I am calling on the DailyKos admins to make their disclosure policy extremely clear on shills. And by shills I don't just mean Executive Branch organizations.
Why am I posting this now? Well, that should be obvious to many here, but I am taking the opportunity after reading this piece by Sam Stein and other related articles:
White House Beefs Up Online Rapid Response
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has created and staffed a new position tucked inside their communications shop for helping coordinate rapid response to unfavorable stories and fostering and improving relations with the progressive online community.
...
Rapid response has usually been outsourced to the Democratic National Committee (DNC)... signals that the White House will be adopting a more aggressive defense of the president and his policies as his re-election campaign gears up.
...
His new post may require even more delicate hand-holding. Instead of managing the administration's web presence, he will be pressing to make the administration more popular on the web. In that respect, his Twitter account could also become an interesting window into the status of the always emotional, occasional testy dance between progressives and the president.
White House Adds New Position to Deal with Unfavorable Online Media
The White House has named Jesse Lee to a new position within its communications department titled Director of Progressive Media & Online Response. According to The Huffington Post, Lee will essentially be responsible for building up Obama’s online presence as he prepares for his reelection bid, and squashing any negative stories...
Jesse Lee sends his first Tweet about the matter and links a picture of the Terminator. Cute.
Obviously I can only excerpt a bit of the articles in accordance with Fair Use policy but I urge you to read them, to look into the history and the other articles I have linked here, and to just be aware of the changing landscape of both social media and government responses to it. I also urge progressives who value frank and honest writing and commenting here, and integrity, to encourage the site administration to make transparency a very high priority.
When considering the changing landscape of both social media and public/private sector responses to it, there are a couple of other things to keep in mind. One of them is the infamous white paper written by Cass Sunstein, and the other is the things we learned about social media manipulation, people and firms hired to manage multiple personas online, and the other activities that were disclosed in the powerpoint presentation proposal that was leaked by Anonymous after the HBGary Federal incident.
Cass Sunstein's Proposal
Greenwald reported this more than a year ago and I will borrow some of his analysis here, but again I urge you to read the whole thing and to take a look at Sunstein's paper for yourself. It is linked there in the excerpt.
...
Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role." Sunstein's 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story's Daniel Tencer.
...
Initially, note how similar Sunstein's proposal is to multiple, controversial stealth efforts by the Bush administration to secretly influence and shape our political debates. The Bush Pentagon employed teams of former Generals to pose as "independent analysts" in the media while secretly coordinating their talking points and messaging about wars and detention policies with the Pentagon. Bush officials secretly paid supposedly "independent" voices, such as Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher, to advocate pro-Bush policies while failing to disclose their contracts. In Iraq, the Bush Pentagon hired a company, Lincoln Park, which paid newspapers to plant pro-U.S. articles while pretending it came from Iraqi citizens. In response to all of this, Democrats typically accused the Bush administration of engaging in government-sponsored propaganda -- and when it was done domestically, suggested this was illegal propaganda. Indeed, there is a very strong case to make that what Sunstein is advocating is itself illegal under long-standing statutes prohibiting government "propaganda" within the U.S., aimed at American citizens
Greenwald finds that Sunstein's mindset is "indistinguishable from the Bush mindset" and notes that Sunstein cites some of these covert programs in a positive way, and tries to convince the reader that they are justified and necessary. Greenwald also cites one example of the Obama administration using some similar techniques to the ones that Sunstein promoted in this paper. It is important to understand that what Sunstein is proposing is for the government to pay such shills and for both the shills and the government to keep this arrangement secret. Yes, I know it is astonishing, but Sunstein, Obama advisor and now Obama administration official, actually and publicly proposed this.
HBGary, et al
I think that most people here are familiar with HBGary Federal, and their partners, and the fact that they are selling products and services for deliberate impersonation and manipulation. So I will just provide some links and excerpts here as a reminder of some of the things (but not all) going on with respect to manipulation of social media, software for management of online "personas" by both the public and private sector. If you are new to this, I urge you to read more because there is a lot more information than what I have provided and some of it is newer, and is related to more recently discovered contracts.
