Palestinian Social Media -fdd Study

[satanbrain]

Palestinian Pulse: What Policymakers Can Learn From Palestinian Social Media

The report

FDD's research found that there was little optimism in the Palestinian online environment about the U.S.-led peace process. FDD's research analyzed sentiment on topics including religious and political reasons for rejecting the peace process;

Read the conclusions part if you don't have time to pass all of this intriguing study.

[Musician]

So a zionist, neocon think tank pooped out a study that supports aggressive foreign policy?

Shocker.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 10/25/10 12:42 PM, Musician wrote: So a zionist, neocon think tank pooped out a study that supports aggressive foreign policy?

Shocker.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/25/10 02:06 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: You say that like it's a bad thing.

If you're not being sarcastic:

You'd be throwing a fit if this were a neo-liberal, radical Muslim think tank concluding that Israel was a threat and they should be aggressively engaged. Now wouldn't you?

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 10/25/10 06:52 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/25/10 02:06 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: You say that like it's a bad thing.

If you're not being sarcastic:

You'd be throwing a fit if this were a neo-liberal, radical Muslim think tank concluding that Israel was a threat and they should be aggressively engaged. Now wouldn't you?

I just wouldn't be surprised. But yeah, I'm being an ass =P

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/25/10 06:58 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I just wouldn't be surprised. But yeah, I'm being an ass =P

Ah, ok then. It's so hard to tell on the internet sometimes. Especially in this forum. FUNNY EMOTICONS AND SUCH ARE YOUR FRIENDS POLI COMEDIANS!!!

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 10/25/10 07:04 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/25/10 06:58 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I just wouldn't be surprised. But yeah, I'm being an ass =P

Ah, ok then. It's so hard to tell on the internet sometimes. Especially in this forum. FUNNY EMOTICONS AND SUCH ARE YOUR FRIENDS POLI COMEDIANS!!!

I get what you mean now 0_o

[satanbrain]

At 10/25/10 06:52 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You'd be throwing a fit if this were a neo-liberal, radical Muslim think tank concluding that Israel was a threat and they should be aggressively engaged. Now wouldn't you?

Have you even read it? And if you did, can you point out the unreliability's sections?

[lapis]

Roflol. From the conclusions:

3. Increase the operations of the U.S. State Department's Digital Outreach Team.

The Obama administration continues to fund a team of State Department Arabic-speakers that actively participates in conversation threads on a range of topics. This group often attempts to influence the outcome of online conversations, particularly those that run counter to U.S. objectives in the region.

FDD's research found that, during the nine-week observation period, the State Department's efforts to influence the online discussions were largely ineffective. This may stem from the fact that the team is small in number, and cannot possibly challenge even a plurality of the views expressed on sites where sentiments run counter to U.S. objectives. However, it also may stem from a process whereby the engagement team has the odds stacked against it. Indeed, the Digital Outreach Team identified itself in every online interaction, which nearly always drew fire from users with a pre-existing bias against the United States.

To be effective, the outreach team must not advertise its presence. More importantly, it must launch a broader campaign to limit and discredit violent messages, expose Palestinian extremists on the Internet, and thwart their ability to gain credibility. This will require a more aggressive approach than the one currently employed. It may also require additional personnel.

The Digital Outreach Team should also be viewed as an important source of intelligence. Indeed, they regularly assess sentiments expressed online in the same way that Foreign Service Officers assess political sentiments on the ground. As such, they can add an additional window of understanding into the Palestinian political landscape. To this end, they could participate more actively in conversation threads and pose specific questions on a range of topics. This will allow them to assess opinions on a range of issues with a higher degree of focus, nuance, and specificity more commonly gauged by polling.

State Department decision-makers can benefit from these findings. For example, if anti-peace sentiment is running high online, an understanding of these sentiments could inform the decisions of State Department officials responsible for advising the White House and briefing Congress on peace talks or other diplomatic initiatives.

This kind of reminds me of the Megaphone tool, except it's organised by a government and because they can't find enough volunteers to have these online discussion in Arabic they actually need to pay people to do it.

Seriously, while I admire their honesty it's of course incredibly stupid to state the organisation they're with when they enter a discussion. That's like someone going into a science vs religion thread on the Newgrounds BBS and saying that he's being paid by the Vatican to propagate pro-Catholic viewpoints on the Internet. Some real credibility suicide right there.

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/26/10 01:47 PM, satanbrain wrote: Have you even read it? And if you did, can you point out the unreliability's sections?

Would have, but lapis already did it. Not that it would help anyone since every time I've tried to point out to you why a zionist or pro Israeli source is not a good source for truth you just assume that means I only accept Palestinian biased sources. In short, you don't seem capable of understanding WHY you're sources are bad, so why should anybody waste time pointing it out to you when you'll just deny it anyway in your blind zeal that everything Israel does is right and Palestine is full of evil terrorists?

