Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Social Networks United States

Public Documents Reveal How the Branches of the US Military Are Instructed To Harness Internet Culture To Advance Their Own Messaging (theoutline.com) 162

Posted by msmash from the messaging-in-21st-century dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: It's common practice for brands or government agencies to use social media marketing tactics -- such as recognizing internet holidays like #WorldEmojiDay, #NationalDogDay, or #HumpDay using emojis, or generally speaking in a more conversational, down-to-earth tone -- in order to spread their messaging and communicate with the public. However, the stakes behind military Twitter accounts are fundamentally different than that of, say, the Department of the Interior. These accounts aren't just encouraging people to go to national parks; they're propagandizing and idealizing military valor in order to normalize their actions, elicit acceptance from the public, and recruit new members. The report adds that the government organizations maintain social media handbooks to encourage curators to "create a voice and be authentic." In the recent months, many branches of the military have been criticized for insensitive tweets.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Public Documents Reveal How the Branches of the US Military Are Instructed To Harness Internet Culture To Advance Their Own Mess More

Public Documents Reveal How the Branches of the US Military Are Instructed To Harness Internet Culture To Advance Their Own Mess

Comments Filter:

  • Marketing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Monday August 06, 2018 @10:03AM (#57077976) Homepage Journal
    So does every Marketing department on the planet. Welcome to Earth.

    • Re:Marketing (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dread_ed ( 260158 ) on Monday August 06, 2018 @10:27AM (#57078136) Homepage

      Exactly my binary friend. This blurb reads like a hit piece on a product that some people feel would be better put out of the market, like cigarettes or Coke. Going to a second meta-level you can see the writer took particular care in choosing words that are intended to incite anger, fear, resentment, and mistrust while alluding to nefarious intentions and predatory motivation on the part of the military.

      Sure, the US military has issues, but that's no reason to bash the shit out of them for advertising.

      One thing to always remember, especially on Hiroshima day, or as I like to call it "Don't fuck with US day": if we didn't have the US military we would certainly have another country's military.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        Exactly my binary friend. This blurb reads like a hit piece on a product that some people feel would be better put out of the market, like cigarettes or Coke.

        Begun, the meme war has.

        Well, ok, the 3rd meme war, but this is the first one with actual troops.

        • Well, ok, the 3rd meme war, but this is the first one with actual troops.

          As far as we know.

          (At least so far. Government had lots of secrets that only leaked out decades later, and no doubt many that don't leak at all until the info is lost.)

      • > Sure, the US military has issues, but that's no reason to bash the shit out of them for advertising.

        Even when they get the Department of Agriculture to do their marketing for them in 1942? :-)

        Hemp For Victory (1942) [youtube.com]

        --
        Stupid Juvenile Whiners Rule #2:
        Have a tantrum (Juvenile)

      • Re:Marketing (Score:4, Insightful)

        by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Monday August 06, 2018 @01:33PM (#57079524) Journal

        if we didn't have the US military we would certainly have another country's military.

        I don't think this is as true as you think it is. Consider the apocryphal quote attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." While it's unlikely that Yamamoto ever said it, it was also very true in the middle of the 20th century (modulo the hyperbole, obviously). The notion that a heavily-armed populace was the best deterrent to invasion was the Founders' primary strategy for national defense.

        It's debatable whether a purely volunteer militia-based defense (plus a navy) would be sufficient to prevent invasion. But even if it isn't (and I think it isn't), the US military is clearly not a defensive force. The goal and focus of the modern US armed forces is force projection, not defense. In fact, the primary US military doctrine for decades has been that the US military should be capable of conducting two full-scale foreign wars simultaneously.

        So while it's probably true that without any US federal armed forces the US might be or have been at risk of invasion, it's clearly not true that the current US military is actually necessary to prevent invasion. Something much smaller would also do that job.

        Of course, you can argue that America actually wants to be able to project its military power around the globe. There are, in fact, lots of good arguments for that. Many -- even outside of the US -- argue that US military power has been a tremendously beneficial stabilizing force in the world that contributed to our current unprecedented global peace and prosperity. But that's not the argument you made.

        • I agree that in world war II the character of the citizenry and their access to armament would have been sufficient to repel any invasive force, especially considering the munitions available to the enemy, the cohesiveness of the society, etc.

          If we were invaded today I believe a majority of the American populace that would be completely combat ineffective. In addition, there would be a large percentage of the population that would attempt to join the invaders. There would be another group that would surre

          • You need to read the rest of my post.

