When watching FoxNews or CNN, we know that someone is making editorial decisions. When looking at something popular on Twitter, we assume that the number of likes is "real" and not made-up.
This is akin to FoxNews or CNN presenting a poll where they just made up fake data.
This is akin to FoxNews or CNN interviewing someone and saying that they're "an independent voter" when they're actually a paid spokesperson for a political party.
If comments and votes/likes/etc. come in without someone saying that they're paid-for views, it's very different.
China can certainly influence media outlets in ways that one would consider fair. They can push CNN to have a Chinese Government Spokesperson interviewed. They would say a pro-China message, but viewers would be aware that they're a paid spokesperson.
In the US, the FTC requires that paid promotion be disclosed because there's a difference between someone pushing a product because they're getting paid for it and someone talking about something they like. Similarly, there's a certain moral duty to disclose when you're being paid to push certain views/agendas.
Likewise, we all hate fake reviews on products. This process is basically getting lots of fake social media accounts to give you "fake reviews" along with the impression of many people (who are actually fake) validating those fake reviews as real.
We see it here on HN. People writing from mostly anonymous accounts will say things like, "full disclosure, I work at X, but not on anything related to Y." The reason why is that we feel we should be honest. We're (hopefully) not pushing agendas on here for money. We're just saying things that we think.
I think China should be able to tweet things from government-labeled accounts to try and influence people. But what the article describes is basically a fake review problem. Shady companies hire people with fake accounts to post positive reviews. There's a reason people hate that.
This is akin to FoxNews or CNN presenting a poll where they just made up fake data.
This is akin to FoxNews or CNN interviewing someone and saying that they're "an independent voter" when they're actually a paid spokesperson for a political party.
If comments and votes/likes/etc. come in without someone saying that they're paid-for views, it's very different.
China can certainly influence media outlets in ways that one would consider fair. They can push CNN to have a Chinese Government Spokesperson interviewed. They would say a pro-China message, but viewers would be aware that they're a paid spokesperson.
In the US, the FTC requires that paid promotion be disclosed because there's a difference between someone pushing a product because they're getting paid for it and someone talking about something they like. Similarly, there's a certain moral duty to disclose when you're being paid to push certain views/agendas.
Likewise, we all hate fake reviews on products. This process is basically getting lots of fake social media accounts to give you "fake reviews" along with the impression of many people (who are actually fake) validating those fake reviews as real.
We see it here on HN. People writing from mostly anonymous accounts will say things like, "full disclosure, I work at X, but not on anything related to Y." The reason why is that we feel we should be honest. We're (hopefully) not pushing agendas on here for money. We're just saying things that we think.
I think China should be able to tweet things from government-labeled accounts to try and influence people. But what the article describes is basically a fake review problem. Shady companies hire people with fake accounts to post positive reviews. There's a reason people hate that.