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
    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
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

      You are making an assumption (the italicized part).

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          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
            0
            ·
            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
              0
              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
                0
                ·
                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.

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yet you continued to defend the foreign adversaries.

                  You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying, if you think that.

                  All I’m stating is that foreign adversaries have multiple roles and multiple jobs they do, not just the one thing you are mentioning.

                  That’s the whole point of my conversation with you, the point out that a foreign adversary can do more than just one single thing.

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  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.

                  I was speaking generally about foreign adversaries, and not the ones in the article (that I did read). Its not something we should really be arguing over, or for you to be so nitpicky over. Its not worth either of our time to do so.

                  The ORIGINAL comment that I replied to …

                  Freedom of speech should not extend to foreign adversaries.

                  Hot take incoming…

                  Actually, I would argue the opposite.

                  Now that we have global access to each other, we should be speaking to each other, and finding common ground. We all share the same planet.

                  And when speaking to adversaries, we should consider what they’re saying for truthfulness or if it’s just an attack, before deciding to ignore/block it or not.

                  And your first reply to my reply to the original comment …

                  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.

                  You didn’t mention specific foreign adversaries just from the article. You used the generic terminology for all foreign adversaries.

                  My only point was that not all foreign adversaries, regardless if they were mentioned in the article or not, act in one single way, that they have multiple motives/actions. Thats all. No mention was made by me of specific foreign adversaries. You assumed as much, incorrectly, but I did not refer to them. I spoke generally.

                  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    foreign adversaries

                    I used the term Foreign Adversaries specifically because that’s what the article called the attackers. This is a thread about the article. You replied to a comment about the article and didn’t distinguish in your reply that you weren’t talking about the article. Only after I pointed out that you are supporting death threats, you are back tracking. But oddly your replies didn’t condemn the death threats but only made skewed comments like “You’ve discovered my nefarious plan! Curses!”

                    Your premise of “Let them talk.” is flawed. Talk can incite violence.