These programs were largely about ensuring that American propaganda can reach people in Iran or similar places. This is no longer considered an issue, and the focus is now on reducing young American’s exposure to alternative geopolitical narratives. This strategy also aligns with the US government’s trend of aggressive privatization; an israeli billionaire will happily pay for the privilege of content moderation on american social media platforms, saving the tax payer money. Win win.
>These programs were largely about ensuring that American propaganda can reach people in Iran or similar places.
This. The og point of USAID wasn't AID as per the name would misleadingly let you believe, but spreading pro-US anti-USSR propaganda, and only like 3% of that program was spent on actual AID, like food and medicine for the third world, but most of it went to funding media, news and journalists across LatAm, Asia, Africa dn EE, that would push domestic support in those regions for US policies and be critical of US adversaries.
US doesn't fund "freedom" of anything out of selflessness, it funds policies that are guaranteed to benefit it over its rivals, and use the word "freedom" to legitimize it. Once those benefits no longer materialize, the funding also goes away.
Growing up in a post-communist country, Hollywood and the US music industry had more impact on the "US-isation of our country" than USAID propaganda, back then.
But today most of Hollywood productions and music coming out of the US is pure trash that people abroad now reject it as propaganda garbage.
US destroyed its global soft power, not by defunding USAID, but by forcibly injecting unpopular ideologies into its entertainment industry instead of sticking to tried and true formulas, ideals and values that transcend cultural and language barriers.
Really important to first, pick that example of content moderation and then point out that he's an Israeli. Maybe think about why you used that example when there are countless others regarding free speech/internet freedom.
I would point to the opposite bias, the guardian mentions Chinese surveillance tech exported to Africa, but makes no mention of Israeli spyware exports. The Israeli export of civil repression technology, expertise and training is actually very well documented, having a lot of practice with such oppression domestically.
As if the guardian was overly pro-Israeli. I would argue that it makes more sense in that context to mention Chinese surveillance tech, because it's not an ally of the US.
(G)GP does the classic "it's freedom fighting when we're doing it". Either call both propaganda, or call both alternative narratives, otherwise your bias is blatantly showing.
A program that helped people evade real censorship is "feeding them US propaganda" and social media awash with state-sponsored trolls tearing our societies apart is "an alternative geopolitical narrative" - bit of a spin, isn't it?
As The Guardian has previously pointed out https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/us-cuban-twitt...: USAID and these orgs were "undermining Cuba's communist government". Now it's time to celebrate. People will now be free to live as they wish under communism or whatever else they choose. It is not for us to choose whether people want to be invaded by Russia or ruled by Castro. If they don't want this, let them choose otherwise.
For a list of projects funded by the Open Technology Fund, see https://www.opentech.fund/projects-we-support/supported-proj... Includes well-known entities like the Tor Browser and F-Droid, but also plenty of stuff I never heard of before.
These programs were largely about ensuring that American propaganda can reach people in Iran or similar places. This is no longer considered an issue, and the focus is now on reducing young American’s exposure to alternative geopolitical narratives. This strategy also aligns with the US government’s trend of aggressive privatization; an israeli billionaire will happily pay for the privilege of content moderation on american social media platforms, saving the tax payer money. Win win.
>These programs were largely about ensuring that American propaganda can reach people in Iran or similar places.
This. The og point of USAID wasn't AID as per the name would misleadingly let you believe, but spreading pro-US anti-USSR propaganda, and only like 3% of that program was spent on actual AID, like food and medicine for the third world, but most of it went to funding media, news and journalists across LatAm, Asia, Africa dn EE, that would push domestic support in those regions for US policies and be critical of US adversaries.
US doesn't fund "freedom" of anything out of selflessness, it funds policies that are guaranteed to benefit it over its rivals, and use the word "freedom" to legitimize it. Once those benefits no longer materialize, the funding also goes away.
Makes the future interestingly unpredictable other than the inevitable fading of the US-isation of the rest of the world.
>US-isation of the rest of the world
Growing up in a post-communist country, Hollywood and the US music industry had more impact on the "US-isation of our country" than USAID propaganda, back then.
But today most of Hollywood productions and music coming out of the US is pure trash that people abroad now reject it as propaganda garbage.
US destroyed its global soft power, not by defunding USAID, but by forcibly injecting unpopular ideologies into its entertainment industry instead of sticking to tried and true formulas, ideals and values that transcend cultural and language barriers.
Really important to first, pick that example of content moderation and then point out that he's an Israeli. Maybe think about why you used that example when there are countless others regarding free speech/internet freedom.
I would point to the opposite bias, the guardian mentions Chinese surveillance tech exported to Africa, but makes no mention of Israeli spyware exports. The Israeli export of civil repression technology, expertise and training is actually very well documented, having a lot of practice with such oppression domestically.
As if the guardian was overly pro-Israeli. I would argue that it makes more sense in that context to mention Chinese surveillance tech, because it's not an ally of the US.
> American propaganda can reach people in Iran
> American’s exposure to alternative geopolitical narratives
In the same breath!
I downvoted you because I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
(G)GP does the classic "it's freedom fighting when we're doing it". Either call both propaganda, or call both alternative narratives, otherwise your bias is blatantly showing.
I think especially the billionaire bit made it clear to me that he's not being serious.
it's the good ol' "calling one side propaganda, but the other narrative" gasp, but reversed from usual western pov
so it's a downvote either for consistency (and neutrality) or for the sake of lol :)
A program that helped people evade real censorship is "feeding them US propaganda" and social media awash with state-sponsored trolls tearing our societies apart is "an alternative geopolitical narrative" - bit of a spin, isn't it?
As The Guardian has previously pointed out https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/us-cuban-twitt...: USAID and these orgs were "undermining Cuba's communist government". Now it's time to celebrate. People will now be free to live as they wish under communism or whatever else they choose. It is not for us to choose whether people want to be invaded by Russia or ruled by Castro. If they don't want this, let them choose otherwise.
End all American foreign interference.
Meh, just another 'non-profit' selectively giving away boatloads of taxpayer money... Goodbye!
More like "freedom".