ADVENT: History
The Subversion of Social Media
"The reason ADVENT will continue to endure is not because they will control the world, or because of their weapons, their technology, or their numbers. They will endure because they understand the value in ensuring that the future generation is already unknowingly under their control."
- Riley, Westurland, Civilian Psychologist
The integration of ADVENT into the mainstream has had many individuals wondering if this has implications for their current media habits and if they should be concerned with the possibility of significant and unknowing monitoring. The good news is that for the majority of the population, they will not need to significantly worry about ADVENT monitoring.
However, this does raise the question of what is considered crossing the line for ADVENT when posting to social media and your favorite content-sharing sites. We have reached out to ADVENT Public Relations who connected us to a representative of ADVENT Intelligence who was able to provide us with a more comprehensive overview of how ADVENT monitors content – and what is allowed and disallowed.
The following are categories which ADVENT has revealed are red flags for their monitoring crews. It is entirely possible, of course, that there are more that ADVENT Intelligence could not disclose to us for security reasons, but through them one should acquire an idea as to their criteria:
Terrorism|Threats of Violence/Activism: This should come as no surprise to most people, but actions, statements, and other means which promote or encourage acts of terror or violence against the State of ADVENT, ADVENT citizens and officials, or ADVENT soldiers is illegal and should not be shared under any circumstances aside from sending the relevant information to your local Peacekeeper Division.
This is, as many an unfortunate individual has discovered, not something one jokes about as ADVENT will investigate nearly all instances of this. While most 'joke' terrorism statements do not result in prosecution (unless it involves bodily harm or damage to properties as a result), it does result in the individual being forced to install ADVENT Intelligence monitoring software on all devices and giving them unrestricted access to all owned devices. Repeat offenders are subject to arrest and prosecution by the Judicial Courts.
This has resulted in some concern from free speech activists, not necessarily due to outright terrorist activity and promotion, but the usage of such in areas such as comedy which has notable usages of dark comedy. ADVENT's official stance on this is that comedies will be allowed to perform as such using jokes involving terrorism against ADVENT – so long as they subject themselves to monitoring.
Few have taken them up on this offer.
Alien/Foreign Propaganda: The distribution of enemy propaganda for non-transformative purposes is currently against ADVENT law, which should not come as a surprise to most, as ADVENT has revealed that they are working to counteract online operations they suspect are being conducted by the Ethereal Collective, in particular the Zararch, the enigmatic alien intelligence organization.
This covers any and all promotional material on the following entities:
- The Ethereal Collective
- The Sovereign African States
- The People's Republic of China
- The European Union
Propaganda is defined as the promotion or glorification of any of these entities in any context. Far-reaching, and amounts to an essential ban on promotional materials from these entities. This does not necessarily preclude them from being brought up and discussed in academic and educational context, so long as permission is obtained from ADVENT beforehand.
It is currently unknown just how effective ADVENT has been in stopping this. Considering the current state of the world, alien (and foreign) propaganda is hard to come by and quickly shut down. If this is due to these measures, or merely the inability for it to get any traction will likely remain a mystery.
Penalties for illegally spreading foreign propaganda have been stated to include prison time and fines, or in more lenient cases, ADVENT Intelligence monitoring software installed on owned devices.
Anti-ADVENT Propaganda: Another regulation which should surprise absolutely no one, the distribution, creation, and propagation of material which contains factually inaccurate statements or content to diminish, damage, or otherwise harm the image of ADVENT and its citizens is prohibited under ADVENT law.
This has come to include material which also instigates violent and unauthorized protest against ADVENT, including signs, posters, and banners. This has, unsurprisingly been decried as an attack on free speech and the right to protest. ADVENT responded by reminding the concerned individuals that peaceful protests are allowed, and factual criticism of ADVENT is also permitted. It just so happened that the majority of ADVENT propaganda is usually not factual – or is factual, and also intended to encourage violence, something which ADVENT takes severe issue with.
ADVENT has currently taken a somewhat passive approach to satire and memes, as no arrests or investigations have been announced or conducted, but during our discussion ADVENT Intelligence did state that they aren't concerned about subversion through those methods. What this means was not revealed, though given the short history of ADVENT, it would not be surprising if they were merely monitoring the trolls of the internet – or quite possibly controlling the supposed 'opposition'.
