4 ms·

This report provides conclusions, not raw data. If you are being honest with your comment, then you are unwittingly committing several logical fallacies: - bu

by idm 10y ago

This report provides conclusions, not raw data. If you are being honest with your comment, then you are unwittingly committing several logical fallacies: - burden of proof: demanding confidential information that will never be provided ensures you will never receive "proof" - moving the goalposts: this report includes several new analyses, but by moving the goalposts it will never be "enough" - straw man: the issue is not restricted to DNC emails; at a minimum it includes manipulation of US social media platforms.

tps5 10y ago
Respectfully, I don't think I'm committing any of those fallacies. -The idea that some information is classified and some isn't is silly. There's just information that you're willing to divulge and information you're unwilling to divulge. I see no reason to assume evidence that would implicate Russia must be so sensitive that the government would never divulge it. -I'm not moving any goalposts. There's only one piece of this puzzle I'm interested in: evidence linking Russia to the leaked emails. I accept that Russia has a broad propaganda network that often attempts to undermine US interests. I don't see that as an extraordinary thing. -See above. I accept the astonishing amount of propaganda. But the emails are the key piece here, and there's no concrete information in this report. I don't dismiss the DNI's claims, I just don't see the extraordinary evidence generally required for extraordinary claims.
- idm 10y ago
  Thanks for your reply - I'm not accusing you of malice. I would love to see more of their raw data. I research social media and I have specifically investigated 2016 US election memes, so those data are extremely interesting to me. However, the DNI PDF states: > This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. So, irrespective of yours or my assessment of what the raw evidence might be like, DNI already stated that they think it's too sensitive. This probably isn't going to change for 10-20 years (which is a common lifespan for classified information) so you've just got to figure out a way to analyze this situation without the specific evidence used to create this report. It doesn't mean there isn't other evidence out there. Like I said: I research social media and I have my own evidence stack. Some of it is here: https://iandennismiller.github.io/election-memes/ https://iandennismiller.github.io/election-memes/ I am considering the events of the past 2 months as "moving the goalposts" - and this isn't a personal thing against you or any individual. Originally, we had statements from certain officials, but that wasn't enough. Then we had consensus among intelligence agencies, but again that's not enough. Then we had a statement from the president, but that's not enough. Now we have this report and it's still not enough. On the straw man, the emails are not the entirety of the DNI argument, so reducing it to that creates the straw man, and dismissing the whole report on the basis of the emails is just how the straw man fallacy works, in practice. I am focused on social media, but you're focused on emails. It's okay to care more about one thing than another, but it is a logical fallacy to dismiss the rest of the report because you're not satisfied with the part you care about. Lastly, I don't think it's extraordinary at all to claim that Russian intelligence managed hundreds of sock puppet accounts across Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, Imgur, Twitter, and other platforms. In fact, I would be shocked to learn that the opposite was true. In fact, none of the claims in the report are extraordinary; it's all extremely plausible. My (sortof expert) opinion is that I think the DNI social media conclusions are plausible.
  - jwtadvice2 10y ago
