in no way a troll.

he is a snarky bastard at worst.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] I think its a sign that your routine is getting old and warn out. Time to retire.JJ_Productions

Entrapment because someone wants you to believe they are doing a great job? How about you explain how you came to use that word in that instance?

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Usually it's people that can't handle different opinions that use that term. ;)frannkzappa

be reasonable, ljs is in no way a troll.

he is a snarky bastard at worst.

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Usually it's people that can't handle different opinions that use that term. ;)frannkzappa

be reasonable, ljs is in no way a troll.

he is a snarky bastard at worst.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] I think its a sign that your routine is getting old and warn out. Time to retire.JJ_Productions

be reasonable, ljs is in no way a troll.

he is a snarky bastard at worst.

And FYI if what he said was true...I'd have been banned long ago since most of posts were under the strict ToU...so he is posting from a bias...and not fact.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] I think its a sign that your routine is getting old and warn out. Time to retire.JJ_Productions

be reasonable, ljs is in no way a troll.

he is a snarky bastard at worst.

i'm sorry but on a forum where Orbs, greekgamemaniac and sniper exist calling ljs a troll is very extreme.

Can us normal folk buy Facebook likes too? My statuses aren't quite getting the recognition they deserve.bobcheeseball

I wish I can sell it to you.

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

be reasonable, ljs is in no way a troll.

 

 

 

he is a snarky bastard at worst.

LJS9502_basic

And FYI if what he said was true...I'd have been banned long ago since most of posts were under the strict ToU...so he is posting from a bias...and not fact.

Never understand why people get so up in arms about these things. Your average CEO probably spends the same amount on the desk in his office. Large oganizations always have tons of wasteful spending.

BeardMaster

600,000$ on facebook advertizing? Lol, who cares how many facebook likes the state department has? No one is actually a fan of it. 

I can understand if you're a music group, or some sort of organization... but who actually looks at a state departments FB page?

...Also, 600,000$? Really? That is a ton. 

but who actually looks at a state departments FB page?Shmiity

...Also, 600,000$? Really? That is a ton. Shmiity

the way to justify any spending according to this thread. all you have to do i point to the bigger spending that no one will ever touch (warfare/welfare) and say "see, this is not a big deal" and some how this justifies all smaller stupidity. it is not a problem that i drink a gallon of vodka a day, because i freebase crack 24/7.... LOGIC! left town years ago. surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]the way to justify any spending according to this thread. all you have to do i point to the bigger spending that no one will ever touch (warfare/welfare) and say "see, this is not a big deal" and some how this justifies all smaller stupidity. it is not a problem that i drink a gallon of vodka a day, because i freebase crack 24/7.... LOGIC! left town years ago. Nibroc420