Be it for advertisement or pushing forward an ideological agenda, I was always in strong oppostion to manipulation and propaganda. With my heart and mind I believed that spreading information and rational arguments is enough, that through proper education and showing different view points in an objective way, you can get people on board. While my heart is still a firm believer, my mind has doubts about this strategy.
In November last year, I participated in a Devoxx conference in Antwerp — an event for software engineers focused on new hypes in the field, an event that by its nature is politically unbiased, mostly because politics is not in the agenda of the conference. However, the closing keynote was a bit more engaged than expacted. Berit Anderson from Scout presented her speach based on the research on Internet facilitated propaganda done by Scout. The title itself was already a perfect slogan and a click-generator: The Rise of the Weaponized AI Propaganda Machine. In her speach, she talked how Cambridge Analytica (the name that told me nothing at the time) manipulated the US election by microtargeting, how Russian bots distributed Facebook dark posts (one of the slides was just a big face of Putin). With passion and crazy look in her eyes, she was whining how the world needs us developers to fight the propaganda.
I have to say, I didn’t like the speach. I didn’t like the tone, I didn’t like the image of Putin displayed on the screen. I found the topic profound and felt that it needs to be treated objectively, omitting agendas of the particular actors. I was sure that exactly this way of speaking is responsible of creating biases and she was applying the same propaganda machinery to fight for a different agenda. A democrat disappointed with Donald Trump winning the election. I believed presenting information in this way makes people even more resistant to facts, as it is putting them all in the same league. If everyone is a lying, manipulative asshole, does it really matter which one is in power?
That was then. But the problem is, whatever great idea you have, whatever mindset you would like to promote, you need audience. You need the viral effect. If you write an essay that nobody even reads (like I am doing now), doesn’t really matter how right or wrong you are? If a voice does not exist in public discourse, it does not have to be disputed. The weight of the information and our perspective depends heavily not only of what we hear, but also on how often we hear it. As a quick experiment, think about what comes to mind when you hear about Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Do you see breath taking landscapes, green valleys, high mountains? Do you see smiling, warm people? Or do you immediately think of war, terrorists and nuclear weapons? I am not saying that those are non-existing problems, but US and UK also have nuclear weapons. They are also countries known for pushing their agenda the way they want, but nobody seems to question that. Cognitive bias is here to stay, so the only way to lower its impact is to give more voice to the unheard.
And how can you make information get to even a thousand people? How do you make it reach the thousand that needs to hear it? The only way is through exposure — you need social media presence, you need to apply the same tools. You need to trick people with the same hooks, make them want to see the other side. I am not saying you need to lie, but you need aggressive, targeted promotion.
You need some flavour of PROPAGANDA.
Only when you can plant the seed of doubt, you can start educating. I am a firm believer in education, but education is very difficult to practice on a formed mind. Both online and offline, you need a (metaphorical) tube to be heard, no matter what your message is.
