"One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction."
"Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White Houses former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-independent advocates to cognitively infiltrate online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.
Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups which spread what he views as false and damaging conspiracy theories about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that while disputing key NSA claims proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agencys powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them)."
Controlling the sheeple's mind has become a very popular method of control. We've seen it in the war on smoking (adding tobacco and nicotine along the way), government narratives and corporate narratives. Spin has become vocation.
"Now comes a more insidious form of thought control a la 1984, courtesy of long-time friend and probable new regulatory czar Cass Sunstein (who recently married another long-time confidant of Barack Obama's, foreign policy guru Samantha Power)....
"Sunstein's book is a blueprint for online censorship as he wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading "rumors."
Smith notes that bloggers and others would be forced to remove such criticism unless they could be "proven". The litigation expense would be daunting; the time necessary to defend a posting (or an article) would work to the benefit of the public figure being criticized since the delay would probably allow the figure to win an election before the truth "won out". The mere threat of retaliatory actions would be enough to dissuade many commentators from daring to issue a word of criticism or skepticism."
They are doing a poor job on "my mind". I still believe that from the top-twit on down they are out to exercise all the PEOPLE CONTROL possible. It has zero to do with "safety" and everything to do with indoctrinating the young people of today into their "we know best" way of 'thinking'.