So why did The U.S. Marine Corps ban Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and other social media sites?

[Steven G]

"These internet sites in general are a proven haven for malicious actors and content and are particularly high risk due to information exposure, user generated content and targeting by adversaries," reads a Marine Corps order, issued Monday.

"The mechanisms for social networking were never designed for security and filtering. They make it way too easy for people with bad intentions to push malicious code to unsuspecting users," a Stratcom source told Wired.com.

Yet many within the Pentagon's highest ranks find value in the Web 2.0 tools. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has 4,000 followers on Twitter. The Department of Defense is getting ready to unveil a new home page, packed with social media tools. The Army recently ordered all U.S. bases to provide access to Facebook. Top generals now blog from the battlefield.

"OPSEC is paramount. We will have procedures in place to deal with that," Price Floyd, the Pentagon's newly-appointed social media czar, said.

Thanks Czar.

I wonder now.
It just bothers me.. because they can issue a direct order for troops not to divulge whereabouts under pain of court-martial and that would be more effective than cutting off access to the public through media sites like Twitter and Facebook. I mean.. I don't know of anyone in the military who says.. "Hey Mom, come visit me, I'm two clicks north of Kabul."

[carsonmcarson]

So that terrorists don't know where they are or where they are going

[peach]

Cause theyre censoring Pam Toll and you cant have what i cant have!

[Laser]

Because they don't want to risk giving up info like troop movements.

The military has always had a stricter system of discipline than civilian life. That's what makes them so great at what they do. Those social networking systems can cause unforeseen problems. It's not a great burden to the troops.

In fact, I wonder if it's not better that the troops stay away from such things and not be burdened with outside concerns other than doing their jobs so they can get out of there and go home.


"Because by controlling speech, they control thought."

Debatable point--they're trying to lessen distractions as well as minimize security risks.

They're not trying to "control thought"--they're trying to enforce discipline to allow soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen to do jobs that most of us would never even consider doing.




"The military doesn't want independent thinkers in their ranks, they want soldiers who obey orders without reservation."

That's a contemptable statement. The military rewards soldiers who are capable of thinking clearly in crisis situations. One could argue that's the definition of independent thought.

Discipline is key to military life. However, soldiers can disobey an unlawful order--that holds commanders accountable for their actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

They have the JAG corps for a reason--JAG is the Judge Advocate General, or military lawyers.




"So Laser, what would you rather have - a fighting force demoralized by what they have seen on the internet? My point is if they don't see this stuff in the first place, the threat of their effectiveness being diminished becomes less likely."


Guess I misunderstood your post.

I thought you were degrading the soldiers by talking about "controlling thought." That's not really what they do (I don't think). Soldiers agree to join, knowing that they're submitting to authority, so it's kind of a contractual agreement. They agree by joining to submit to military rules and regs, and so I wouldn't classify it as "mind control."

And again, on a 2nd look at your post on "obeying orders without reservation"--I thought you meant that as a dig, that the military was encouraging mindlessness. I think I see now that you meant they want soldiers that can focus on the task at hand. I guess we were saying the same thing.

Hmmm. Who knew.

But I will say this--they do reward soldiers who show initiative in the field, which leads to promotion and such. That's the angle I was coming from.



"It just bothers me.. because they can issue a direct order for troops not to divulge whereabouts under pain of court-martial and that would be more effective than cutting off access to the public through media sites like Twitter and Facebook."

Still, accidental leaks do happen, even to the best and brightest. That's why it's best to take a preventative step. Let them focus on what they need to do, then enjoy internet stuff when they get back home. They still have other ways of contacting loved ones.

[Think 1st]

For the same reasons China did.
Contrary to like mindedness.

[CTR]

wow

[brown9500.v10]

They're germy.

[Dr.T]

Marines are supposed to focus on duty, honor, country, etc., not posting nonsense on websites.

Most of the social media sites are a patent waste of time.

[BabaBright]

Most NFL teams have banned their players for the same reasons. I would think our national security should at least get the same level of secrecy as football game plans.

[Otto]

Honestly, I think the DOD is worried some Jarhead will post or send pictures of some war scene deemed 'inappropriate' by their standards. That's probably all this is, a preemptive measure.