    > Lastly, I don't think it's extraordinary at all to claim that Russian intelligence managed hundreds of sock puppet accounts across Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, Imgur, Twitter, and other platforms. In fact, I would be shocked to learn that the opposite was true. In fact, none of the claims in the report are extraordinary; it's all extremely plausible. Perfectly agreed. The United States and China also have these sock puppets, as do other countries. I think this is one of the reasons why people get into a tiffy whenever I insist on working with the facts and not US propaganda and rumors. Get accused of being a shill for Greece, Turkey, Russia, China, etc all the time. Social media is swarming with sockpuppets, and now the game has escalated more, with H.R. 5181 passing in NDAA 2017, the Center for Global Engagement will be empowered to experiment with the techniques for social media propaganda developed by DARPA's SMISC program. Don't know if the clock is moving toward midnight, or if just reddit is going to choke on itself.
    - idm 10y ago
      > experiment with the techniques for social media propaganda developed by DARPA's SMISC program. Interesting. I hadn't heard of SMISC - thanks!
  - tps5 10y ago
    I'm totally with you with regard to your general "moving the goalposts" criticism. I know people who first said: "This is a CIA hitjob. The FBI and the NSA will never sign on to these accusations." Of course, now that the NSA has expressed "moderate" confidence and the CIA and FBI have expressed "high confidence" those people have mysteriously found other problems with this narrative. I don't dismiss this report at all. It has solidified my belief in general Russian meddling (paid trolls, RT, propaganda, etc). But, in my opinion, that is old news (in fact, "Annex A" of the report is from 2012). My favorite piece of Russian propaganda is this "satellite photo" of a Ukrainian fighter firing a missile at MH17: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/14/1415993353768_wps_22_Russian_Channel_1_shows_v.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/14/1415993353768_wps_... So, to me, the fact that Russian propaganda is constantly working to discredit the United States isn't an extraordinary thing: I take it for granted. What seems extraordinary to me is the allegation that Russian intelligence leaked the emails through wikileaks and dcleaks. I don't think that claim is implausible and I haven't dismissed it, but I was hoping to see more evidence, that's all. Hopefully I'll be alive in 20 years so when this stuff gets declassified I'll know if I was right or wrong!
- ENOTTY 10y ago
  > I see no reason to assume evidence that would implicate Russia must be so sensitive that the government would never divulge it. This is the source and methods (or what I like to call S&M) debate. Let's say your nephew wants to come out as gay. He tells only his mother. His mother tells you. Now you write on Facebook, "I just learned my nephew is gay. He will always be my nephew and I love him and his courage." Now your nephew knows his mom (your sister) blabbed. This could have a ton of effects on your intelligence gathering network. For example, your sister might not want to tell you anything anymore. You just lost a source. Your nephew, feeling betrayed, might cut his mother out of his life. You just burned a source. These are situations where even revealing judgments could lose sources. In situations where there are multiple sources, it becomes somewhat more difficult for your target to identify the leak, which gives you a larger safety margin. So the question the intelligence agencies and the administration had to answer with this report is, "Are these judgments worth burning sources? If we reveal specific pieces of evidence, which are highly traceable to the original leak, can those sources be burned?" Clearly, they made a call that you found unsatisfactory. But I hope you understand why they made that call.
jwtadvice2 10y ago
Can you share what you thought was the sum of the information about manipulation of US social media platforms? I read most of the report (stopped halfway through the irrelevant RT section), and missed social media.
- idm 10y ago
  I replied elsewhere, but I'm pasting it here too just so our threads connect. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf p. 4: > Russia used trolls as well as RT as part of its influence efforts to denigrate Secretary Clinton. This effort amplified stories on scandals about Secretary Clinton and the role of WikiLeaks in the election campaign. > some social media accounts that appear to be tied to Russia’s professional trolls—because they previously were devoted to supporting Russian actions in Ukraine—started to advocate for President-elect Trump as early as December 2015
  - jwtadvice2 10y ago
    Thanks idm!