            • I did. It is irrelevant to my comment or the facts. We have a military. It is what it is because it is what it is. You can argue all you want for it being different, or that a smaller force would be perfectly sufficient for defense, or that if we shove celery up our asses we will live forever. It doesn't mean it is relevant to what IS, or what I said.

              "Something much smaller," as you say, would certainly still be called "The US military" provided it was sufficient for our defense. If it was not sufficie

              • You're trying to claim that it takes more manpower to protect the country than it does to project power around the world? Really?

                in addition to underestimating the propensity for a domestic defense force to be opportunistically used against the populace.

                Why would a smaller defense force be easier to turn against the populace than the larger and more powerful force that we have?

                I don't think you've thought this stuff through.

                • Nope. Never said that. You did.

                  The forces around the world are just that...around the world. They aren't here.

                  That being said, a force large enough to successfully protect the American public, housed on American soil, might be bigger than you imagine and carries inherent risks that you are inured from seeing.

                  I would rather see universal military training of the citizens.

                  Did you really just ask me why a domestically located defense force would be easier to turn against a population they cohabitate and int

      • "Valor" and honor are central values in the military. And, fundamentally, in police, firefighters... people who risk their lives for a larger cause.
    • Interesting copy that military types write in military view points. One cannot help but wonder how amazed the poster will be of medical services providers communicating in medical view points.

    • So does every Marketing department on the planet. Welcome to Earth.

      Agreed.

      Governments, especially their subdivisions, have been doing propaganda since the historical record started. The archeological record suggests they have been doing it since there were governments - and before that, tribes, and before that, hunting and gathering bands, probably back as far as people have been able to talk, or apes to make signaling sounds and gestures.

      Whats's special about the US is that everybody can play.

      Or at least

  • So... marketing, advertising, recruiting? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    What's your point?

    Any organization the has a social media presence beyond "CEO tweets BS" should have a set of guidelines written down for consistent usage.

  • Outraged! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Monday August 06, 2018 @10:09AM (#57078008)

    Organizations that interact with people try to be appealing in public, so it's easier to succeed in interacting with people. Mind blowing, I know.

    • It i*s* outrageous that a branch of the US govt is allowed to spend tax money to alter the public's opinion of themselves.

    • Re:Outraged! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday August 06, 2018 @12:36PM (#57079138) Homepage Journal

      It's not so surprising that they tried. What's surprising is that they failed so miserably. Maybe it's not such a good idea to market the defense of the nation like it was soda pop. Maybe it's not such a great idea to position the Army in the public consciousness as "edgy".

      If you look at successful social media campaigns, they don't look alike, because the organizations behind them have different needs; it's not enough to get attention, it's what you *do* with that attention that matters. You wouldn't use the same campaign for a financial management firm that you would for Mountain Dew; or promote the Make-a-wish foundation the way would Kentucky Fried Chicken.

      The military needs to inspire confidence, trust, and respect. This kind of thing is great for them when it is genuinely viral, but it's stupid to push it from an official channel.

      "Edginess" is just a kind of disguised condescension. People behind "edgy" media don't really respect the people they're pitching to. So who are they trying to connect with? Potential recruits? For decades now the military's biggest recruiting problem isn't warm bodies, it's getting volunteers with the brains needed to do the demanding things that will be asked of them. This kind of thing would appeal to kids who are too dumb to realize they're being disrespected.

  • Apple already went the G-rated route with emojis.

    Now the DoD is going to have "critical tweets" like:
    (US Flag)(Water gun) (water gun) -> (enemy flag) (X face).
    (US Flag)(airplane)(airplane)(airplane) -> (enemy flag)(mushroom)(mushroom)
    (US Flag)(sailboat) + (enemy flag)(sailboat) -> (US flag)(sailboat) + (enemy flag)(water drop)

  • This is new? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I remember laughing at the "Army of One" commercials in the 2000s. It was patently ridiculous that one person could be an army. Armies are about a team, not an individual. But it didn't matter, it was a popular commercial for a long while.

    In the 90s it was all about how you were going to launch some great career with the skills you learned in the Military. I'm sure that's true for a few, but for the grunts? I've known people in the military, and believe me, they didn't get some great job out of it.

    The

    • >> I've known people in the military, and believe me, they didn't get some great job out of it.

