The Chinese government has built up the world’s largest known online disinformation operation and is using it to harass US residents, politicians, and businesses—at times threatening its targets with violence, a CNN review of court documents and public disclosures by social media companies has found.

The onslaught of attacks – often of a vile and deeply personal nature – is part of a well-organized, increasingly brazen Chinese government intimidation campaign targeting people in the United States, documents show.

The US State Department says the tactics are part of a broader multi-billion-dollar effort to shape the world’s information environment and silence critics of Beijing that has expanded under President Xi Jinping. On Wednesday, President Biden is due to meet Xi at a summit in San Francisco.

Victims face a barrage of tens of thousands of social media posts that call them traitors, dogs, and racist and homophobic slurs. They say it’s all part of an effort to drive them into a state of constant fear and paranoia.

  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A foreign adversary isn’t a uninformed troll engaging in debate. Their job is to attack a target. Supporting their right to attack is like supporting telemarketer scammers right to robocall everyone. You aren’t going to debate them out of scamming. They have a job to do.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      A foreign adversary isn’t a uninformed troll engaging in debate.

      How do you know? It could be his/her day off.

      They have a job to do.

      A “foreign adversary” has many jobs, not all of them is to shape a narrative on the Internet.

      Having said that, my use of the term was more generic in nature, as a country that has opposing motives/goals than we do (Iran, etc.).

      We’re dancing close enough to the Armageddon line at this point as it is, its ok to pull back a bit and try peaceful means to resolve issues, instead of just ‘pushing the button’. Generally speaking, the more we talk, the less we fight.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, but it makes a difference when that conversation is effectively controlled by whoever has the most bots and/or money. Especially when they’re using tactics like spam and just drowning out the conversation.

        I mean, you’ve seen Hexbear respond to things.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, but it makes a difference when that conversation is effectively controlled by whoever has the most bots and/or money. Especially when they’re using tactics like spam and just drowning out the conversation.

          Very true, but that’s not the point being discussed, this is …

          A foreign adversary isn’t a uninformed troll engaging in debate. Their job is to attack a target.

          Using misinformation on the Internet is a generic response to shape a false narrative, and not to attack a specific target (though that can be a side effect result).

          And also, an adversary will use the Internet as you described, where the OP was (effectively) saying that they don’t use comments on forums on the Internet at all, but instead do physical attacks only.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are ignoring the premise that these are identified foreign adversaries who are not looking for debate. There is no one to debate because the harassment if from fake accounts.

        The targets are being doxed, dogpiled, and “told to kill themselves”.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          these are identified foreign adversaries who are not looking for debate.

          You are making an assumption (the italicized part).

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not an assumption. It is the basis of the article! Or do you actually support death threats?

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Or do you actually support death threats?

              Ah damn it! You’ve discovered my nefarious plan! Curses!

              /s

              • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The article was about an identified Chinese government department that was sending death threats to targeted individuals.

                But you keep saying “let them talk.”

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The article was about an identified Chinese government department that was sending death threats to targeted individuals.

                  But you keep saying “let them talk.”

                  I was replying to comments (including your own), and not the article specifically.

                  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The original comment and I said “foreign adversaries” in reference to the article and I specifically distinguished them from normal uniformed trolls that you could debate. Yet you continued to defend the foreign adversaries. I have to assume you didn’t read the article about what the foreign adversaries were actually doing.