That’s so true almighty knower of politics. Please show me where your knowledge comes from in the above link. You’ll find the document is organised into many numbered and lettered sections, so just let me know which section supports this guys unfounded assertion about a $1.6 billion budget for an “influence campaign”.
I find this pearl clutching over manufactured consent highly obnoxious and borderline archaic. The days of top-down narratives fueled by restricted access are laughably simple compared to the fractured global media ecosystem of today.
Whatever opinions planted in the mind by manufactured consent are dwarfed a thousand-fold by internet echo chambers that owe no allegiance to the state. To be clear I do not think they cannot align with state interests, only that alignment is selfish, non-ubiquitous across vast swathes of the media landscape, and not the result of a power imbalance in favour of the state.
Unless you want to conflate the two in which case I would ask whether you think the .ml instance “manufactures consent” against support of western interests.
Ironically enough, China is one of the few places where manufactured consent is still able to be effective because of the authoritarian stranglehold they maintain on their media by banning access to outside sources and replacing them with state sanctioned alternatives. Same with Iran, Russia, North Korea, etc. It’s weird ml’s complain about manufactured consent while simping for countries that do it more than anywhere else.
I sure hope you were paid to read that, because why else would you waste your time following a 700 page bill that hasn’t been passed yet? At a glance it isn’t about astroturfing, it’s about sanctioning and charging melign actors as criminals, plus a whole ton of stuff from monetary policy to IP protections. It’s basically outlining the entire geopolitical strategy towards China, which is probably why it’s spent over a year being bounced around 20 different subcommittees.
Idk where you got that price tag seeing as the link you provided contains no budgeting information, but you should ask your handler if that figure is for the entire bill, or for an “influence campaign” specifically. While you wait to hear back from them for that talking point, would you mind showing me where in the bill this influence campaign is outlined?
Caring about stuff isn’t a binary, it doesn’t hinge on whatever insane purity test you think it does.
See now that’s a lie, because you implied that guy knows his politics, which is a positive claim that turns on the authenticity of his claim. Now you’re running away from it because it’s increasingly clear he doesn’t know shit and you look like a sock for defending him.
Maybe you should change your original comment to “spreading lies about politics means you’re paid to do so” which isn’t really what I said either, but would at least be close enough to avoid looking completely illiterate.