      Four exceptions for you: IT work (seen a lot of security folks come from the military lately), medical work, pilots/ground crew and anyone who uses the "free college" programs to pick up their bachelors and/or masters. I also had a relative who picked up their law degree for free prosecuting or defending base hellraisers. Maybe we run in different crowds...or maybe your friends self-select for potato-peeli

      • I think the point OP was trying to make is that it only works if you already have talent. It's not some magical way to gain skills or potential you don't already have to some extent.

        • The majority of the people who join the military just have a high school degree; that is not someone with a talent.

          • Talent only gets you so far. Gumption is a much more valued trait and makes up for lack of talent in a lot of cases. Don't train you kids in a skill without training them to have that grit that gets shit done. Not everyone has it, but you can learn it.

          • just have a high school degree; that is not someone with a talent.

            That's not how talent works. You have to apply it to either earn an advanced degree or undergo training. I'm using talent to mean aptitude if that's a better word for you.

        • Re:This is new? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday August 06, 2018 @10:41AM (#57078218)

          It's not some magical way to gain skills or potential you don't already have to some extent.

          Actually it is. Where else can an 18 year old kid with no experience, who has never had a job before, walk in and say "I want to be an aircraft mechanic. I want you to train me at your expense, and I want to be paid while I learn. I also demand free food and housing, and 30 days of vacation every year. Also, I plan to quit after 4 years, and then I want you to then pay my college tuition."

          For many young Americans, the military is a very good deal. It was for me. Semper fi.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Miser ( 36591 )

            A serious question for you. Back when I was 18, I talked with an Army recruiter. I wanted to do "tech" in the Army, plain and simple.

            However, the recruiter could not guarantee that I would "get" what I "picked", so I declined any further engagement and did not sign up for the Army. This was the only stumbling block I had. Is what the below posters are saying accurate? How does it work when you want to a particular "job" (I think they call it MOS?).

            For the record, I've been doing various types of

            • However, the recruiter could not guarantee that I would "get" what I "picked", so I declined any further engagement and did not sign up for the Army. This was the only stumbling block I had. Is what the below posters are saying accurate? How does it work when you want to a particular "job" (I think they call it MOS?).

              Jobs are offered based on availability and aptitude. You should have at least tried; what he was saying was that you could try for a specific job, but if your testing showed you didn't have the aptitude for it you wouldn't get it, or if there weren't any positions open then they wouldn't be able to offer you a spot. That doesn't mean you would be stuck having to do something else though; if you go through the selection process and they're unable to offer you the position you want, you can always decline.

              I

            • Your test scores may not have been high enough, or just as likely, your timing was wrong and you enquired when the quota for your target MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) was already filled.

              If you tried again a few months later, you may have gotten a different answer. Or if the Army couldn't give you what you want, then you should have talked to the Air Force and Navy.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Wouldn't it be great if the government offered that training and support, just without the obligation to go fight in whatever random wars happen in that 4 years.

            • The irony of your post is that no government that could actually pay for this type of education can exist at all without *first* having a military -- either their own or the protection of someone else's. Sure you can argue about whether or not military funding levels or spending on certain projects is excessive or even stupid / corrupt etc., but no country can ever contemplate matters like funding education if they're not militarily secure. It's right up there with access to food and water.

          • Re:This is new? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Wrath0fb0b ( 302444 ) on Monday August 06, 2018 @12:09PM (#57078890)

            Actually it is. Where else can an 18 year old kid with no experience, who has never had a job before, walk in and say "I want to be an aircraft mechanic. I want you to train me at your expense, and I want to be paid while I learn. I also demand free food and housing, and 30 days of vacation every year. Also, I plan to quit after 4 years, and then I want you to then pay my college tuition."

            I don't know about you, but as a private employer I would gladly hire a ton of 18 year old kids for this deal, provided you also include the all important and the kid cannot quit until your 4 year term is up or else you will go to prison. Even with free food, housing and vacation, this is still an absolutely excellent deal for the employer, since training costs ebb out after 12-18 months (or, more likely, if you can't be even sort of useful after 18 months of training, it's not gonna happen). More generally, it's a well-known coordination/defection problem with employers in a free market offering training programs -- which is that there is no credible way to guarantee that the trainee will not quit and join a competitor before the investment is repaid. There are a number of workarounds and other bad solutions to this problem:

            1. ** Make the trainee pay for the training up front (perhaps with loans) so the employer isn't in the red. Instead, pay increased wages to those with the training to compensate. This is most colleges, but also the civilian aviation industry, food industry and lots of other places where an employer-run-training program would just lead to poaching. Of course, this leads to massive advantages for family wealth and the profusion of expensive student loans. Also, there is a weaker feedback link, since students are getting loans to study what they think employers want, but often there is a mismatch. Certainly far more kids study video game design than could possibly be employed in that field.
            2. ** Make the trainee join an apprenticeship program as a condition for some kind of exclusionary credential. It's understood that the program is longer than educationally necessary and during the latter part of the apprenticeship, the trainee is already generating a surplus which pays back the training put into in the beginning. The trainee cannot leave halfway because they cannot practice the trade without the credential. Common in some technical European fields and in US medicine. This solves some problems, but often leaves an exclusionary cartel in charge of the credential and tends to under-produce it to extract higher rents. It can also lead to 'good-ole-boy' networks in which limited apprenticeship slots are allocated subjectively to those with political connections.
            3. ** Make the trainee sign a contract to fork over X% of wages for Y years up to $Z. This is a variant of the loan concept where repayment is scaled to success, newly popular in the Bay Area. It does lead to higher accessibility of the training at lower economic scales, but is quite expensive (there is an implicit interest rate here and it's high, very high). It's also questionable how enforceable these contracts are, and whether they are dischargeable in bankruptcy.
            4. ** The government directly pays for the training, not expecting an immediate return through labor but rather through lifetime taxes. This can work well, but often doesn't pay for itself. It also suffers the mismatch problem and cost inflation problem (public universities have ballooning per-student costs for no appreciable gain in output).

            All in all, it's a gnarly problem without any clear and good solutions. More likely, we'll muddle along with some combination of mandatory-apprenticeship in areas where it makes sense and trainee-pays for the rest. Better solutions always welcome, but do keep the constraints in mind :-P

            • It's not just quitting that can land you in prison, you get to live under the UCMJ. You aren't entitled to a jury of your peers either. During the first few years you are often expected to live in on base dormitories which are inspectable at any time, and have wages garnished to pay for a chow hall whether or not you choose to use it. Required to maintain specific standards both for fitness and dress/grooming, and I would add that at least for the AF the PT standards are weighted heavily to punish people th

          • It's not some magical way to gain skills or potential you don't already have to some extent.

            Actually it is. Where else can an 18 year old kid with no experience, who has never had a job before, walk in and say "I want to be an aircraft mechanic. I want you to train me at your expense, and I want to be paid while I learn. I also demand free food and housing, and 30 days of vacation every year. Also, I plan to quit after 4 years, and then I want you to then pay my college tuition."

            For many young Americans, the military is a very good deal. It was for me. Semper fi.

            Yep, exactly. Same for me.

            Now, it isn't a way to magically gain aptitude that you didn't have already. Nothing is.

            ASVAB and various qualification tests are nifty surrogates for IQ tests ...

    • the grunts were the ones getting most of the college money. $40,000 in the 90's and more today. and a lot of them ended up going to school for law or something else very lucrative.

      On ex-grunt I know is in real estate now and looks like he makes a lot of money

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      In the 90s it was all about how you were going to launch some great career with the skills you learned in the Military. I'm sure that's true for a few, but for the grunts? I've known people in the military, and believe me, they didn't get some great job out of it.

      If you have talent, but no money and no family support, service can bootstrap that - if nothing else, by paying for college. Even if you don't, there's a lot of room below "some great career". Working as, say, and auto mechanic is a big step up from any sort of unskilled labor.

      It's been the military's peacetime mission for at least a century to move recruits up one step on the socioeconomic ladder, and the lower you start, the more that "one step" matters.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Tempest in a teapot (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Based on the article, the writer seems to be uncomfortable with the US military existence, and is just irritated that sometimes they remind her that it exists by showing up in his/her twitter feed. That the military has a social media policy seems only surprising to someone who has never worked at a big organization before. Not sure how this is any more of a gaff than anything posted by Arby's.

  • Okay, apparently if you search for #HumpDay you get (unsurprisingly) lots of pictures of boobs and butts. So naturally no respectable person should search for this. (It's a hashtag, so that's always true.)

    However, apparently it's really supposed to be referring to Wednesday - that being the "hump" of the work week that you need to get over, before the downhill slide to the weekend.

    • In American military lingo "humping" means carrying a heavy pack on a long route march, often across rough terrain and in a sleep deprived state.

      The British call it yomping [wikipedia.org].