by idm 10y ago

tps5 10y ago

Respectfully, I don't think I'm committing any of those fallacies. -The idea that some information is classified and some isn't is silly. There's just information that you're willing to divulge and information you're unwilling to divulge. I see no reason to assume evidence that would implicate Russia must be so sensitive that the government would never divulge it. -I'm not moving any goalposts. There's only one piece of this puzzle I'm interested in: evidence linking Russia to the leaked emails. I accept that Russia has a broad propaganda network that often attempts to undermine US interests. I don't see that as an extraordinary thing. -See above. I accept the astonishing amount of propaganda. But the emails are the key piece here, and there's no concrete information in this report. I don't dismiss the DNI's claims, I just don't see the extraordinary evidence generally required for extraordinary claims.

idm 10y ago
Thanks for your reply - I'm not accusing you of malice. I would love to see more of their raw data. I research social media and I have specifically investigated 2016 US election memes, so those data are extremely interesting to me. However, the DNI PDF states: > This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign. So, irrespective of yours or my assessment of what the raw evidence might be like, DNI already stated that they think it's too sensitive. This probably isn't going to change for 10-20 years (which is a common lifespan for classified information) so you've just got to figure out a way to analyze this situation without the specific evidence used to create this report. It doesn't mean there isn't other evidence out there. Like I said: I research social media and I have my own evidence stack. Some of it is here: https://iandennismiller.github.io/election-memes/ https://iandennismiller.github.io/election-memes/ I am considering the events of the past 2 months as "moving the goalposts" - and this isn't a personal thing against you or any individual. Originally, we had statements from certain officials, but that wasn't enough. Then we had consensus among intelligence agencies, but again that's not enough. Then we had a statement from the president, but that's not enough. Now we have this report and it's still not enough. On the straw man, the emails are not the entirety of the DNI argument, so reducing it to that creates the straw man, and dismissing the whole report on the basis of the emails is just how the straw man fallacy works, in practice. I am focused on social media, but you're focused on emails. It's okay to care more about one thing than another, but it is a logical fallacy to dismiss the rest of the report because you're not satisfied with the part you care about. Lastly, I don't think it's extraordinary at all to claim that Russian intelligence managed hundreds of sock puppet accounts across Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, Imgur, Twitter, and other platforms. In fact, I would be shocked to learn that the opposite was true. In fact, none of the claims in the report are extraordinary; it's all extremely plausible. My (sortof expert) opinion is that I think the DNI social media conclusions are plausible.
- jwtadvice2 10y ago
  > Lastly, I don't think it's extraordinary at all to claim that Russian intelligence managed hundreds of sock puppet accounts across Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, Imgur, Twitter, and other platforms. In fact, I would be shocked to learn that the opposite was true. In fact, none of the claims in the report are extraordinary; it's all extremely plausible. Perfectly agreed. The United States and China also have these sock puppets, as do other countries. I think this is one of the reasons why people get into a tiffy whenever I insist on working with the facts and not US propaganda and rumors. Get accused of being a shill for Greece, Turkey, Russia, China, etc all the time. Social media is swarming with sockpuppets, and now the game has escalated more, with H.R. 5181 passing in NDAA 2017, the Center for Global Engagement will be empowered to experiment with the techniques for social media propaganda developed by DARPA's SMISC program. Don't know if the clock is moving toward midnight, or if just reddit is going to choke on itself.
  - idm 10y ago
    > experiment with the techniques for social media propaganda developed by DARPA's SMISC program. Interesting. I hadn't heard of SMISC - thanks!
- tps5 10y ago
  I'm totally with you with regard to your general "moving the goalposts" criticism. I know people who first said: "This is a CIA hitjob. The FBI and the NSA will never sign on to these accusations." Of course, now that the NSA has expressed "moderate" confidence and the CIA and FBI have expressed "high confidence" those people have mysteriously found other problems with this narrative. I don't dismiss this report at all. It has solidified my belief in general Russian meddling (paid trolls, RT, propaganda, etc). But, in my opinion, that is old news (in fact, "Annex A" of the report is from 2012). My favorite piece of Russian propaganda is this "satellite photo" of a Ukrainian fighter firing a missile at MH17: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/14/1415993353768_wps_22_Russian_Channel_1_shows_v.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/14/1415993353768_wps_... So, to me, the fact that Russian propaganda is constantly working to discredit the United States isn't an extraordinary thing: I take it for granted. What seems extraordinary to me is the allegation that Russian intelligence leaked the emails through wikileaks and dcleaks. I don't think that claim is implausible and I haven't dismissed it, but I was hoping to see more evidence, that's all. Hopefully I'll be alive in 20 years so when this stuff gets declassified I'll know if I was right or wrong!
ENOTTY 10y ago
> I see no reason to assume evidence that would implicate Russia must be so sensitive that the government would never divulge it. This is the source and methods (or what I like to call S&M) debate. Let's say your nephew wants to come out as gay. He tells only his mother. His mother tells you. Now you write on Facebook, "I just learned my nephew is gay. He will always be my nephew and I love him and his courage." Now your nephew knows his mom (your sister) blabbed. This could have a ton of effects on your intelligence gathering network. For example, your sister might not want to tell you anything anymore. You just lost a source. Your nephew, feeling betrayed, might cut his mother out of his life. You just burned a source. These are situations where even revealing judgments could lose sources. In situations where there are multiple sources, it becomes somewhat more difficult for your target to identify the leak, which gives you a larger safety margin. So the question the intelligence agencies and the administration had to answer with this report is, "Are these judgments worth burning sources? If we reveal specific pieces of evidence, which are highly traceable to the original leak, can those sources be burned?" Clearly, they made a call that you found unsatisfactory. But I hope you understand why they made that call.

jwtadvice2 10y ago

Can you share what you thought was the sum of the information about manipulation of US social media platforms? I read most of the report (stopped halfway through the irrelevant RT section), and missed social media.

idm 10y ago
I replied elsewhere, but I'm pasting it here too just so our threads connect. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf p. 4: > Russia used trolls as well as RT as part of its influence efforts to denigrate Secretary Clinton. This effort amplified stories on scandals about Secretary Clinton and the role of WikiLeaks in the election campaign. > some social media accounts that appear to be tied to Russia’s professional trolls—because they previously were devoted to supporting Russian actions in Ukraine—started to advocate for President-elect Trump as early as December 2015
- jwtadvice2 10y ago
  Thanks idm!