Fabricated or Unsubstantiated News: As the regulations for carefully curated and shared news have been applied to media across the world, so too has it begun being applied to the sphere of social media. The sharing of news which is either fabricated or otherwise fake is technically illegal, though ADVENT has taken an interesting approach in curtailing it's spread.
Many individuals do not necessarily spread misinformation intentionally, but instead are duped into sharing it because it either matched their own opinions and worldview, they receive it from a trusted source, or the idea that what they are sharing could be fake never even occurs to them. Considering this, and the amount of people that share stories such as these daily (the amount of fake alien stories is staggering – inquiries with ADVENT Intelligence believe that it is likely a Zararch division devoted to this), to prosecute or investigate each one is simply infeasible.
Instead, ADVENT revealed that they simply go directly to the source of the fabricated information – if that is the user themselves, or a web site – and shuts it down and conducts an investigation. From what has been gathered, ADVENT Intelligence has near-unlimited authority in finding and shutting down these sites and individuals.
This has the effect of removing the source of the misinformation, and under ADVENT laws regarding such actions, will result in the arrest and prosecution of the individual. As a result, your average user of Twitter, or Facebook, or YouTube isn't necessarily at risk if they share something that isn't real, but hosting platforms and content creators now suddenly have to be far more aware of what they say and spread, because if a channel or profile which has millions of followers says something that isn't real – they are suddenly extremely liable and ADVENT will follow through on arrests.
This has had some noticeably positive effects, namely that the flat-earth and anti-vaccination communities have essentially been decimated and both movements (one more of a joke, the other not) will likely never be able to gain traction so long as ADVENT remains in control of the internet – or at least watching over it.
In short, you should merely treat your social media usage with a little common sense. Normal individuals will likely have little trouble following these guidelines, as most know better than to share terror threats, foreign propaganda, and (deliberate) misinformation to their friends or strangers. If you find yourself in a situation where you think you might have done one of these – don't panic.
ADVENT Intelligence has told us that they are very good at determining the guilty from innocent. An accidental retweet or reblog of something you didn't understand or didn't realize was violent will not result in your arrest. However, as it is ADVENT who is providing these assurances, take this for however much you feel it is worth.
- Article: ADVENT, Social Media, and You – by Jonny Warren
As ADVENT continues to further ingrain itself in the everyday life of citizen, it is worth exploring as to what ADVENT has been – or suspected to be – doing without the majority of citizens knowing. By far, ADVENT, quite possibly more so than any previous government, has ingrained itself into the operation and culture of the internet itself.
This is nothing new, as many governments have performed similar online operations before. The United States, China, Israel, and Russia were favored culprits of pushing online propaganda and disinformation as well as information which supported their own interests in question. This was accomplished manually through various agents, and more recently, been amplified by entire botnets and primitive scripts which while they are simple and not especially convincing, have the capability to quickly push and promote individuals and posts quickly and artificially, leading to organic reposting and spreading.
However, these operations were somewhat limited in importance and scope, as such operations were for the most part illegal and frowned upon. Too obvious an artificial push, and the hosting network would take actions, and indeed various unannounced purges of bot accounts were becoming more and more common.
If one has noticed, ADVENT no longer necessarily needs to resort to such measures as they – without much exaggeration – control the Internet.
This can be qualified by saying ADVENT controls most aspects of the Internet. Interestingly, ADVENT understands a basic truth about the information age – that taking the obvious and direct route to suppressing information merely causes the Streisand Effect and only causes the information intended to be suppressed to propagate more widely.
The only effective way to truly control the Internet is to copy the Chinese and have it completely censored and curated – and ADVENT has stated that they have no intentions of following the Chinese method – and that would be the quickest way to motivate otherwise apathetic individuals to take action. Removing the conveniences of life is enough to make a person on the fence regarding ADVENT turn against them.
So, this begs the question of how ADVENT has decided to integrate itself?
