Changing the Conversation: Beware of Psy-Ops in #USSstrike
by Vian Bakir
10pm, 25 March 2018
Officianados of Donald Trump’s Twitter behaviour (@realDonaldTrump) will be well aware of his oft-used tactics of ‘changing the conversation’ online whenever there is a new report that casts further aspersions on his presidency. But what about when this attempt to change the conversation happens more covertly, online, and during crucial moments when communities are trying to reach a political decision (as in elections, referenda or ballots)?
10pm, 25 March 2018
Officianados of Donald Trump’s Twitter behaviour (@realDonaldTrump) will be well aware of his oft-used tactics of ‘changing the conversation’ online whenever there is a new report that casts further aspersions on his presidency. But what about when this attempt to change the conversation happens more covertly, online, and during crucial moments when communities are trying to reach a political decision (as in elections, referenda or ballots)?
#USSstrike
The
University & College Union (UCU)
strike started on 22 February 2018 (and is still ongoing). Strike
action, and action short of a strike, is being taken over a proposed decimation
by Universities UK (UUK) of Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) pensions
(a shift from being Defined Benefit to Defined Contribution). USS is one of the
largest principal private pension
schemes for universities and other higher education institutions in the UK.
The
strike generated a torrent of Twitter reaction from academics across the 64
striking institutions. Indeed, Twitter emerged as a prime site for UCU
academics across the UK to quickly swap information and interpretations about
UUK’s tactics, silences and offers, as well as some universities’ strike-breaking
tactics. It would seem that through Twitter, as well as on the picket lines,
academics shared vital knowledge, organised themselves, even radicalised
themselves and demanded change, as the many flaws of a neo-liberal Higher Education system were
discussed and dissected.
Meanwhile,
the arcane, abstract and complex world of pensions, employers’ attitudes
towards financial risk, actuarial modeling, and university debt, remained hard
for most to grasp. But, rapidly emerging online were a handful of trusted
opinion leaders. These were academics
with a healthy dose of skepticism towards UUK’s position, and who could make
sense of it all: people like @MikeOtsuka, @henryhtapper, @Dennis_Leech and
@felicitycallard. Also rapidly emerging was a crowd-funded legal team, Academics
for Pension Justice (@ForPension), who quickly raised
£50,000 to make a case to take the USS trustees to court.
Evaluating the Offer on Twitter
Quick
to interpret it, and call it out for its many flaws was UCULeft. They
pointed out that the proposal does not prevent employers agreeing to set up an expert panel, and then, when USS’s books are opened, find an even bigger deficit, come
back in a year’s time and then railroad through changes in the scheme. UCULeft
propose that the UCU negotiators should go back to the employers and insist
that they agree that there should be ‘no detriment’ to members as a result of
this new valuation process. Only then, should branch members vote on this
proposal.
Also
quick to pick holes in the proposal was @MikeOtsuka
who pointed out that it completely lacks the transparency needed for a fair
deal. Henry Tapper pointed out the problems that
would arise from any expert panel on this issue. Dennis Leech pointed out why UCU should not leave the USS valuation to the proposed panel of
selected experts. He clarified on Twitter that we need an
actuarial paradigm shift before negotiations begin. Academic Pensions for
Justice (our crowd-funded legal team) suggested that there was not enough detail in the proposal, but
ultimately, they did not think it appropriate for them to tell us how to
interpret it. Felicity Callard (who has been digging into policy documents from
the past few years to understand how university Vice-Chancellors and UUK reached
their position that pensions should become Defined Contribution rather than
Defined Benefits) argued that we must be very wary of their phrasing in their latest proposal,
especially their claim of 'a joint attempt to find fair terms of cooperation to
the mutual advantage of employers & scheme members.'
Within
this swirl of opinion, skepticism and interpretation, one of the opinion
leaders, Michael Otsuka, made a surprising volte face. @MikeOtsuka
tweeted: ‘I've
just written a new blog posted called "Why I now strongly
support the latest USS pension offer". As Twitter’s academic community
read it, they questioned him about its surprising lack of transparency, as he
told us that he had changed his mind due to private assurances that he could
not reveal. People (including me) called on him to elaborate, but at the time of writing this
has been unforthcoming. He has stuck to his position that, like journalists, he
cannot reveal his sources as this would prevent further confidential
information flowing to him.
Changing the Conversation
Meanwhile,
I noticed some strange goings-on on Twitter, that reminded me of older writings
on persuasive communications. Research into mass communications has long
recognised the importance of face-to-face communication in persuading people to
change their views. In one of the first detailed
analyses of why Americans vote and how they come to their political
attachments, Lazarsfeld,
Berelson and Gaudet (1944) describe the
persuasive advantages that personal face-to-face communication has over mass
communication (then, radio and the printed page).
But suppose we do meet people who want to influence us and suppose they
arouse our resistance. Then personal contact still has one great advantage
compared with other media: the face-to-face contact can counter and dislodge
such resistance, for it is much more flexible. The clever campaign worker,
professional or amateur, can make use of a large number of cues to achieve his
end. He can choose the occasion at which to speak to the other fellow. He can
adapt his story to what he presumes to be the other's interests and his ability
to understand. If he notices the other is bored, he can change the subject. If
he sees that he has aroused resistance, he can retreat, giving the other the
satisfaction of a victory, and come back to his point later. If in the course
of the discussion he discovers some pet convictions, he can try to tie up his
argument with them. He can spot the moments when the other is yielding, and so
time his best punches. (Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet 1944: 15)
While writing in the 1940s, the
attributes that Lazarsfeld et al. subscribe to face-to-face communication are
all achievable by today’s digital profiling and targeting. We cannot see the whites of the would-be-persuader’s eyes
(a verification technique used by investigative journalists, apparently, when
evaluating whistleblowers), and this distance may help the online persuaders in
their bid to persuade. After all, they have to hand all of the other tactics
mentioned above, and more (I’m thinking of online targeting techniques here). We
seem to have witnessed attempts to harness this persuasive effect of
conversation in the #USSstrike. But the attempts to change the conversation
have also used tactics from psychological operations online typically conducted by intelligence agencies, and, as recently
revealed in the news, by data/political strategists, Cambridge Analytica.
For
instance, I noticed that an outfit with a Twitter handle (@JusticePension) - curiously
similar to that of our crowd-funded legal team (@ForPension) - had emerged on
Twitter on 17th and 18th March. (This was the day that it
was rumored that UUK had hired a big PR firm to handle their PR in the
#USSstrike.) I noticed that @JusticePension
had acquired a number of academic followers. It is fair to posit that they
could easily be confused (among the torrent of messages that is a typical
Twitter feed) into thinking that this was @ForPension. I noticed that (apart
from one tweet) @JusticePension were only tweeting about the USS strike, and
that since the UUK-UCU recent offer, were strongly urging people to accept this
offer.
I
also noticed that they were intervening in online discussions of those
skeptical of the offer, to try to change the conversation. The example I honed
in on was a conversation by @Skourkos1 casting
doubt on the reasoning for supporting UUK’s proposal presented in @MikeOtsuka’s
volte face. @JusticePension
was countering @Skouris1 with counter-arguments supporting Otsuka’s volte face.
With
my spidey-senses tingling, I tweeted @JusticePension asking
them who, what and why they were. I copied @AlistairJarvis in, for good measure
(CEO of UUK). They didn't reply. So I started DM-ing or tweeting at some of the
academics who were following @JusticePension, asking them if they knew who this
outfit was, and that they were not the same as @ForPension. I only got through to
a couple (and both were grateful that I had pointed this out), when I noticed a
tweet from @Justice Pension, apologising if they had been confused with
@ForPension, and saying that they were immediately altering their profile page
to avoid this. Indeed, they did so within a few hours. Their profile now says:
‘This is not academic pressure group Justice for pensions’. @Justice Pension has
also clarified in a tweet: ‘I am an academic who has been on strike and picket line
EVRY DAY of this strike, for personal reasons I cannot tweet with affiliations.
I am genuinely sorry that there has been confusion between my account and @ForPension .’ Needless to say, the
response from the academic community to this claim has been somewhat skeptical.
Lessons?
Be
careful to whom you respond in your online conversations. Be careful to whom you
listen online. Be careful who you follow online. Be careful what opinions
come to matter to you, especially if you can’t see the whites of your
persuadee’s eyes. Scrutinise all of these things, if you can, and if you can be
bothered. I may be wrong, but as it currently stands, @JusticePension looks like the deployment
of psychological operations, using covert identities/ fake accounts
online (that we’ve got used to hearing about this year regarding allegations of
Russian interference in the US 2016 presidential election). In the USA, such accounts seem to have been designed to
foment outrage online. Here, in the #USSstrike, they seem to be trying to
change the conversation, and at a crucial moment when UCU branches are being
consulted over how to react to the latest UUK-UCU proposal. I imagine that
@JusticePension are not the only suspect account out there.
And @MikeOtsuka
is not the only influential opinion leader on Twitter. Other opinion leaders – please watch out for insiders leaking you compelling material in confidence. Our
pension future relies heavily on whom we most trust to interpret this complex
risk issue, but also whom we most trust has our interests at heart. I urge
transparency all round. Verify, then trust.
References
Lazarsfeld,
Paul F., Berelson, Bernard and Gaudet, Hazel. 1944. The People’s Choice: How a Voter Makes up his Mind in a Presidential
Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
Declaration of Conflict of Interest
I am an academic
directly affected by the proposed changes to the USS pension scheme. I also
write about fake news, intelligence elites, public accountability and risk. I
may therefore be ‘over-sensitised’ and ‘over-sensitive’ to the issues discussed
above. All inaccuracies are my fault, or the fault of my sources – all of whom
have been transparently revealed above.
http://data-psst.bangor.ac.uk
http://data-psst.bangor.ac.uk