SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Army social media psyops unit 77 Brigade is struggling to reel in new government cyber-warriors in spite of a recruitment publicity blitz last year, according to the Ministry of Defence.
The "brigade" – in reality a unit slightly smaller than an infantry battalion, with a target manning strength of 448 people – is under strength by about 40 per cent, according to figures released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Of those 448, 182 of them are supposed to be full-time soldiers, sailors and airmen, while 266 are part-time reservists bringing in specialist skills from the civilian world.
A fortnight ago the unit, known as the Security Assistance Group (SAG) until July 2015, had only 276 personnel on its books. Just 123 of those were reservists, meaning 77 Bde has a shortfall of 29 regulars and 143 reserves.
In the last year just 125 soldiers were recruited to 77 Bde, or posted into it from elsewhere in the Army.
The unit forms part of the government's wider efforts to tackle hostile use of social media by, among others, Islamist terrorists, Russian hackers and state-backed fake news and propaganda agencies such as Russia Today (RT) and Iran's Press TV. In addition, it is also supposed to engage in the dark arts of destabilising Britain's foes by starting whispering campaigns among their supporters and potential supporters.
[...] "The shortfall in the reserve numbers is partly due to the recent increase in liability... but is, in the main, due to the fact 77 Brigade is a new formation and it takes time for this capability to be built up," he added.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday January 09 2017, @04:55AM
So you end up in a situation where you think you are engaging in a rational debate, when in fact you are "debating" with someone who isn't interested in the truth, or of perhaps changing their opinion in light of evidence. Instead they are paid to push a narrative against reality, in order to sway opinion.
It kind of ruined online discussions for me. Usually if I want to engage in a political debate, I will go there with an open mind and open to being swayed, but the idea is that I am debating with a rational actor who is also interested in the same.
If I am not then why bother? Problem is you have no way of knowing whether the other guy is interested in the subject, or just being paid to push a narrative.
Yeah, but how do you tell the difference between these allegedly "paid trolls", and regular people who are just like this (not interested in the truth)? Go to any online discussion that has alt-right-wingers (viewers of infowars.com, breitbart, etc.) and you have the exact same thing: people who aren't interested in the truth, because they don't believe your "truth", but rather what they're told on their preferred "news" outlet.
It's no different from debating anti-vax people, AGW deniers, or young earth creationists. It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence you can produce from real experts, they simply won't believe it because their preferred preacher/politician/celebrity says something different.