Like all major entities, they maintain presences on social media, though largely restrict it to press releases and official statements – actual interaction with citizens is kept to a minimum or at most they are directed to contact ADVENT directly. Individuals who are employed by ADVENT seemingly are allowed to have social media accounts, and curiously do not appear to have a significant amount of rules.
There are some noted instances of employees of ADVENT – granted, lower level ones – expressing some disagreement with some ADVENT policies or decisions. These have largely been employees in government or media, and to date all ADVENT military personnel are almost non-existent on social media platforms, not to mention entities such as the Oversight Division or ADVENT Intelligence.
Despite that, it seems like the only hard rule regarding ADVENT social media policy is to maintain their professionalism and integrity. While it hasn't been confirmed, there have been close to a dozen ADVENT-linked profiles which have either been deleted or otherwise gone completely silent after they either spread misinformation (knowingly or otherwise) or became heated with another user of the platform. ADVENT has not confirmed the status of these individuals.
How ADVENT appears to have controlled the conversation of the Internet itself is quite possibly one of the most insidious measures which has been seen in the information era. As mentioned earlier, ADVENT has significant legal authority to leverage the various industries for reasons of global security, and it would be naïve to assume that they are not utilizing this behind the scenes.
One doesn't need to look far to notice that some of the most prolific personalities on sites like Instagram and YouTube are also usually supporters of ADVENT, or otherwise discuss the organization in a mostly positive light. It's an open question as to how many of these individuals are knowingly benefiting from their content, and how many are genuine and being silently promoted.
Looking at the recent six months of content on any major platform will include thousands of hours discussing the war, military strategy, discussion on ADVENT, and even visiting various warzones or deployment areas to support the troops. ADVENT isn't shy about openly promoting these individuals either, nor are they exactly exclusive. From speaking with several content creators, ADVENT really only cares that you actually show up to their events and don't promote illegal content. Personal views are irrelevant.
It is an interesting tactic for ADVENT to take, and these events include demonstrations of ADVENT technology and weapons, tours of ADVENT facilities and warzones, even interviews with various prominent officials in ADVENT. And these are not random low-level officials in ADVENT. These include Chief Diplomat Hassan, Chief Peacekeeper Stein, and even Chancellor Vyandar. Rumors have been swirling that ADVENT is arranging similar events with alien sympathizers and defectors, which ties into what is most likely the ultimate goal of this both proactive and passive approach to the Internet.
That goal is normalization.
ADVENT, for better or worse, wants to be viewed in a positive light. The way they achieve this is not through obvious and outright propaganda. It is not by utterly silencing critics or grounded criticism. It is not done by, for lack of a better word, being stupid. It is not accomplished through official channels either, those merely serve as direct connected to ADVENT itself.
The normalization comes from sources which aren't even affiliated with ADVENT. The more it is discussed in a civilized manner, the more you see your favorite personalities talking about the positives and negatives of ADVENT or speaking with officials, the more it becomes ingrained in the collective public consciousness and the less stigmatized the entire concept of a world government becomes.
But there is the legitimate question of if ADVENT is actually allowing criticism or if it is merely an illusion. The answer appears to be a mixture based on what we've discovered. Criticism of ADVENT does absolutely exist, although even critics are careful to frame their arguments in a way which cannot be construed as misinformation and there is very little outright anti-ADVENT sentiment.
The thing is, this will never be seen on the front pages of these sites due to ADVENT controlling the algorithms behind the scenes. The details of how this works are, obviously, not revealed to the public, but they are clearly being utilized by ADVENT. However, it is surprisingly unlikely that ADVENT is working to actively suppress them.
Speaking with several experts on the subject, it appears more likely that instead of a blanket 'blacklisting' of content, ADVENT has instead taken a 'whitelisting' of content or topics which will automatically result in increased promotion. Everything else is untouched, so technically critics of ADVENT have not been actively suppressed – but are still being hit due to other content being promoted which is friendly to ADVENT. Ad revenue, followers, subscribers, and those elements remain untouched and the communities around these appear to be unaffected, though most would be wise to assume that ADVENT is still monitoring the larger ones.