[satanbrain]

At 10/26/10 06:40 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/26/10 01:47 PM, satanbrain wrote: Have you even read it? And if you did, can you point out the unreliability's sections?

Would have, but lapis already did it. Not that it would help anyone since every time I've tried to point out to you why a zionist or pro Israeli source is not a good source for truth you just assume that means I only accept Palestinian biased sources

which means that if you're saying you are independent but funded by an organization, you are more credible than one honest enough to admit it?

:. In short, you don't seem capable of understanding WHY you're sources are bad, so why should anybody waste time pointing it out to you when you'll just deny it anyway in your blind zeal that everything Israel does is right and Palestine is full of evil terrorists?

In short, you don't seem capable of understanding WHY your sources are bad, so why should anybody waste time pointing it out to you when you'll just deny it anyway in your blind zeal that everything Palastine does is right and Israel is full of evil terrorists?

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/27/10 11:13 AM, satanbrain wrote: which means that if you're saying you are independent but funded by an organization, you are more credible than one honest enough to admit it?

I'm saying it depends on who is funding me. If I am beholden to a certain master for my funding and I have an idea what that master is going to want to see to keep my dollars coming in (or worse, I've been TOLD explicitly what they want to see to keep my funding coming in), then I will be tailoring my conclusions to fit. It's like how the New Testament blames the Jews for killing Jesus. But history and just plain common sense would say it was obviously Pilate and the Romans. But the gospels were written as a sales pitch to Romans on Christianity, and they probably wouldn't except a religion that says "and then you fuckers killed the most important person in ever". But hey, Jews aren't going to accept it ever...so they can have the blame shifted to them. It's a bullshit tactic when something is purporting to be truth.

Independently funded and researched, with NO connections to Jews or Muslims would be a better source then one that's funded by Jews or Muslims. Why the fuck is that so hard for you to understand? When agenda is involved, it taints outcomes.

In short, you don't seem capable of understanding WHY your sources are bad, so why should anybody waste time pointing it out to you when you'll just deny it anyway in your blind zeal that everything Palastine does is right and Israel is full of evil terrorists?

I rest my case. I can point out to you and others elsewhere how this is not my argument, but all you see is "us" and "them" and if I'm not with "us" then obviously I'm with "them". I feel sad for your dim view of things. Sad and a little scared.

[Imperator]

which nearly always drew fire from users with a pre-existing bias against the United States.

There's a statement without any bias whatsoever.....

And obviously they demonstrated this point admirably. So in their eyes, someone like me would be one of those "users with a pre-existing bias against the United States".

Or.....just maybe, I'm not buying into shitty arguments. You know, that might be the reason people aren't impressed with people coming to online forums to promote particular views.....because their arguments are shit.

Can I create a "study" where I find I draw fire from people who don't agree with me are actually "users with a pre-existing bias"?

Cause that'd be fun.

I'd also find people who don't agree with me are 150% more likely to be morons.

It's SCIENTERRIFIC!

[satanbrain]

At 10/27/10 09:43 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/27/10 11:13 AM, satanbrain wrote:

I'm saying it depends on who is funding me. If I am beholden to a certain master for my funding and I have an idea what that master is going to want to see to keep my dollars coming in (or worse, I've been TOLD explicitly what they want to see to keep my funding coming in), then I will be tailoring my conclusions to fit.

Liberals can be referred as one master.

It's like how the New Testament blames the Jews for killing Jesus. But history and just plain common sense would say it was obviously Pilate and the Romans. But the gospels were written as a sales pitch to Romans on Christianity, and they probably wouldn't except a religion that says "and then you fuckers killed the most important person in ever". But hey, Jews aren't going to accept it ever...so they can have the blame shifted to them. It's a bullshit tactic when something is purporting to be truth.

But the evidence the church created is fake, the evidence this study has is based on facts.

Independently funded and researched, with NO connections to Jews or Muslims would be a better source then one that's funded by Jews or Muslims. Why the fuck is that so hard for you to understand? When agenda is involved, it taints outcomes.

You mean that if you hate israel you're better? you are unbiased only when you're fit to the majority's agenda?

I rest my case. I can point out to you and others elsewhere how this is not my argument, but all you see is "us" and "them" and if I'm not with "us" then obviously I'm with "them".

there is "us" who will die because of your wrong speculations. there are "then" who wish to use "us" as subjects of peace-making manners by trial and error.

I feel sad for your dim view of things. Sad and a little scared.

Scared that someone thinks different than you?