Astroturfing
It was also revealed that HBGary Federal was contracted by the U.S. government to develop astroturfing software which could create an "army" of multiple fake social media profiles to manipulate and sway public opinion on controversial issues. This software could also scan for people with points of view the powers-that-be didn't like and then have the "fake" profiles attempt to discredit those "real" people.[34][35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
From a DailyKos diary in February:
UPDATED: The HB Gary Email That Should Concern Us All
As I wrote yesterday , there is a leaked email that has gotten surprisingly little attention around here. It's the one where Aaron Barr discusses his intention to post at Daily Kos - presumably something negative about Anonymous, the hacking group. But that's not the email I'm talking about here.
As I also mentioned yesterday, in some of the emails, HBGary people are talking about creating "personas", what we would call sockpuppets. This is not new. PR firms have been using fake "people" to promote products and other things for a while now, both online and even in bars and coffee houses.
But for a defense contractor with ties to the federal government, Hunton & Williams, DOD, NSA, and the CIA - whose enemies are labor unions, progressive organizations, journalists, and progressive bloggers, a persona apparently goes far beyond creating a mere sockpuppet.
According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HBGary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated "persona management" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.
...
And all of this is for the purposes of infiltration, data mining, and (here's the one that really worries me) ganging up on bloggers, commenters and otherwise "real" people to smear enemies and distort the truth.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
In that same diary, the diarist discloses that a solicitation was found on FBOBizOps.gov for "0001- Online Persona Management Service. 50 User Licenses, 10 Personas per user"
UPDATE: From another email, I found a government solicitation for this "Persona Management Software".
This confirms that in fact, the US Gov. is attempting to use this kind of technology.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
And an HBGary staffer's email that shows they were clearly not happy that the requisition was on a public web site. It is gone now from the site. But the diarist copied the text from the requisition and it is documented elsewhere too, I am sure.
HBGary's high-volume astroturfing technology and the Feds who requested it
The enormous corpus of email leaked from federal security contractor HB Gary following Anonymous's hacking of the company's servers continues to deliver compromising payloads.
This time, it's internal emails detailing the creation of "persona management" software to simplify the process of pretending to be several people at once online, in order simulate widespread support for a point of view -- astroturfing automation software. The software appears to have been developed in response to a federal government solicitation seeking automated tools for astroturfing message boards in foreign countries.
emptywheel:
Our Intelligence Agencies Talk to HBGary
The fact that Barr’s project is so dubious is all the more troubling, given that DOJ and our intelligence community seemed prepared to take his work seriously. Barr’s emails make it clear that he was in talks on February 4 with several branches of our intelligence community about sharing his analysis of Anonymous.
...
Barr’s contemplated work (and in some cases, ongoing discussions) with entities like DOD’s Cyberops, NSA, and CIA is all the more troubling given an exchange he had with his former colleague from Northrup Grumman. Barr described the meeting with his former client, emphasizing that that client was not capable of “doing the right activities” “because of authority and policy restrictions.”
...
As I will show in the future, Barr had already done this kind of analysis within the intelligence community. He had pushed to apply it to citizen activism (as well as Anonymous, though some of the people he targeted may also have engaged solely in First Amendment protected activites), and the intelligence community was anxious to hear about his Anonymous work (though there’s no indication they knew how dubious it was).
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/...
emptywheel:
Apparently the team members of Themis–several of whom, as veterans, would have sworn an oath to our Constitution–accepted the premise that union members and poorly financed liberals opposing the wholesale sellout of our politics to private corporations constituted “extortion” and “slander.”
These firms, two of which deny any ill will, were willing to describe political speech–the opposition of working people to the Chamber’s hijacking of our politics–as “extortion” and “slander.”