Some have, in anticipation of this, sought alternate methods of monetary support through crowdfunding means, which has allowed many ADVENT critics to remain online. This has resulted in some calls for them to be removed from the platforms altogether by more ardent ADVENT supporters, but ADVENT made a rare statement dismissing any such action unless such content was 'in violation of established ADVENT laws or willfully and knowingly propagating misinformation against ADVENT'. And as a result, no action has been taken against individuals who have pursued this line of funding.
In conclusion, ADVENT appears to take an odd stance when it comes to the Internet and social media, which is both expansive and yet oddly permissive. It speaks to the confidence ADVENT has in itself to leave even their critics largely alone – but there could be a simpler explanation for their permissive attitude – it would just cause more problems than it is worth.
After all, at the end of the day, ADVENT does not answer to their citizens. They are in complete control, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
- Article: Benevolent Watchers: The Purpose of the ADVENT Social Media Push by Xi Qain
"The question, Miss Wong, is not necessarily controlling the conversation, or the information, or the individuals involved. All those are useful, yes, but those are only parts of the larger discourse. The problem which needs to be solved is that of online discourse itself, and how to prevent it from degenerating."
"People have the impression that ADVENT uses their online presence for merely removing people who are causing issues or spreading misinformation. While some of this is true – it is the law after all – the idea that we're spending all our time just waiting for the opportunity to hunt down some guy because he posted something mean on Twitter is rather laughable. Please, we've got actual jobs to do."
"Fair question – what that job actually is. A question for you Miss Wong – what is the largest problem of any online community?"
"While trolls and your general miscreants are indeed something of a problem, I would not say they are the largest one. Those type of individuals are only effective against the perpetually insecure and offended. They thrive off attention and infamy; deprive them of such and in most cases they will cease to exist and move on somewhere else. Removing them solves close to nothing because they will simply reappear elsewhere and you lose support for the perceived injustice of removing a harassing individual – justified or not. In short, it does not solve the problem."
"But as said earlier, it is nowhere near the largest issue of online communities or discourse. Nor do we consider anonymity an issue. It is an acceptable barrier to allow for the majority, and thanks to ADVENT law we no longer have that as a hurdle. We are more than content enough to allow the anonymity to thrive because if we actually need their identification, we will simply take it."
"The fact is that enforcing identification of large swaths of the Internet is a pipe dream with little to no basis in reality. While it may lead to more accountability and individuals may be more cautious in what they say and post, it deprives us of more than we would gain from it. This anonymity allows dangerous and disruptive individuals to freely express themselves, allowing us to easily find and monitor them. If they became paranoid enough, they would not post at all and we will not be aware of what they are doing – until it is too late, of course. While we certainly have faith in the Peacekeepers to bring any criminal activity to a swift and decisive end – this is the difference between a crime actually being committed, and us learning about it before it can even take place."
"Thanks to this approach, we have been able to infiltrate many private forums with racial supremacist, terrorists, radical political extremists, anti-science groups, and foreign and alien propagandists and more."
"Oh, you want details on how such an operation is conducted? Fair enough, I can provide an example before I continue. The most effective way to remove these undesirables from society is not by banning them outright, but giving them a lifeline and forum to express their idiotic views. I have seen individuals wondering why there are some extremists sites which are untouched – and for the record, it is not because we couldn't remove them, or because we haven't gotten around to them, but because we allow them to exist."
"It's far more useful to remove the majority of the troublesome ones, and keep one or two around. It's trivial to learn who the owners are and deal with them. One of our operatives may assume their identity after performing a full psychological profile of the individual in question. In most cases, we will replace the entire staff with agents who masquerade as these same individuals and draw more like-minded people as a trap."
"From there, it is simply a matter of monitoring and seeing what each user does. Everything they post is logged and monitored, and by default all individuals are already identified and blacklisted the moment they sign up. Highly elegant, and when they finally cross a certain threshold, they receive a visit from the Peacekeepers and that is one less undesirable within ADVENT."
"Am I worried that they'll be more cautious based on what I'm saying? Ha! Absolutely not, and this is because the type of individuals who are attracted to these views are not intelligent. Well, they consider themselves intelligent, but then again, the actual intelligent ones are smart enough to keep their views to themselves. Not to mention they are typically in charge of these little communities – and as such they are quickly arrested and replaced with our own people."
