Today, after months of seeing mention of "trending" phrases and words from news pundits and others, it occured to me that there could be great use in knowing myself what "the Internet" is talking about. We all have a desire to see how our own views and perceptions measure up to our fellows across the country. How does my opinion differ from those nearby, or far away from me?
I began to think on what technologies are available for free, and for pay to meet this end... What search term to even use to start my quest. I thought of "internet pulse" and "what everyone is thinking", no. "Popular internet topics", no, that would certainly be cluttered with the efforts of a few to sell me something. Just then it came to me "social media.... er.. command center!" Well, that just POPS! And I was right. It IS a THING.
Just search it up. There are about ten prominent organizations that have done just that. Described exactly as worded.
A social media command center (SMCC), simply put, is a concentration of all considerable and noteworthy streams of available and open communication between those with shared interest. Its form can be as humble as one computer with one operator. These streams of communication represent a mountain of information. One person at home at their personal computer is hardly a force for change, but if the client program they use can filter by phrase, key-word or source, their usefulness is amplified. That single operator could report to their superiors on one topic or item with a high degree of metric accuracy after any set block of time. Imagine a team of such persons, working multiple topics at once, informing superiors in an organization spanning multiple spheres of influence over multiple regions and markets.
The makers of Oculus Rift face backlash for planning to DRM-lock a long awaited title
What's at stake?
Obviously, there's an interest in such things because the words of a few can snowball and bring a deluge of questions from many sides, surprising and even overwhelming public relations/customer relations staff with little warning. Call centers and campaign staff would surely attest to the frustration of wading through emails, phone messages and calls all concerned with the same subject. Viral social media events can create a brigade of attention that could mean interruption and public embarrassment for the recipient.
The most popular social media vendors are also the most profitable. And with that profit is concentrated funds and executive control over what information gets prioritized and managed. The owners of these vendors may be tempted through courtship with even larger entities, like corporations, domestic and foreign government interests, and even political parties to suppress or support certain information related to each of their special interests in-turn. After all, the public that communicates on these vendors' products have never paid a cent directly to their owners. The vendors are more beholden to the requests of those that would pay them advertising dollars for the chance at the mass promotion of their own products.
So therein lies the weakness.
The 'spin' is directed by those that pay the money. We've witnessed this concept far too many times to call it anything but axiom. Those with the gold make the rules.
Milo crosses the super-secret line.
But what if?
What if the owners of these social media vendors have their own agenda? Perhaps they would be doubly susceptible to the persuasion of political influence to closer involve themselves (and their holdings) with the boosting or suppression of those views and messages that they agree or disagree with. We've heard of some Twitter accounts of recent history being suspended or even banned for reasons found within that ubiquitous "Terms of Use." These eloquently worded and scarcely perused agreements hide the power of ejection, mostly favoring the absolute whim of the "owner" of the intellectual property of the service.
[Video of the DNC's candidate being whisked away by handlers following the onset of a medical emergency]
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSTaOka3Z9k)
SMCCs also keep a party's finger on the pulse.
It allows the time necessary to formulate and respond to public concerns before the Main Stream Media can assemble a story... in fact, the rebuttal can be just as articulate as the accusation by the time the news story is finished. Who knows? The scoupe could be a collaboration between the news source and the party! The use of a Social Media Command Center is evident in the formulation of a response to online rumors of Hillary Clinton's probable Parkinson's Disease conclusion by several now-demonized medical experts. "She became overheated" was the answer before the party's SMCC was a-buzz with the truth about the supposed "heat" that day. Overtaken with that truth, and following the aparent decision to send "Hillary" out for an unprotected walk right in front of Madison Square Park, obviously to show the world that she was right-as-rain. But they didn't foresee the accusations of the use of a body double to do it. Their SMCC kicked in and realized that many were pointing to the well known Teresa Barnwell as one example. Showing its agility, and confirming the whereabouts of Barnwell, the team was able to formulate a rebuttal by first publicizing the rumour (gaining control of the narrative: Teresa Barnwell is after all, the only person that looks like HRC ;), and then prompting her to come up with a social media response. All in time for the MSM story to air, complete with their version of things. And, the article was history before the public could figure out that it was odd indead for the recently-falling-unconscious but now peppy and out for a stroll Hillary to be coming in close contact with a child just two days after a pneumonia diagnosis from her "doctor." But these details are no longer breaking news and can be ignored now by the MSM.
[Yelp! tracking down the sources of ficticious reviews]
(http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/11/yelp-outs-companies-that-pay-for-positive-reviews/)
How, also can a user of a SMCC counter the fire of online scrutiny?
Easy one: Employ, with little expense, a brigade of connected people of all ages to write What you want them to Where you want them to. Pay them by the post. Pay them by the word. Pay them by the character, and bonuses for riginality...forfeit for honesty. Have you ever seen those "WORK FROM HOME" signs stapled to telephone poles? For a student with no spending money, this can mean a ticket to better things.
The use of Social Media Command Centers is now 'the norm'. Understand its uses and abilities...and its synergistic effect with an often collaberative Main Stream Media. This tool can, and will be used to gaslight the public into accepting something that isn't true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
The Truth is important to us. It is objective. It is fact. After the Fact presents itself, it becomes the model after which all truthful opinions are formed. It is sometimes painful and disruptive or even threatening, but in its absence, destruction is a certainty.
And I'll close with a quote from a famous dead person, because he had much to say on the topic of keeping the public informed.
"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787
Edit: Archive links, as they come. I'm somewhat new to this posting stuff, so please forgive me.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] PM_ME_UR_NOODZ ago (edited ago)
tl:dr but I made it a couple paragraphs.
I would expect many governments to have separate teams one to collect data and another team that actually gets involved and tries to influence shit. Ome would gather info for analysis and to measure the effectiveness of the I'm sure the nsa does it to monitor Americans and gather data to assist in domestic surveillance, the CIA & state department probably does the same shit to keep an eye on public sentiment elsewhere and increase the effectiveness of propaganda. I would expect UK, China, Russia, Iran, France, Australia, Israel, Japan, and others to all do the same sort of things. It's publicly available info that is easily recorded and aggregated, so there's no reason for organizations with the interest and the resources to not do it.