LOL Isn't this what China was supposedly doing with TikTok?
What China's supposedly doing with TikTok is owning a 1% stake in the private company that made it. Everything else is baseless speculation.
Every accusation is a confession
The effort, which began in 2019, has not previously been reported.
Source: Gallup
Hey that’s weird, opinion is mostly unchanged for like 30 years, then in 2018 it just becomes net positive, and then immediately after it unfavorability jumps sky-high. Surely just a coincidence.
This sucks so much that propaganda is so effective on people in the US. Like, I know
but I would still hope that sentiment isn't that malleable over a couple years. 
I unfortunately work with a whole host of ex TLA people and they're even more thoroughly propagandized than your average american imo. They're extremely intelligent in so many ways but so absolutely blind to the programming that it's pretty awe inspiring.
"No one is immune to propaganda" does not equal "everyone is equally scrupulous when confronted with propaganda"
You can judge people who repeatedly fall for blatant bullshit.
thats wild, holy shit
Is this a poll of Americans? I don't think Chinese people have an approval rate of 15% of their own country.
The reported CIA activity occurred in China.
He's a what? he's a what?
He's a newspaper man
And he gets his best ideas
From a newspaper stand;
From his boots to his pants
To his comments and his rants
He knows that any little article will do!
Russia and China have troll farms. America has teams of operatives.
Their "secret police" vs. our "intelligence services"
2019 is the year the Winnie the Pooh shit started.
Call me crazy but I have never thought that shit was organic "from Chinese people on their internet". This makes me even more suspicious about its origins.
There was a meme passed around on Weibo, but it wasn't the same meme the west uses at all, and wasn't even censored to my knowledge. The west just made up a story whole cloth about Xi Jinping banning Winnie the Pooh and just expected people to never fact check it (they didn't.) I think it may have been a kind of "testing the waters" thing, they wanted to see how much they could get away with, they started pushing the Xinjiang stuff much more heavily shortly after, so it's likely they were seeing if people would believe an obvious and easily disprovable lie before moving onto their big lie.
It's worth noting that this wouldn't be necessary if the government of China didn't have broad support and legitimacy.
Also classic buying their own bullshit.
They convinced themselves "influencing" enough people to vote against their own self interests by posting a handful of racist facebook memes was actually some brilliant espionage move and thought they could do the same.
Only works if your population is stupid and ignorant to be predictably influenced by mispelled racist memes.
This is my new response to someone calling me a wumao.
Dumbass Chinese liberals ate it up too. Right-Wing west fetishists are lower than worms.
Shanghai syndrome
How much of the so-called "authoritarianism" of communism would cease to exist if capitalism simply...allowed other economic systems to coexist?
It can’t though. It’s in the nature of capitalism to squeeze out any other mode of production. Even without overt sabotage. It’s like how it’s almost impossible for a developing nation to industrialize unless they basically ban imports.
I decided to see what the sinophobic den of
has to say about this, and unsurprisingly most of the libs there try to act like it's nothing, and totally normal. (Except when Russia or China does it in their eyes, then it's bad) On r/neoliberal they're more concerned about this being public than the actual operation itself. I saw them calling it an "extremely uncommon Trump W". No surprise there, I suppose. Despite their theatrical opposition to Trump, they support all this sort of scummy shit, as long as it's done silently in the background and with a dose of decorum. Fucking scumbags. 
Love when people bring up "Russian interfearance" as if it's some act of war.
I always ask them if Russia published an article of Time magazine bragging about how they influenced the american election for a more favorable outcome for them because if not they did less then us.
Then they call that whataboutism because hypocrisy is fine as long as you come up with a different name for it.
the origin of the term was always a justification for hypocrisy so that tracks
Always a self admission when US officials accuse other states of trying to influence the American state through media
How well did all that US worship go for them?
Some of the operatives got Aslume in Europe and UK where they lost all relevancy. Others went to jail for conspiring with the US government and getting caught on camera doing it.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
the west attacks you and calls your self-defense authoritarianism
Looks like a classic case of accuse others that which you are guilty of wrt TikTok.
And some dumb libs fell for it. I'd bet a lot of this was also pushed on Western social media too, where it would have the greatest effect on the more rabidly pro-war, anti-Chinese racists.
I fucking hate America.
Prager and the DOD have accounts on Chinese social media lol
I just realized something I hadn't really consciously thought about before in regards to how believable articles are when their sources are "confidential" and "intelligence officials" etc.
I have no problem believing an article like this at all even with no hard source, but I immediately discard reports that put the US in a positive light with the same lack of hard sources.
Then I thought "well that's not really fair, I shouldn't just believe this either then". Shortly after that though, I realized that if someone were publishing material AGAINST the US or its allies' interests then they're taking a big risk and they MUST have some sort of credible source or sources, whereas if they're just being a propaganda mouthpiece there's no risk to their sources being complete shit or even non-existent.
So while the article could be just as much bullshit as any other, it's less likely in my opinion, because there is a risk to publishing completely false information based on shadowy or non-existent sources.
I'm not sure I follow.
It's not necessarily relevant in this particular instance since the source is straight from the horse's mouth. Every once in a while, they brag about things like this because they understand there will be no recourse from their own side on the hypocrisy and belligerency of what they did. The conversational register they're aiming for isn't the crowd that thinks this is wrong, but those that would be delighted that the CIA and Trump were taking action to be "tough on China" and trying to "regime change it."
The journalistic paradigm you're referring to is the "anonymous source says they personally saw Stalin eating all the grain with a big spoon" skit where they use the "unverifiability gimmick" to attack an adversary. It's not a reporting tactic done against one's own side. Reuters would have never published this if it could not verify the sources.
Even in the article here, it's "according to former U.S. officials..." and "three former officials..." which of course isn't a hard source.
Weirdly enough I hadn't read this with the target audience in mind so it came off as putting the US in a really bad light, but now I can see why you'd be confused with what I said because this is precisely the type of article they use the "anonymous sources said" tactic with.
Now when I re-read what I said maybe I hadn't actually realized that I don't read shit like this in the 'target audience' mode that maybe I used to read it in without even realizing it. Thanks for your thoughts!
I have no problem believing an article like this at all even with no hard source, but I immediately discard reports that put the US in a positive light with the same lack of hard sources.
That's called Confirmation Bias and is fucked up, but is part of becoming an adult. We need to learn to have a critical eye on everything, specially in things that support our worldview.
I mean it's an analysis of power relations. calling it confirmation bias kind of misses the whole point. the poster's first reaction was that it was confirmation bias and then stopped to think about it more.
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Live!