"But I want to get back to the actual topic at hand – the greatest issue of Internet communities. To put it simply, it is polarization, and this problem is perpetuated and enhanced by echo chambers. You have heard of the term, yes?"
"Good, I'd be more surprised if you hadn't. On paper, the concept of communities of people gathering for a specific purpose is perfectly logical. And at the beginning, it is useful and informative. Discourse is high and varied, which is as it should be. However, over time you will see the community slowly fall to adopt one uniform opinion and suppress anything which appears to challenge it."
"This exists most prominently in relation to politics, but has more recently extended to science, news discussion, and even entertainment. Camps are formed, lines are drawn, and communities turn into mouthpieces for specific agendas, individuals and views and not places for discourse or discussion. And if one goes against the prevailing view, they can be easily silenced."
"This leads to polarization, which leads to discord, which leads to division, and finally to hostility with entire sections of the population hating each other not because of any valid reasons, but because the communities they agree with or subscribe to tell them they should. People in general do not think for themselves, and are far more comfortable simply repeating the words of those they feel are more intelligent or educated than they are. This threshold is not high. Speak with authority and some competence on a subject, and you will automatically be granted legitimacy. So when such views are challenged, people do not react rationally."
"The result goes heavily against our goals of a united Humanity. This is simply not something which is acceptable. There are multiple avenues which are considered, including legal requirements, but this is something that simply cannot be done feasibly. Echo chambers ultimately serve no one and heavily damage any sort of serious discourse. However, a solution was found."
"Education is most important, and the more individuals who are exposed to logic and factual arguments the better. However, if it goes against the prevailing view, then it can be hard to gain any traction regardless of quality. Fortunately, we have access to technology and methods which allow us to boost any topic or thread to the top – enough to overcome the suppression often attempted. This is the first step in breaking an echo chamber into something more moderate."
"Yes, sometimes one of our agents will use an account to instigate the process. What is usually found is that when something like that succeeds – it opens the floodgates. Many times the echo chamber intimidates those who hold a different view, but simply refrain from contributing because they fear backlash. So when a contrary view gains prominence – it sends the signal that having a different opinion is ok. And so that starts an organic flood of similar content – with us promoting the contributions of quality."
"This works in the reverse as well. If poorly argued or sourced information is pushed within an echo chamber, we will work to suppress it in the interests of ensuring that those who read the content actually are receiving moderately factual or well-argued information. Lies and disinformation – intentional or not – will never be tolerated or supported by ADVENT and we have no qualms about suppressing such things."
"I feel it important to mention that this is a general and non-discriminatory policy. We're not looking to suppress anti-ADVENT information, nor promote clear and obvious propaganda for us. While those specific individuals have their hearts in the right place, the best propaganda is one which is based in truth. Simply lying about our organization – while flattering – is damaging to our integrity."
"Many communities are not related to ADVENT at all, and relate to science, health, political discussion, economics, and so on. Topics where facts are important and relevant, and discussion should at least attempt to be high-quality. Extremes of viewpoints rarely benefit anyone outside of a small group, and if an individual feels they can express themselves in an open environment without concern for if it will be illegitimately controversial – then we will have succeeded in our objective."
"And what is our objective with this? Well, I would say first and foremost to improve the discourse between individuals of our species in a respectful manner. Humans can make mistakes and get things wrong, but that also means they can learn from it and grow. This can be done constructively and respectfully, and that is the attitude we want to cultivate. That, and ensure that ADVENT citizens are receiving the best possible supporting argument, regardless of who side it might fall under. I do not expect every citizen to agree with each other, nor do I think they should – but at minimum, I want them to understand why someone else might have a different view."
"After all, if we were so close-minded as to remove anyone who questioned what we've done or investigated us, we would have gotten rid of you a long time ago."
- Interview with ADVENT Intelligence Director Elizabeth Falka by Journalist Jessica Wong
A/N: For those of you who haven't seen it, one of my Editors (Ash) has recently wrote some additional material for the series under XCOM Files - Technical Addenda which focuses on specific aspects/research in the story in a much more technical light and detail. Check it out if you've found this series interesting so far.
- Xabiar