Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday September 09 2016, @06:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the who's-targetted-next? dept.

Nami LaChance writes at The Intercept that a google-incubated program that targets potential ISIS members with deradicalizing content will soon be used to target violent right-wing extremists in North America. Using research and targeted advertising, the initiative by London-based startup Moonshot CVE and Google's Jigsaw technology incubator targets potentially violent Jihadis and directs them to a YouTube channel with videos that refute ISIS propaganda. In the pilot program countering ISIS, the so-called Redirect Method collected the metadata of 320,000 individuals over the course of eight weeks, using 1,700 keywords, and served them advertisements that led them to the videos.

"I think this is an extremely promising method," says Richard Stengel, U.S. Undersecretary of State for public diplomacy and public affairs. In the ISIS pilot program, the YouTube channel pulls preexisting videos that, according to Yasmin Green, the head of research and development for Jigsaw, "refute ISIS's messaging." One video is from a woman who secretly filmed her life in ISIS-controlled Raqqa. Another shows young people in Mosul, their faces obscured by keffiyehs for their protection, talking about life under the Islamic State. "The branding philosophy for the entire pilot project was not to appear judgmental or be moralistic, but really to pique interest of individuals who have questions, questions that are being raised and answered by the Islamic State."

Ross Frenett, co-founder of Moonshot, says his company and Jigsaw are now working with funding from private groups to target other violent extremists, including the hard right in America. "Our efforts during phase two, when we're going to focus on the violent far right in America, will be very much focused on the small element of those that are violent. The interesting thing about how they behave is they're a little bit more brazen online these days than ISIS fan boys," says Frenett.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday September 09 2016, @06:06PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday September 09 2016, @06:06PM (#399734) Homepage Journal

    According to DHS training manuals, anyone who thinks the constitution should actually be followed is an extremist and a "nonviolent terrorist".

    Can you document this assertion? Inquiring minds want to know.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by julian on Friday September 09 2016, @07:17PM

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09 2016, @07:17PM (#399757)

    It was in an e-mail my grandma forwarded me. I think I archived it, let me check...

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Fauxlosopher on Friday September 09 2016, @08:51PM

    by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Friday September 09 2016, @08:51PM (#399785) Journal

    Can you document [DHS training manuals asserting people who highly values the US Constitution are potential terrorists]? Inquiring minds want to know

    Yup. Between the multitude of federal/State DHS websites and Fusion Center [aclu.org] "Law Enforcement Only" bulletins, there were dozens of documented cases of these exact claims. Here's one surving example from the Federation of American Scientists [fas.org], part of a larger DHS report [fas.org] (don't visit FAS.org openly unless you want to risk losing your government security clearance; Uncle Sam ain't a fan). Summaries here: full overview [americanpolicy.org]; Wikipedia "lexicon" blurb [wikipedia.org].

    These government-written criteria can directly be used to accuse people who think highly of the Founding Fathers (and the USA's founding in general) as potential domestic terrorists that might then be subject to the full force of a multitude of illegal laws that "allow" for such things as infinite detention without access to legal representation [wikipedia.org] or assassinations of US citizens [theguardian.com]. Yeah, not something potentially-tarred groups of people are wildly excited about considering they also paid for it with their tax dollars [taxpolicycenter.org]. These are examples from 2009 - ephemeral examples containing functionally identical language have been popping up ever since, though many (such as the DHS publically-acessible websites) have been scrubbed. Yet the dangerous language continues to be used throughout the federal government and pushed down to State and local law enforcement.

    More telling, since current occupiers of US government offices push the idea that people who think highly of the Founding Fathers' values, principles, and the law the Framers created are a potential danger to the current US federal government, should it not be inferred that agents of said government know how far they have ventured outside the domain of legality [soylentnews.org] and are trying to come up with ways to deal with what ultimately will be principled resisters to increasingly criminal acts by government actors?

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 10 2016, @12:39AM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday September 10 2016, @12:39AM (#399852) Homepage Journal

      Thanks for wasting my time. Now I can't get that time back.

      You posted links to DHS documents which are unclassified and don't support the assertions made, and a screed by Tom DeWeese, whose claims about those documents you didn't even bother to check -- which is a shame, because they're false.