More shocking to me, though, is where the proposal uses a Special Operations model to describe what Themis planned to do for H&W. On a proposal bearing Berico Technologies’ document header, Themis places their proposed “Corporate Information Reconnaissance Cell” next to a Joint Special Operations Command F3EA “targeting cycle”...
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/...
OFA Rapid Response Teams
Rapid response teams are nothing new and I have talked about them here a number of times after reading about them when logged into the OFA site. I have seen a number of calls for volunteers for rapid response teams. The Clinton administration efforts were pretty well known and I think they may have coined the term "rapid response team." But the world is a lot different now than it was in the 1990's and so are the political strategies. Social media strategies are all the rage.
Rapid response teams have been very effective in the past. I am not arguing against that. I am arguing that they should be transparent here on this site.
Jesse Lee
Back to the (supposedly new) White House rapid response team for intervention in progressive blogs and media and its new director:
Lee was hired in 2003 to do Internet-related work for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).[1] From 2004 to 2006, Lee worked for the online division of the DCCC.[2] Rahm Emanuel became DCCC chair in 2005, and allowed Lee discretion in his online postings.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Lee worked for the DNC (online response) , the DCCC, the Speaker of the House (New Media Advisor) and now for the Obama administration. He appears to have a userid here at DailyKos, jesselee but is not active, hasn't posted a diary since August, 2006 or commented since July, 2007. There is a link to the Speaker's old site in his profile but no other disclosure information and no disclosures in his signature lines from those comments.
Is there anyone else here who works or worked for him or volunteers for him and who do not disclose that information? How about other similar organizations?
A Request to DailyKos Site Admins
Finally, a strong request to the DailyKos site administrators. I don't think that I am alone in my desire for honesty and full disclosure here on this site. I have been here for six years, as a reader and as a contributor and as a subscriber. I don't come here to read propaganda from the White House and other organizations who work on their behalf or on behalf of the big corps and industries. I don't come here to deal with operatives. I come here to interact with other progressives who have the best interest of the people at heart and to join with other activists for organization activity and community.
I am asking you to make your rules on disclosure crystal clear for people who post diaries, comments, front pager writers, other admins, and others who engage in pushback via recommends and HRs.
Who has to disclose? What kinds of government organizations, PACS, think tanks, opposition research firms, volunteers who take direction from any of the above -- who has to disclose? What is the protocol for disclosure? I think they all should disclose in both their profile and in their signature lines.
There is enough propaganda to deal with in this country. For much of its history, this site has been a respite from that. The site administration should be upfront about rapid response teams and other people who work for political organizations or firms hired by political organizations. Otherwise, it becomes yet another media organization mired in propaganda and people who promote dishonesty and obfuscation with an agenda, more interested in spin than truth. And we don't need more of those because we have enough of them wrecking this country already.
I will have more to say on propaganda and operatives in the coming weeks and months as I pull together some of my work and publish it here and elsewhere. But let's just leave it at this: We have enough propaganda to wade through in this country from the government and multinational corporations smeared across the newspapers, the TV channels, the web sites and social media. Please make it clear to this new rapid response team that disclosure by their shills and their volunteers (or other similar operatives) is a very clear site policy, and if you are not going to require rigid disclosure, then let the users of this site know it right now, openly and clearly. And damn it, please invest some resources in enforcing it.
Update:
In the comments below a member of the site administration, Adam B, cites the current site policy for those who were not already aware of it:
Registered users working in paid or unpaid positions for political campaigns must disclose their affiliation when it is relevant to the conversation. Admin Moderation: Warning, suspension, banning.
My request still stands and the reasoning is stated above in the diary. The policy is vague, only cites "political campaigns" and does not address the changes in the political landscape that have occurred in recent months and years. It is also not clear whether it would address the new White House rapid response team which is part of the White House administration and not technically part of the campaign, or at least that is how it has been described:
The White House has named Jesse Lee to a new position within its communications department titled Director of Progressive Media & Online Response...