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        The Brits have an advantage: they can just think of a long, brutal march as standing in a particularly long queue, and let their genetic predisposition take over.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday August 06, 2018 @10:24AM (#57078120)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      their side projects should get them locked up on obscenity charges for a very long time

      It's funny how you didn't give us a single example of someone complaining about a joke made by the military so that we could verify and judge their complaint for ourselves, yet you did prove unambiguously that you feel tasteless jokes should result in them being locked up.

      Criticising jokes is rather more tolerant than calling for the people making them to be locked up. One is exercising free speech to express an opinion and create a dialogue, the other is suggesting that their speech is so offensive that fo

    • "This coming from the same "woke" camp that..."

      This coming from the same camp that constantly complains that the world has gotten too PC and that no one can take a joke anymore,

      But if you follow the outrage logic of this group it makes sense:

      * Outrage over conservatives making bigoted comments = "SJW are repressing us!"
      * Outrage over a couple of professional comedians making tasteless jokes = "Oh the horror, think of the children!"

      Ergo, it's evil social justice warriors taking away our rights!

      But when we m

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        Holding up the mirror didn't work - it reads like a madlib that didn't turn out funny. We all know who the outrage brigade on the right is: the fire-and-brimstone religious nutters. They still exist, to be sure, but don't show up much on social media. Meanwhile, 90% of Twitter is progressive outrage.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          In terms of comedic structure, I just slapped that together real quick. It's not great.

          in regards to the right's outrage brigade it's not just the religious nuts anymore. I see far more people complaining about SJWs nowadays then I see the things that they are actually complaining about.

          Also, I don't use twitter because it's stupid but I seriously doubt it's 90% progressive outrage. If it's anything like I see everywhere else in life it would be 5% progressive outrage, 25% conservative outrage over said pro

    • While I get that there might be too much thought police going on with with criticism of "dark humor" -- your excuse regarding; "We shouldn't be held responsible for something because the Liberals have Rick and Morty." If it weren't Rick and Morty -- which is hilarious -- then was your backup excuse for why the military can never be held responsible going to be "Family Guy"? I mean, there are more cartoons. It could take thousands of years to clean all this Liberal stuff up.

  • If you’re really outraged at normal, everyday expressions of basic humanity then ... maybe it's you that has the problem. Maybe the rest of us should be worrying about what you might do next.

    Basic social expressions don't raise red flags for normal people. If #HumpDay seems sinister to you, consider getting some counseling.

  • Why is this here (Score:5, Informative)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Monday August 06, 2018 @10:32AM (#57078162)
    Gotta love this
    "anonymous reader shares"

    So who is theoutline.com
    The Outline is a New York-based digital media company focused on power, culture and the future. It was founded by Joshua Topolsky in 2016 who raised $5 million from several venture capitalists to start the company. wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
    Who is Joshua Topolsky
    The Verge Co-Founder Calls Ben Shapiro "The Jew Who Helps Other Jews Onto the Train" says a lot about who Joshua Topolsky is. But that might just be me.

    Just click bait don't waste your time.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  • Corporations and governments are allowed to use memes.

    It is how we can tell when they have died.

  • Many? (Score:2)

    by tsqr ( 808554 )

    In the recent months, many branches of the military have been criticized for insensitive tweets.

    many
    —adjective
    constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people.

    Let's see now. . . Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. Oh yeah, and Coast Guard. If you want hyperbole, why not go for "innumerable", "myriad", or "countless"?

  • They'll even sit down and make small talk with high school students eating lunch! Quick, hand me some pearls so I can clutch them!

  • The folks I don't agree with are making convincing arguments--they're getting other folks to think they way they want those folks to think!
    That's not fair!

  • Nothing the military does, even protect their sorry asses is correct. They would rather be over run by terrorist or bombed by a foreign nation then support their nations military.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      The military fights terrorism? News to me. Unless you mean they plan to shoot the FBI "agents" that create fake terrorists?

  • These accounts aren't just encouraging people to go to national parks; they're propagandizing and idealizing military valor in order to normalize their actions, elicit acceptance from the public, and recruit new members.

    Er, so ... recruiting?

    (BTW, re "normalizing", it's normal to have a military. No, really, check it out, it's true!)

  • In democracies, the military ability to perform any operation is constrained by public acceptance: Whoever politicians and generals decided to fight, if voters disagree, leaders will be shown the way out.

  • I'm astonished by the arrogant ignorance on display by the author. Clearly someone with no understanding of what a nation is, what it means to serve one, or be a member of one. There's no historical context or understanding, just another dolt attacking that which makes their existence and ability to talk nonsense possible.

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close