      I want evidence. Not opinion and innuendo. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      That's not to say that government (Federal, state and local) in the US isn't up to, in some cases, some unconstitutional, repugnant shit. But the claim that 'According to DHS training manuals, anyone who thinks the constitution should actually be followed is an extremist and a "nonviolent terrorist"' is unsupported by anything you posted.

      tl;dr: BZZT! Wrong! Thanks for playing.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @01:19AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @01:19AM (#399868)

        BZZT! Wrong, yourself. (Also, how are unclassified DHS documents a problem?)

        From page 8 of the DHS lexicon [fas.org] (7 by the document's page numbering system):

        Definitions:
        (U) patriot movement
        (U//FOUO) A term used by rightwing extremists to link their
        beliefs to those commonly associated with the American
        Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises
        violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign
        citizens.
        (also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists,
        Constitutionist)

        That is hard evidence.

        In context, this means that "patriot movement" folks, among Constitutionalists, Christian patriots, etc., are "rightwing extremists" who link "their beliefs" to "those [beliefs] commonly associated with the American Revolution", and are comprised of "violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign citizens". For a hard-working, America-loving, gun-owning family man concerned about keeping his family fed and protected through the ongoing Greater Depression, this government brush paints him as a terrorist, along with a significant number of peaceable folk who primarily just want the Constitution to be followed in a country supposedly operating under the principles of Rule of Law.

        I don't blame you for not wading into the whole mess, but I thought it was very clear that the lexicon was the smoking gun, and that everything else was supporting evidence or easier-to-read summaries. There are plenty of other problematic groups defined as terrorists by the lexicon and its associated document, but I just went for the low-hanging fruit.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @01:53AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @01:53AM (#399884)

          Its hard evidence that the DHS believes those groups are trying to back-fit their agendas into a constitutional framework in order to give their beliefs legitimacy. It is not proof that their beliefs are legitimately constitutional or patriotic. They are no different than ISIS laying claim to be the one true muslims and slaughtering all the other muslims for not being legit. Or the nazis who claimed to be socialists — its in their freaking name "national socialists" — but the first people they came for [ushmm.org] were the actual socialists.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:11AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:11AM (#399893)

            Its hard evidence that the DHS believes those groups are trying to back-fit their agendas into a constitutional framework in order to give their beliefs legitimacy.

            If that were true, then it would be pretty easy for anyone to point out the actual beliefs of such groups, then, rather than referring to them as e.g. Constitutionalists.

            Just as how I can point out that ISIS/Daesh is indeed following the Quran, the Sira, and the Hadith by behaving exactly as the perfect example of how a Muslim should behave: Mohammed. It would demand more of your time, but I suggest looking at the Quran in chronological order to discover that the peaceful statements Islam has to offer are from the unsuccessful peaceful religious time period right before the overwhelmingly successful phase of global-war Islam. The source I've used and recommend most is Prophet of Doom [prophetofdoom.net], (now sadly only available in PDF format instead of its HTML, audiobook, and dead-tree formats alongside PDF).

            Other critically important concepts to keep in mind regarding the study of Islam is taquiyya ("moral lying" to promote Islam), and abrogation (the newer replaces the older, as in the "satanic verses").

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:00AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:00AM (#399888) Journal

          In context, this means that "patriot movement" folks, among Constitutionalists, Christian patriots, etc., are "rightwing extremists" who link "their beliefs" to "those [beliefs] commonly associated with the American Revolution", and are comprised of "violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign citizens".

          Yes? I honestly do not see a problem with this definition. It is not the "beliefs associated with the American Revolution" that is the problem, it is the right-wing scum who link their fascist ideas to the Revolution, thereby soiling everything associated with it. Why do they hate America? Anyone who insists on being all "patriotic" is likely a looney, and not in the good, Canadian sense of the term. We need to keep an eye on these people.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:15AM

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:15AM (#399897) Homepage Journal

          BZZT! Wrong, yourself. (Also, how are unclassified DHS documents a problem?)

          From page 8 of the DHS lexicon (7 by the document's page numbering system):

          Definitions:
                  (U) patriot movement
                  (U//FOUO) A term used by rightwing extremists to link their
                  beliefs to those commonly associated with the American
                  Revolution.
          The patriot movement primarily comprises
                  violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign
                  citizens.
                  (also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists,
                  Constitutionist)

          That is hard evidence.

          Yes, it is hard evidence. Hard evidence of your poor reading comprehension.

          I'll explain, and I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand.

