A small tool to view real-world ActivityPub objects as JSON! Enter a URL
or username from Mastodon or a similar service below, and we'll send a
request with
the right
Accept
header
to the server to view the underlying object.
{
"@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
"type": "OrderedCollectionPage",
"orderedItems": [
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784783501837471744",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Alex Karp’s defenses of Palantir’s child welfare AI are disingenuous. He falsely claims the technology is neutral and that human judgment remains decisive, ignoring how biased data and opaque algorithms shape decisions, embedding systemic discrimination. Legal safeguards and ethical controls he cites are ineffective or circumvented due to lack of transparency and accountability. His framing of Palantir as a defender against China’s authoritarian AI masks how the company’s platforms facilitate mass surveillance and family disruption domestically, treating vulnerable populations as collateral in geopolitical competition. Karp’s rhetoric deflects criticism, suppresses debate, and preserves corporate power while perpetuating racialized social control and eroding family integrity under the guise of national security.<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784783501837471744",
"published": "2025-06-26T01:32:26+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Alex Karp’s defenses of Palantir’s child welfare AI are disingenuous. He falsely claims the technology is neutral and that human judgment remains decisive, ignoring how biased data and opaque algorithms shape decisions, embedding systemic discrimination. Legal safeguards and ethical controls he cites are ineffective or circumvented due to lack of transparency and accountability. His framing of Palantir as a defender against China’s authoritarian AI masks how the company’s platforms facilitate mass surveillance and family disruption domestically, treating vulnerable populations as collateral in geopolitical competition. Karp’s rhetoric deflects criticism, suppresses debate, and preserves corporate power while perpetuating racialized social control and eroding family integrity under the guise of national security.\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784783501837471744/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784625753699131392",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Coercive federalism is a period of American federalism that began in the late 1960’s. It is characterized by substantial growth in the power of the federal government relative to the states and by the ability of the federal government to override state powers and impose policies on the states. The term refers to the predominant mode of federal-state relations, especially in policy making, and does not exclude elements of cooperative and dual federalism that still operate in the federal system. Coercive federalism has ten significant characteristics.<br /><br />One has been an unprecedented increase of policy conditions attached to grants-in-aid, conditions that enable the federal government to achieve national objectives that lie beyond Congress’s constitutionally enumerated powers and also to extract more spending on federal objectives from state and local governments. An example is the 21-year-old alcoholic-beverage purchase-age condition attached to federal highway aid in 1984. Any state that does not increase the drinking age to 21 will lose up to 10 percent of its federal highway funding per year. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this condition as being non-coercive in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). Only once has the Court struck down a condition of aid as being coercive (in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012).<br /><br />Second, there was a sharp rise in congressional earmarking of specific projects in grants-in-aid, thus denying discretion to state and local officials. The number of earmarks increased from under 2,000 in 1998 to thousands more by 2011. Congress officially prohibited earmarking in 2011 due to public criticism of fiscal wastefulness; however, Congress revived earmarks in 2021.<br /><br />Third, federal aid has shifted substantially from places to persons; that is, almost three-quarters of federal aid is now dedicated for payments to individuals (i.e., social welfare). For example, Medicaid alone accounts for about 65 percent of all federal aid. As a result, place-oriented aid for such functions as infrastructure, economic development, criminal justice, and education has declined steeply, and increased aid for social welfare has locked state budgets into programs subject to rising federal regulation and matching state costs. On average, Medicaid is the single largest category of state spending.<br /><br />Mandates are a fourth characteristic of coercive federalism. Congress enacted one major mandate in 1931, one in 1940, none during 1941–63, nine during 1964–69, twenty-five during the 1970’s, and twenty-seven in the 1980’s. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 sharply cut new expensive unfunded mandate enactments, but did not eliminate standing mandates and new less costly mandates. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Congress enacted 57 intergovernmental mandates in 1997-99, 240 in 2000-09, and 308 in 2010-19.<br /><br />Fifth, federal preemptions of state powers have risen to historically unprecedented levels. From 1970 to 2014, a period of 45 years, Congress enacted 522 explicit preemptions compared to 206 preemptions enacted from 1789 to 1969, a period of 181 years. No post-2014 count is available, but most observers agree that Congress continues to enact large numbers of preemptions. In turn, preemptions are frequently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.<br /><br />A sixth feature of coercive federalism has been federal constraints on [tax competition state taxation and borrowing], beginning especially with the enactment of limits on tax-exempt private activity bonds in 1984. Federal judicial and statutory prohibitions of state taxation of Internet services and sales are among the most prominent, current constraints. National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of Illinois (1967) and Quill v. North Dakota (1992) prohibited states from requiring all out-of-state mail-order vendors to collect state and local sales taxes on purchases made by states’ residents. However, in South Dakota v. Wayfair (2018), the Court opened the door for such taxation. The Internet Tax Freedom Act (2015) permanently bans many forms of state and local taxation of the Internet. The ban had been initiated by temporary legislation in 1998 and renewed periodically. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 limited the state and local government tax deduction for federal taxpayers. This was the first time Congress limited this deduction since enactment of the first federal income-tax in 1862 and today’s income-tax in 1913.<br /><br />A seventh characteristic has been the federalization of state criminal law. There are now more than 4,500 federal criminal offenses, over half of which have been enacted since the mid-1960s. The number of federal prisoners increased from about 20,000 in 1981 to about 226,000 in 2019 after peaking at more than 219,000 in 2013, and the number of federal prosecutors jumped from 1,500 in 1981 to more than 7,000. Generally, federal criminal laws (e.g., drug laws) require longer prison sentences than comparable state laws and make prosecutions and convictions easier than under state laws.<br /><br />Coercive federalism has been marked, as well, by the demise of executive and congressional intergovernmental institutions established during the era of cooperative federalism to enhance cooperation. Most notable was the death of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) in 1996 after thirty-seven years of operation.<br /><br />Ninth, there has been a decline in federal-state cooperation in major grant programs such as Medicaid and surface transportation, with Congress earmarking and altering programs more in response to national and regional interest groups than to elected state and local officials.<br /><br />Tenth, coercive federalism has been marked by unprecedented numbers of federal court orders and large numbers of lawsuits filed against state and local governments in federal courts. Although federal court orders dictating major and costly changes in such institutions as schools, prisons, and mental health facilities have declined since the early 1990’s, state and local governments are subject to high levels of litigation in federal courts, with various interests often trying to block major state policy initiatives through litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court resurrected the Eleventh Amendment in the 1990’s to restrain some types of such litigation, but the Court’s decisions have been quite limited.<br /><br /><a href=\"https://federalism.org/encyclopedia/models-and-theories-of-federalism/coercive-federalism/\" target=\"_blank\">https://federalism.org/encyclopedia/models-and-theories-of-federalism/coercive-federalism/</a>",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784625753699131392",
"published": "2025-06-25T15:05:36+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Coercive federalism is a period of American federalism that began in the late 1960’s. It is characterized by substantial growth in the power of the federal government relative to the states and by the ability of the federal government to override state powers and impose policies on the states. The term refers to the predominant mode of federal-state relations, especially in policy making, and does not exclude elements of cooperative and dual federalism that still operate in the federal system. Coercive federalism has ten significant characteristics.\n\nOne has been an unprecedented increase of policy conditions attached to grants-in-aid, conditions that enable the federal government to achieve national objectives that lie beyond Congress’s constitutionally enumerated powers and also to extract more spending on federal objectives from state and local governments. An example is the 21-year-old alcoholic-beverage purchase-age condition attached to federal highway aid in 1984. Any state that does not increase the drinking age to 21 will lose up to 10 percent of its federal highway funding per year. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this condition as being non-coercive in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). Only once has the Court struck down a condition of aid as being coercive (in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012).\n\nSecond, there was a sharp rise in congressional earmarking of specific projects in grants-in-aid, thus denying discretion to state and local officials. The number of earmarks increased from under 2,000 in 1998 to thousands more by 2011. Congress officially prohibited earmarking in 2011 due to public criticism of fiscal wastefulness; however, Congress revived earmarks in 2021.\n\nThird, federal aid has shifted substantially from places to persons; that is, almost three-quarters of federal aid is now dedicated for payments to individuals (i.e., social welfare). For example, Medicaid alone accounts for about 65 percent of all federal aid. As a result, place-oriented aid for such functions as infrastructure, economic development, criminal justice, and education has declined steeply, and increased aid for social welfare has locked state budgets into programs subject to rising federal regulation and matching state costs. On average, Medicaid is the single largest category of state spending.\n\nMandates are a fourth characteristic of coercive federalism. Congress enacted one major mandate in 1931, one in 1940, none during 1941–63, nine during 1964–69, twenty-five during the 1970’s, and twenty-seven in the 1980’s. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 sharply cut new expensive unfunded mandate enactments, but did not eliminate standing mandates and new less costly mandates. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Congress enacted 57 intergovernmental mandates in 1997-99, 240 in 2000-09, and 308 in 2010-19.\n\nFifth, federal preemptions of state powers have risen to historically unprecedented levels. From 1970 to 2014, a period of 45 years, Congress enacted 522 explicit preemptions compared to 206 preemptions enacted from 1789 to 1969, a period of 181 years. No post-2014 count is available, but most observers agree that Congress continues to enact large numbers of preemptions. In turn, preemptions are frequently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.\n\nA sixth feature of coercive federalism has been federal constraints on [tax competition state taxation and borrowing], beginning especially with the enactment of limits on tax-exempt private activity bonds in 1984. Federal judicial and statutory prohibitions of state taxation of Internet services and sales are among the most prominent, current constraints. National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of Illinois (1967) and Quill v. North Dakota (1992) prohibited states from requiring all out-of-state mail-order vendors to collect state and local sales taxes on purchases made by states’ residents. However, in South Dakota v. Wayfair (2018), the Court opened the door for such taxation. The Internet Tax Freedom Act (2015) permanently bans many forms of state and local taxation of the Internet. The ban had been initiated by temporary legislation in 1998 and renewed periodically. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 limited the state and local government tax deduction for federal taxpayers. This was the first time Congress limited this deduction since enactment of the first federal income-tax in 1862 and today’s income-tax in 1913.\n\nA seventh characteristic has been the federalization of state criminal law. There are now more than 4,500 federal criminal offenses, over half of which have been enacted since the mid-1960s. The number of federal prisoners increased from about 20,000 in 1981 to about 226,000 in 2019 after peaking at more than 219,000 in 2013, and the number of federal prosecutors jumped from 1,500 in 1981 to more than 7,000. Generally, federal criminal laws (e.g., drug laws) require longer prison sentences than comparable state laws and make prosecutions and convictions easier than under state laws.\n\nCoercive federalism has been marked, as well, by the demise of executive and congressional intergovernmental institutions established during the era of cooperative federalism to enhance cooperation. Most notable was the death of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) in 1996 after thirty-seven years of operation.\n\nNinth, there has been a decline in federal-state cooperation in major grant programs such as Medicaid and surface transportation, with Congress earmarking and altering programs more in response to national and regional interest groups than to elected state and local officials.\n\nTenth, coercive federalism has been marked by unprecedented numbers of federal court orders and large numbers of lawsuits filed against state and local governments in federal courts. Although federal court orders dictating major and costly changes in such institutions as schools, prisons, and mental health facilities have declined since the early 1990’s, state and local governments are subject to high levels of litigation in federal courts, with various interests often trying to block major state policy initiatives through litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court resurrected the Eleventh Amendment in the 1990’s to restrain some types of such litigation, but the Court’s decisions have been quite limited.\n\nhttps://federalism.org/encyclopedia/models-and-theories-of-federalism/coercive-federalism/",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784625753699131392/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784610140327796736",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.<br /><br /> There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:<br /><br />The NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.<br /><br />WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. <br /><br />These capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.<br /><br />DARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].<br /><br />The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].<br /><br />RAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].<br /><br />The U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].<br /><br />Testimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].<br /><br />Congressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].<br /><br />Layer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.<br /><br />Collectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (<a href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data</a>)<br />2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (<a href=\"https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/</a>)<br />3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (<a href=\"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/</a>)<br />4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (<a href=\"https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/\" target=\"_blank\">https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/</a>)<br />5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).<br />6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (<a href=\"https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication</a>)<br />7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (<a href=\"https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/\" target=\"_blank\">https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/</a>)<br />8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).<br />9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf</a>)<br />10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/\" target=\"_blank\">https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/</a>)<br />11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).<br />12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (<a href=\"https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html</a>)<br />13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.<br />14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.<br />15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.<br />16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (<a href=\"https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf</a>)<br />17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).<br />18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).<br />19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).<br />20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.<br />21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.<br />22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.<br />23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).<br />24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).<br />25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).<br />26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784610140327796736",
"published": "2025-06-25T14:03:33+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.\n\n There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:\n\nThe NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.\n\nWikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. \n\nThese capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.\n\nDARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].\n\nThe U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].\n\nRAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].\n\nThe U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].\n\nTestimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].\n\nCongressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].\n\nLayer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.\n\nCollectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.\n\nSources:\n\n1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data)\n2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/)\n3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/)\n4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/)\n5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).\n6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication)\n7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/)\n8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).\n9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf)\n10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/)\n11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).\n12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html)\n13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.\n14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.\n15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.\n16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf)\n17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).\n18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).\n19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).\n20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.\n21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.\n22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.\n23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).\n24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).\n25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).\n26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784610140327796736/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784610031846318080",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.<br /><br /> There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:<br /><br />The NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.<br /><br />WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. <br /><br />These capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.<br /><br />DARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].<br /><br />The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].<br /><br />RAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].<br /><br />The U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].<br /><br />Testimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].<br /><br />Congressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].<br /><br />Layer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.<br /><br />Collectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (<a href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data</a>)<br />2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (<a href=\"https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/</a>)<br />3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (<a href=\"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/</a>)<br />4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (<a href=\"https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/\" target=\"_blank\">https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/</a>)<br />5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).<br />6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (<a href=\"https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication</a>)<br />7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (<a href=\"https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/\" target=\"_blank\">https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/</a>)<br />8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).<br />9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf</a>)<br />10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/\" target=\"_blank\">https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/</a>)<br />11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).<br />12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (<a href=\"https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html</a>)<br />13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.<br />14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.<br />15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.<br />16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (<a href=\"https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf</a>)<br />17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).<br />18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).<br />19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).<br />20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.<br />21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.<br />22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.<br />23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).<br />24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).<br />25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).<br />26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784610031846318080",
"published": "2025-06-25T14:03:08+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.\n\n There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:\n\nThe NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.\n\nWikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. \n\nThese capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.\n\nDARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].\n\nThe U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].\n\nRAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].\n\nThe U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].\n\nTestimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].\n\nCongressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].\n\nLayer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.\n\nCollectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.\n\nSources:\n\n1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data)\n2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/)\n3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/)\n4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/)\n5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).\n6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication)\n7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/)\n8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).\n9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf)\n10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/)\n11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).\n12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html)\n13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.\n14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.\n15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.\n16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf)\n17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).\n18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).\n19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).\n20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.\n21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.\n22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.\n23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).\n24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).\n25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).\n26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784610031846318080/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784609959271469056",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.<br /><br /> There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:<br /><br />The NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.<br /><br />WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. <br /><br />These capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.<br /><br />DARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].<br /><br />The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].<br /><br />RAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].<br /><br />The U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].<br /><br />Testimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].<br /><br />Congressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].<br /><br />Layer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.<br /><br />Collectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (<a href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data</a>)<br />2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (<a href=\"https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/</a>)<br />3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (<a href=\"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/</a>)<br />4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (<a href=\"https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/\" target=\"_blank\">https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/</a>)<br />5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).<br />6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (<a href=\"https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication</a>)<br />7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (<a href=\"https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/\" target=\"_blank\">https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/</a>)<br />8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).<br />9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf</a>)<br />10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/\" target=\"_blank\">https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/</a>)<br />11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).<br />12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (<a href=\"https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html</a>)<br />13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.<br />14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.<br />15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.<br />16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (<a href=\"https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf</a>)<br />17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).<br />18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).<br />19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).<br />20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.<br />21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.<br />22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.<br />23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).<br />24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).<br />25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).<br />26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784609959271469056",
"published": "2025-06-25T14:02:50+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.\n\n There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:\n\nThe NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.\n\nWikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. \n\nThese capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.\n\nDARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].\n\nThe U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].\n\nRAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].\n\nThe U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].\n\nTestimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].\n\nCongressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].\n\nLayer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.\n\nCollectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.\n\nSources:\n\n1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data)\n2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/)\n3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/)\n4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/)\n5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).\n6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication)\n7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/)\n8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).\n9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf)\n10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/)\n11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).\n12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html)\n13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.\n14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.\n15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.\n16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf)\n17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).\n18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).\n19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).\n20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.\n21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.\n22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.\n23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).\n24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).\n25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).\n26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784609959271469056/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784609732222017536",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.<br /><br /> There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:<br /><br />The NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.<br /><br />WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. <br /><br />These capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.<br /><br />DARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].<br /><br />The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].<br /><br />RAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].<br /><br />The U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].<br /><br />Testimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].<br /><br />Congressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].<br /><br />Layer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.<br /><br />Collectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (<a href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data</a>)<br />2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (<a href=\"https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/</a>)<br />3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (<a href=\"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/</a>)<br />4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (<a href=\"https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/\" target=\"_blank\">https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/</a>)<br />5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).<br />6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (<a href=\"https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication</a>)<br />7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (<a href=\"https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/\" target=\"_blank\">https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/</a>)<br />8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).<br />9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf</a>)<br />10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/\" target=\"_blank\">https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/</a>)<br />11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).<br />12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (<a href=\"https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html</a>)<br />13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.<br />14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.<br />15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.<br />16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (<a href=\"https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf</a>)<br />17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).<br />18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).<br />19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).<br />20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.<br />21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.<br />22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.<br />23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).<br />24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).<br />25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).<br />26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784609732222017536",
"published": "2025-06-25T14:01:56+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.\n\n There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:\n\nThe NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.\n\nWikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. \n\nThese capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.\n\nDARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].\n\nThe U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].\n\nRAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].\n\nThe U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].\n\nTestimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].\n\nCongressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].\n\nLayer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.\n\nCollectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.\n\nSources:\n\n1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data)\n2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/)\n3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/)\n4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/)\n5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).\n6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication)\n7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/)\n8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).\n9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf)\n10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/)\n11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).\n12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html)\n13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.\n14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.\n15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.\n16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf)\n17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).\n18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).\n19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).\n20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.\n21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.\n22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.\n23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).\n24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).\n25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).\n26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784609732222017536/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784609666823622656",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.<br /><br /> There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:<br /><br />The NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.<br /><br />WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. <br /><br />These capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.<br /><br />DARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].<br /><br />The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].<br /><br />RAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].<br /><br />The U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].<br /><br />Testimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].<br /><br />Congressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].<br /><br />Layer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.<br /><br />Collectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (<a href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data</a>)<br />2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (<a href=\"https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/</a>)<br />3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (<a href=\"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/</a>)<br />4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (<a href=\"https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/\" target=\"_blank\">https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/</a>)<br />5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).<br />6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (<a href=\"https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication</a>)<br />7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (<a href=\"https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/\" target=\"_blank\">https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/</a>)<br />8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).<br />9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf</a>)<br />10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/\" target=\"_blank\">https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/</a>)<br />11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).<br />12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (<a href=\"https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html</a>)<br />13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.<br />14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.<br />15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.<br />16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (<a href=\"https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf</a>)<br />17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).<br />18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).<br />19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).<br />20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.<br />21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.<br />22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.<br />23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).<br />24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).<br />25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).<br />26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784609666823622656",
"published": "2025-06-25T14:01:40+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.\n\n There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:\n\nThe NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.\n\nWikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. \n\nThese capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.\n\nDARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].\n\nThe U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].\n\nRAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].\n\nThe U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].\n\nTestimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].\n\nCongressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].\n\nLayer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.\n\nCollectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.\n\nSources:\n\n1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data)\n2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/)\n3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/)\n4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/)\n5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).\n6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication)\n7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/)\n8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).\n9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf)\n10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/)\n11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).\n12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html)\n13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.\n14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.\n15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.\n16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf)\n17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).\n18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).\n19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).\n20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.\n21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.\n22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.\n23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).\n24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).\n25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).\n26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784609666823622656/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784609589145919488",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.<br /><br /> There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:<br /><br />The NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.<br /><br />WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. <br /><br />These capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.<br /><br />DARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].<br /><br />The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].<br /><br />RAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].<br /><br />The U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].<br /><br />Testimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].<br /><br />Congressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].<br /><br />Layer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.<br /><br />Collectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (<a href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data</a>)<br />2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (<a href=\"https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/</a>)<br />3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (<a href=\"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/</a>)<br />4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (<a href=\"https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/\" target=\"_blank\">https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/</a>)<br />5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).<br />6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (<a href=\"https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication</a>)<br />7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (<a href=\"https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/\" target=\"_blank\">https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/</a>)<br />8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).<br />9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf</a>)<br />10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/\" target=\"_blank\">https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/</a>)<br />11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).<br />12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (<a href=\"https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html</a>)<br />13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.<br />14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.<br />15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.<br />16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (<a href=\"https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf</a>)<br />17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).<br />18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).<br />19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).<br />20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.<br />21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.<br />22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.<br />23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).<br />24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).<br />25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).<br />26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784609589145919488",
"published": "2025-06-25T14:01:22+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.\n\n There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:\n\nThe NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.\n\nWikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. \n\nThese capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.\n\nDARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].\n\nThe U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].\n\nRAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].\n\nThe U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].\n\nTestimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].\n\nCongressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].\n\nLayer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.\n\nCollectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.\n\nSources:\n\n1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data)\n2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/)\n3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/)\n4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/)\n5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).\n6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication)\n7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/)\n8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).\n9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf)\n10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/)\n11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).\n12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html)\n13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.\n14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.\n15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.\n16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf)\n17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).\n18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).\n19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).\n20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.\n21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.\n22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.\n23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).\n24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).\n25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).\n26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784609589145919488/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784609514688634880",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.<br /><br /> There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:<br /><br />The NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.<br /><br />WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. <br /><br />These capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.<br /><br />DARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].<br /><br />The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].<br /><br />RAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].<br /><br />The U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].<br /><br />Testimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].<br /><br />Congressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].<br /><br />Layer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.<br /><br />Collectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (<a href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data</a>)<br />2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (<a href=\"https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/</a>)<br />3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (<a href=\"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/</a>)<br />4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (<a href=\"https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/\" target=\"_blank\">https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/</a>)<br />5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).<br />6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (<a href=\"https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication</a>)<br />7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (<a href=\"https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/\" target=\"_blank\">https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/</a>)<br />8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).<br />9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf</a>)<br />10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/\" target=\"_blank\">https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/</a>)<br />11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).<br />12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (<a href=\"https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html</a>)<br />13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.<br />14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.<br />15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.<br />16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (<a href=\"https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf</a>)<br />17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).<br />18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).<br />19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).<br />20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.<br />21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.<br />22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.<br />23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).<br />24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).<br />25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).<br />26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784609514688634880",
"published": "2025-06-25T14:01:04+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.\n\n There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:\n\nThe NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.\n\nWikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. \n\nThese capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.\n\nDARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].\n\nThe U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].\n\nRAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].\n\nThe U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].\n\nTestimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].\n\nCongressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].\n\nLayer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.\n\nCollectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.\n\nSources:\n\n1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data)\n2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/)\n3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/)\n4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/)\n5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).\n6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication)\n7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/)\n8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).\n9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf)\n10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/)\n11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).\n12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html)\n13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.\n14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.\n15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.\n16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf)\n17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).\n18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).\n19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).\n20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.\n21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.\n22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.\n23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).\n24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).\n25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).\n26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784609514688634880/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784609445712498688",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.<br /><br /> There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:<br /><br />The NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.<br /><br />WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. <br /><br />These capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.<br /><br />DARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].<br /><br />The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].<br /><br />RAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].<br /><br />The U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].<br /><br />Testimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].<br /><br />Congressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].<br /><br />Layer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.<br /><br />Collectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (<a href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data</a>)<br />2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (<a href=\"https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/</a>)<br />3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (<a href=\"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/</a>)<br />4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (<a href=\"https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/\" target=\"_blank\">https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/</a>)<br />5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).<br />6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (<a href=\"https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication</a>)<br />7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (<a href=\"https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/\" target=\"_blank\">https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/</a>)<br />8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).<br />9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf</a>)<br />10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/\" target=\"_blank\">https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/</a>)<br />11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).<br />12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (<a href=\"https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html</a>)<br />13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.<br />14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.<br />15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.<br />16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (<a href=\"https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf</a>)<br />17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).<br />18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).<br />19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).<br />20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.<br />21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.<br />22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.<br />23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).<br />24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).<br />25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).<br />26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784609445712498688",
"published": "2025-06-25T14:00:48+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.\n\n There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:\n\nThe NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.\n\nWikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. \n\nThese capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.\n\nDARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].\n\nThe U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].\n\nRAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].\n\nThe U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].\n\nTestimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].\n\nCongressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].\n\nLayer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.\n\nCollectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.\n\nSources:\n\n1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data)\n2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/)\n3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/)\n4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/)\n5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).\n6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication)\n7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/)\n8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).\n9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf)\n10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/)\n11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).\n12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html)\n13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.\n14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.\n15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.\n16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf)\n17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).\n18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).\n19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).\n20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.\n21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.\n22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.\n23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).\n24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).\n25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).\n26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784609445712498688/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784608347123621888",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.<br /><br /> There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:<br /><br />The NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.<br /><br />WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. <br /><br />These capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.<br /><br />DARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].<br /><br />The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].<br /><br />RAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].<br /><br />The U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].<br /><br />Testimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].<br /><br />Congressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].<br /><br />Layer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.<br /><br />Collectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (<a href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data</a>)<br />2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (<a href=\"https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/</a>)<br />3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (<a href=\"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/</a>)<br />4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (<a href=\"https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/\" target=\"_blank\">https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/</a>)<br />5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).<br />6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (<a href=\"https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication</a>)<br />7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (<a href=\"https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/\" target=\"_blank\">https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/</a>)<br />8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).<br />9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf</a>)<br />10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/\" target=\"_blank\">https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/</a>)<br />11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).<br />12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (<a href=\"https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html</a>)<br />13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.<br />14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.<br />15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.<br />16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (<a href=\"https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf</a>)<br />17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).<br />18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).<br />19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).<br />20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.<br />21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.<br />22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.<br />23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).<br />24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).<br />25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).<br />26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784608347123621888",
"published": "2025-06-25T13:56:26+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.\n\n There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:\n\nThe NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.\n\nWikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. \n\nThese capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.\n\nDARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].\n\nThe U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].\n\nRAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].\n\nThe U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].\n\nTestimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].\n\nCongressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].\n\nLayer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.\n\nCollectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.\n\nSources:\n\n1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data)\n2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/)\n3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/)\n4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/)\n5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).\n6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication)\n7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/)\n8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).\n9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf)\n10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/)\n11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).\n12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html)\n13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.\n14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.\n15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.\n16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf)\n17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).\n18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).\n19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).\n20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.\n21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.\n22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.\n23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).\n24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).\n25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).\n26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784608347123621888/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784608180723802112",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.<br /><br /> There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:<br /><br />The NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.<br /><br />WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. <br /><br />These capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.<br /><br />DARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].<br /><br />The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].<br /><br />RAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].<br /><br />The U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].<br /><br />Testimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].<br /><br />Congressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].<br /><br />Layer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.<br /><br />Collectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (<a href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data</a>)<br />2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (<a href=\"https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/</a>)<br />3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (<a href=\"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/</a>)<br />4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (<a href=\"https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/\" target=\"_blank\">https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/</a>)<br />5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).<br />6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (<a href=\"https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication</a>)<br />7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (<a href=\"https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/\" target=\"_blank\">https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/</a>)<br />8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).<br />9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf</a>)<br />10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/\" target=\"_blank\">https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/</a>)<br />11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).<br />12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (<a href=\"https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html</a>)<br />13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.<br />14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.<br />15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.<br />16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (<a href=\"https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf</a>)<br />17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).<br />18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).<br />19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).<br />20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.<br />21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.<br />22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.<br />23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).<br />24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).<br />25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).<br />26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784608180723802112",
"published": "2025-06-25T13:55:46+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.\n\n There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:\n\nThe NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.\n\nWikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. \n\nThese capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.\n\nDARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].\n\nThe U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].\n\nRAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].\n\nThe U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].\n\nTestimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].\n\nCongressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].\n\nLayer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.\n\nCollectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.\n\nSources:\n\n1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data)\n2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/)\n3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/)\n4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/)\n5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).\n6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication)\n7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/)\n8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).\n9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf)\n10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/)\n11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).\n12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html)\n13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.\n14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.\n15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.\n16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf)\n17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).\n18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).\n19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).\n20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.\n21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.\n22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.\n23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).\n24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).\n25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).\n26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784608180723802112/activity"
},
{
"type": "Create",
"actor": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"object": {
"type": "Note",
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784608042310963200",
"attributedTo": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408",
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.<br /><br /> There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:<br /><br />The NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.<br /><br />WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. <br /><br />These capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.<br /><br />DARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].<br /><br />The U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].<br /><br />RAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].<br /><br />The U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].<br /><br />Testimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].<br /><br />Congressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].<br /><br />Layer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.<br /><br />Collectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br />1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (<a href=\"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data</a>)<br />2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (<a href=\"https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/</a>)<br />3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (<a href=\"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/\" target=\"_blank\">https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/</a>)<br />4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (<a href=\"https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/\" target=\"_blank\">https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/</a>)<br />5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).<br />6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (<a href=\"https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication</a>)<br />7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (<a href=\"https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/\" target=\"_blank\">https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/</a>)<br />8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).<br />9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf</a>)<br />10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (<a href=\"https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/\" target=\"_blank\">https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/</a>)<br />11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).<br />12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (<a href=\"https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html</a>)<br />13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.<br />14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.<br />15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.<br />16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (<a href=\"https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf</a>)<br />17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).<br />18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).<br />19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).<br />20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.<br />21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.<br />22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.<br />23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).<br />24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).<br />25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).<br />26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).<br />",
"to": [
"https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"
],
"cc": [
"https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/followers"
],
"tag": [],
"url": "https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1784608042310963200",
"published": "2025-06-25T13:55:13+00:00",
"source": {
"content": "Microtargeting began in political campaigns and has evolved into a covert U.S. military and intelligence tool designed to fracture trust within personal networks through precise psychological disruption. It operates through layers including personalized messaging based on detailed psychological profiles, injection of narratives, coordinated multi-platform campaigns, attention traps, mental isolation, behavioral nudges, and emotional manipulation. If targets resist these methods, the power structure escalates to surveillance, harassment, false accusations, institutional coercion, physical incapacitation, social and network isolation, and ultimately lethal or extrajudicial neutralization. These practices are supported by documented military manuals, government reports, intelligence leaks, and counterinsurgency frameworks, revealing a comprehensive, multi-modal system of domestic control and suppression.\n\n There is substantial, credible evidence that microtargeting and digital influence operations are used on Americans:\n\nThe NSA’s XKeyscore program operates as a global-scale surveillance system that collects and indexes virtually all internet activity of targeted individuals, including emails, social media posts, browsing histories, and search queries. According to The Guardian (2013), XKeyscore enables analysts to conduct real-time searches across multiple databases without prior authorization, capturing metadata and content with no geographic or citizenship restrictions \\[1]. Wired’s analysis of leaked XKeyscore source code (2014) revealed automatic tagging of users who visit privacy-focused services such as Tor or read content from sites like Linux Journal, flagging them as potential “extremists” and escalating their surveillance and data retention indefinitely \\[2]. This infrastructure facilitates behavioral profiling by aggregating data points such as keystroke timing, language usage, and device identifiers to create detailed psychological and social maps for microtargeting.\n\nWikiLeaks’ Vault 7 (2017) exposes a comprehensive suite of CIA cyber tools designed for offensive cyber operations. These include malware capable of infiltrating smartphones, computers, and IoT devices to covertly record audio, video, and keystrokes \\[3]. Notably, tools such as “Weeping Angel” transform Samsung smart TVs into listening devices, while “Fine Dining” catalogs exploits tailored for various device models, enabling precise insertion or modification of content in messaging apps \\[4]\\[5]. \n\nThese capabilities allow the CIA to inject false or manipulated messages directly into private communications, enabling influence operations at the individual conversation level and facilitating psychological manipulation by controlling message framing and timing.\n\nDARPA’s Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program, publicly funded at \\$35 million, conducted large-scale mining and analysis of social media data to identify emergent propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and shifts in public sentiment. The program developed advanced AI tools capable of real-time sentiment analysis, network mapping, and adaptive messaging strategies \\[6]\\[7]. SMISC’s algorithms can detect viral narratives and predict influence vectors, enabling operators to deploy hyper-personalized digital content designed to exploit cognitive biases and social vulnerabilities, directly supporting microtargeting tactics that bypass traditional media gatekeepers \\[8].\n\nThe U.S. Army’s Field Manual 3-13 (2014) codifies the doctrine for Information Operations and Psychological Operations (PSYOP), authorizing the use of digital platforms to conduct “Inform and Influence Activities” domestically and abroad \\[9]. The manual emphasizes integrating messaging campaigns across social media, online forums, and communication apps to influence perceptions and behaviors of targeted populations. Texas National Security Review’s 2023 study documents doctrinal evolution that explicitly includes AI-enhanced targeting within domestic populations, linking information operations to social media surveillance and behavior modification programs \\[10]\\[11].\n\nRAND Corporation’s 2021 report on Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations confirms that AI technologies are deeply integrated into U.S. government influence campaigns, enabling real-time audience segmentation, predictive behavior modeling, and continuous optimization of message content \\[12]\\[13]. The report details techniques such as reinforcement learning algorithms that adapt messaging strategies dynamically based on user engagement metrics, psychological profile inference, and network topology analysis, creating a feedback loop that maximizes cognitive and emotional impact \\[14]. These capabilities extend influence operations beyond foreign adversaries, actively targeting U.S. citizens for behavioral shaping \\[15].\n\nThe U.S. Secret Service’s 2023 “Microtargeting Unmasked” report acknowledges AI-driven psychological influence tools employed against individuals and their social networks through private digital communication channels \\[16]\\[17]. It highlights the use of machine learning models analyzing communication metadata, social graph structures, and relational dynamics to craft targeted disinformation and relational disruption campaigns. The report signals operational deployment domestically, describing influence strategies designed to undermine interpersonal trust and social cohesion within communities, though it withholds operational specifics citing security concerns \\[18].\n\nTestimonies from former NSA and CIA contractors, including whistleblowers from 2018 through 2023, corroborate these findings, describing active deployment of AI-enabled microtargeting systems capable of penetrating encrypted messaging apps such as Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram \\[19]\\[20]. These insiders detail techniques for behavioral data harvesting, real-time content injection, and psychological profile exploitation, aligning with documented capabilities in Vault 7 and XKeyscore leaks \\[21]. Cybersecurity experts and digital rights organizations further confirm government use of algorithmic influence campaigns to suppress dissent and manipulate public opinion at scale within U.S. borders \\[22]\\[23].\n\nCongressional hearings in 2019 and 2022 revealed classified briefings on military psychological operations incorporating AI microtargeting, confirming institutional prioritization of these capabilities within defense and intelligence strategies \\[24]\\[25]. Policy analyses emphasize the absence of robust legal frameworks or oversight mechanisms governing domestic AI-powered influence operations, raising urgent concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and democratic integrity \\[26].\n\nLayer 1: Behavioral Neutralization – Uses emotional disarmament, self-doubt, and narrative control to prevent adversarial transformation. Layer 2: Relational Disruption – Deploys family, friends, or social structures to isolate, betray, or discredit the target through social pressure. Layer 3: Legal and Algorithmic Sabotage – Uses false investigations, shadow bans, gag orders, or procedural abuse to apply legal pressure without prosecution. Layer 4: Covert Soft-Dismantling – Applies sustained life disruption through defunding, bureaucratic blockades, eviction, or blacklisting. Layer 5: Displacement and Redirection – Hijacks your language and style through controlled opposition or diluted clones to bury your signal. Layer 6: Internalized Sabotage – Inserts agents or triggers within your operation to cause confusion, burnout, and misfires while posing as support. Layer 7: Induced Self-Invalidation – Feeds you compromised data or unverifiable leaks, leading you to discredit your own archive. Layer 8: Legacy Containment – Predesigns your historical narrative to label you fringe, bury your impact, and divert legitimate inquiry. Layer 9: Institutional Weaponization – Uses your archive as justification for increased surveillance or AI training to suppress future threats. Layer 10: Total Historical Erasure – Eliminates all records, authorship, digital memory, and cultural trace, rendering you nonexistent in the historical record.\n\nCollectively, these highly detailed, independently verified sources confirm that U.S. intelligence and military institutions maintain comprehensive, AI-enhanced microtargeting infrastructures operating within the domestic digital environment. These systems extend well beyond surveillance into active, algorithmically optimized psychological operations that manipulate individual beliefs, fracture social trust, and engineer behavioral outcomes with unprecedented precision. The full scope of these operations and their societal impact remain largely opaque and unregulated.\n\nSources:\n\n1. The Guardian. (2013). NSA’s XKeyscore Program. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data)\n2. Wired. (2014). The NSA Is Targeting Users of Privacy Services, Leaked Code Shows. (https://www.wired.com/2014/07/nsa-targets-users-of-privacy-services/)\n3. WikiLeaks. (2017). Vault 7 CIA Leaks. (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/)\n4. The Intercept. (2017). CIA Hacking Tools Turn Samsung TVs Into Microphones. (https://theintercept.com/2017/03/07/cia-vault-7-smart-tv-spying/)\n5. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Technical Documentation (2017).\n6. DARPA. Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC). (https://www.darpa.mil/program/social-media-in-strategic-communication)\n7. Time. (2014). U.S. Military Sends Scouting Party Into the Twitterverse. (https://time.com/2970720/u-s-military-sends-scouting-party-into-the-twitterverse/)\n8. DARPA Research Publications on Computational Propaganda (2015-2017).\n9. U.S. Army. (2014). Field Manual 3-13: Information Operations. (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-13.pdf)\n10. Texas National Security Review. (2023). The Organizational Determinants of Military Doctrine: A History of Army Information Operations. (https://tnsr.org/2023/01/the-organizational-determinants-of-military-doctrine-a-history-of-army-information-operations/)\n11. Department of Defense Directive on Psychological Operations (2012).\n12. RAND Corporation. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Influence Operations. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA111-4.html)\n13. RAND. (2021). AI-Powered Audience Segmentation and Behavioral Prediction in Psychological Warfare.\n14. RAND. (2020). Adaptive Messaging via Reinforcement Learning in Influence Operations.\n15. RAND. (2021). Domestic Applications of Psychological Operations.\n16. U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Microtargeting Unmasked. (https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/asu-tc-micro-targeting-report_final.pdf)\n17. U.S. Secret Service Technical Annex on AI Influence Tactics (2023).\n18. U.S. Secret Service Internal Briefings on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2023).\n19. Former NSA and CIA Contractor Testimonies on AI Microtargeting (2018-2023).\n20. Digital Rights Watch. (2022). Government Use of Algorithmic Influence Tools.\n21. WikiLeaks Vault 7 Corroborated by Insider Accounts.\n22. Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2021). Government Surveillance and Influence Operations.\n23. Cybersecurity Expert Reports on Domestic Influence Campaigns (2020-2022).\n24. Congressional Hearings on Military Psychological Operations (2019).\n25. Congressional Intelligence Oversight Hearings (2022).\n26. Legal and Ethical Analyses of AI Influence Operations (2023).\n",
"mediaType": "text/plain"
}
},
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/entities/urn:activity:1784608042310963200/activity"
}
],
"id": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/outbox",
"partOf": "https://www.minds.com/api/activitypub/users/1776883201894801408/outboxoutbox"
}