          DHS is *not* saying that people who support our constitution are terrorists. DHS *is* saying that some violent extremists attempt (as do the muslim extremists with Islam, fellow travelers that they are) to identify themselves with broadly-held positive images of the Founding Fathers and the ideals of the American Revolution as propaganda to support their violent jihad against the people and ideas they dislike.

          Do you get it now? If not, an AC [soylentnews.org] and Aristarchus [soylentnews.org] explain it as well. Perhaps repetition will help your reading comprehension, but I'm not holding my breath.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:39AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:39AM (#399905)

            And I'll try the same approach with you: If the US federal government is operating almost entirely as a criminal gang, then it would make sense that said criminal government would be very keen to keep close track of those who wish to see the rule of law restored. [soylentnews.org]

            It's easy when you get to make up your own defintions for words such as "hate" and "antigovernment" (neither of which are defined in said DHS lexicon).

            • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:57AM

              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday September 10 2016, @02:57AM (#399916) Homepage Journal

              And I'll try the same approach with you: If the US federal government is operating almost entirely as a criminal gang, then it would make sense that said criminal government would be very keen to keep close track of those who wish to see the rule of law restored. [soylentnews.org]

              It's easy when you get to make up your own defintions for words such as "hate" and "antigovernment" (neither of which are defined in said DHS lexicon).

              I don't take issue with those who express anti-government sentiments. I'm not so pleased with my government either, and will say so to you and anyone else I want.

              I don't actually *hate* anyone, although there are some folks with whom I'm rather nonplussed.

              That said, speech and expression are one thing.

              Harming and/or killing those you disagree with/dislike is another, whether you're a representative of the government (FBI, local "law enforcement", etc.) or a member of a violent non-governmental group (whether they call themselves "militias", "patriots" or "constitutionalists"), you don't have the right to harm others in pursuit of your goals.

              The old saw, often attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, says "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins." [quoteinvestigator.com]

              As such, I'm not "making up" any definitions. Rather, I'm focused on actions. Free speech is a wonderful and powerful thing. Maiming and killing others is also powerful, but not wonderful. Do you see the difference?

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @04:00AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @04:00AM (#399928)

                I'm focused on actions. Free speech is a wonderful and powerful thing. Maiming and killing others is also powerful, but not wonderful. Do you see the difference?

                I agree. I'm also obviously not so pleased with the USian government, nor do I hate anyone.

                My accusations of made-up definitions was not pointed at you; rather I noted the DHS made heavy use of "hate" and "antigovernment" without bothering to define them, making it easy to use them in a misleading fashion.

                The USian government is committing crimes against the USian people daily, has written "laws" that it says it can use to kidnap people indefinately, and calls people who stockpile arms and life-essential supplies as antigovernment haters. Sorry, the biggest threat to my personal safety here is not hoarders, a pack of fat hunters, or a bunch of skinhead neo-Nazis in Michigan/Montana/wherever - it's the 2.4+ trillion dollar US federal government operating almost entirely outside of the rule of law (along with its co-conspirators in corporate "private" business). I can trade shots with skinheads; I don't have 2.4+ trillion dollars at my disposal, and the record on mass-murder by governments is abysmal [jpfo.org]. I've tried voting as a solution - it hasn't seem to work, so I prefer to spend my time on gathering the supplies I need to continue living. For that, I'm a hate-filled antigovernment patriot.

                As the uncited saying goes, "don't start nothin', won't be nothin'."

                Lastly, here's a source [gunowners.org] that contains information on (and a link to the) MIAC report "Modern Militia Movement [constitution.org]" which tells armed law enforcement that libertarians and Ron Paul supporters are signs of their (armed and dangerous) enemy, the hate-filled antigovernments. People get killed over wrong-door police raids - I'm not too happy about Ron Paul bumper sticker killings.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 10 2016, @03:08AM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday September 10 2016, @03:08AM (#399920) Homepage Journal

        Troll (n) [wikipedia.org]:

        In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

        Not sure how my post is a "troll". You might "disagree" or think it's "overrated" or "flamebait", but I'm not seeing how it fits into the category of a "troll" mod.

        I stated my opinion and asked for clarification. If you don't like my opinion, say so and let's discuss. I'm all for free discourse and the marketplace of ideas [wikipedia.org].

        But to whoever used that mod, good for you. They're your mod points to use. Here's another chance for you to use one.

        I'm just sorry we can't actually discuss this, with facts and ideas and all that good stuff.

        Carry on.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr