7 ms·

Google shuts YouTube channel implicated in Kremlin political propaganda ops

58 points by doppp 9y ago

mushinron4 9y ago
"Hey, Alexei, activate account number two"!
- bolololo12 9y ago
  "Hey Sasha, niet problema I'll ask Kaspersky Lab to help us with this one"
sschueller 9y ago
Will Google shut down all the USA [1] propaganda channels as well? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
- arrrg 9y ago
  VOA is not covert and its intentions are quite clear. This equivocation makes no sense.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    On the other hands, tons of "NGO"s, foreign journalists, parties, etc sponsored under the table and over the table by various agencies, think tanks, etc, are indeed covert.
- misleading 9y ago
  That's the American equivalent to RT, neither of which is in dispute. The channel mentioned in TFA features black actors pretending to be american aimed at discrediting political opponents of Russia and inciting racial conflict to sow instability among Americans. That's not censorship of an alternative viewpoint: this is unambiguously hateful propaganda.
  - cremno 9y ago
    >discrediting political opponents [...] and inciting racial conflict to sow instability among Americans Your mass media/ruling class does that too (especially on the political right). And they have much more influence than some largely unknown YT channel allegedly backed by Russia.
    - aluhut 9y ago
      > And they have much more influence than some largely unknown YT channel allegedly backed by Russia. How about RT? They play in the same conspiracy league though RT reaches far more people since they air the same agenda in different western countries and languages.
bolololo12 9y ago
when will they shut down Russia Today?
- saalweachter 9y ago
  I would note there is a bit of a difference between something called "Russia Today" (or Voice of America) and something purporting to be grassroots activism. If you want to trust clearly labeled foreign news, whether it's Russia Today or Voice of America or the BBC, you're at least making a semi-informed decision.
hasenj 9y ago
So, Russia influenced the election by having two black men run a YouTube channel?
- redblacktree 9y ago
  Among other things, yes.
  - neuronexmachina 9y ago
    Yup. This was just one channel among many, following the Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" approach to propaganda. It used the same DDoS-like approach during it's incursion into Georgia and annexation of Crimea. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html > The Russian propaganda model is high-volume and multichannel, and it disseminates messages without regard for the truth. It is also rapid, continuous, and repetitive, and it lacks commitment to consistency. Although these techniques would seem to run counter to the received wisdom for successful information campaigns, research in psychology supports many of the most successful aspects of the model. Furthermore, the very factors that make the firehose of falsehood effective also make it difficult to counter.
    - hasenj 9y ago
      If the US was doing the same thing on a global scale, how would we know? We'd probably be entirely under its influence. We would see certain falsehoods as self-evident facts, because every source we try to read or research, more or less confirms the propaganda.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - neuronexmachina 9y ago
        The distinguishing feature is that the claims are provably false, but the sheer quantity and repetition of claims overwhelms the ability to debunk them. The current US administration actually has quite a few examples of this, but it's arguable whether it's due to incompetence or malice. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/stateme...
zeep 9y ago
If they would shutdown all news channels that sometime distribute "propaganda", there would not be many left...
- aluhut 9y ago
  Sure, but only if your definition of "propaganda" is completely useless.
  - hasenj 9y ago
    So you think that there are a lot of honest media channels that never ran propaganda pieces, not even once!
    - aluhut 9y ago
      No, I just think you have no idea what propaganda is since you've probably never witnessed it. Otherwise you would be careful with those superlatives you throw around here.
      - hasenj 9y ago
        I know exactly what it looks like, as I've lived under two different third world dictatorships for several years. It looks like this: everyone repeating the exact same narrative, broadcast everywhere, to the point where it's taken for granted, and anyone who dares point out other possibilities is immediately ostracized and shamed.
bestest 9y ago
Will they shut down the Russian YouTube offices, which are overrun by the same Kremlin propagandists, wrecking havoc on Russian Youtube (shutting down opposition videos etc)?
- kushti 9y ago
  What are you talking about? Do you have credible links?
  - bestest 9y ago
    Of course I have no proof, but there are links, and this is one of them: http://www.bbc.com/russian/news-40674508 http://www.bbc.com/russian/news-40674508, which you can use as a point of reference. The Russian net is talking about it (on youtube, on twitter, on VK etc), but no one has proof — if there was proof, it would be scandalous. Thus it's just common knowledge.
enord 9y ago
This is only suprising (or outrageous) under the assumption that we live in a global civil rights society. Only commerce is more or less global because it directly serves the interests of states around the world. Is normal.
readhn 9y ago
"..although the videos did not gain significant traction .. only garnered “hundreds” of views prior to the channel being closed (vs the pair’s Facebook page having ~48,000 fans before it was closed, and videos uploaded there racking up “thousands” of views)." really hundreds of likes and thousands of views are going to have any impact on the election? Come on! Show us the money, i want to see proof of some real money (millions of dollars channeled in) before i buy this whole "Russia backed" story. Not some pocket change lunch money and a couple of guys (are they even real?). They are basically saying i can sell an average home and use that money to influence the results of the American elections. Complete BS.
- sschueller 9y ago
  If 100k is all it took to win an election then facebook must be the best advertising that money can buy. Why even run TV ads? :)
  - aluhut 9y ago
    To be sure the TV stations will be thankful for your money and to reach all the old people?
- aluhut 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure that it never is one thing. However if you have a US president who is knee deep in Russia and several accounts here and there, RT, subreddits, twitter bots who also support Russian policies, doesn't that make you think a bit? You are taking one (obviously failed) campaign and act like it's all while ignoring the whole picture that is evolving around this presidency. This looks...weird.
  - readhn 9y ago
    i would like to see them expose a real money channel if there is one. Why cant they do that? Real names, real money and banks involved. Not 2 ghosts with a failed youtube channel. ....you know what nobody cares though. Average intelligence of an American citizen is pretty low so they will buy any story they are fed.
creaghpatr 9y ago
>The content appeared intended for an African-American audience, although the videos did not gain significant traction on YouTube, according to The Daily Beast, which said they had only garnered “hundreds” of views prior to the channel being closed (vs the pair’s Facebook page having ~48,000 fans before it was closed, and videos uploaded there racking up “thousands” of views). Hundreds of views? For the whole channel, huh? Not sure what their distribution targets were but they sure failed to meet them. And they (presumably) shared these videos on their 48k fan facebook page, yet the videos only managed to get "thousands" of views? Hope they didn't have that Kremlin ad spend behind them because those numbers are pitiful. >And their content was pulled from Facebook back in August after being identified as Russian-backed propaganda, according to the Daily Beast’s sources. I think it would be helpful for community moderators everywhere, including Hacker News, to understand how they were identified as Russian-backed propaganda.
- aluhut 9y ago
  > And they (presumably) shared these videos on their 48k fan facebook page, yet the videos only managed to get "thousands" of views? Hope they didn't have that Kremlin ad spend behind them because those numbers are pitiful. Wasn't the main aim for the facbook network to host Ads? I've read somewhere that they reached millions with that. > I think it would be helpful for community moderators everywhere, including Hacker News, to understand how they were identified as Russian-backed propaganda. The most obvious would be the content. You can just turn on the still existing propaganda channels like Russia Today to compare the content.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >The most obvious would be the content. You can just turn on the still existing propaganda channels like Russia Today to compare the content. So, like, anything not agreeing with the mainstream US opinion on things?
    - aluhut 9y ago
      > So, like, anything not agreeing with the mainstream US opinion on things? No, however such narrow view of the world as you demonstrate here would cause suspicions. Edit: Pinochet? What has he to do with the current situation today? Are you so desperate that you have to reach 40 years back? What youtube channels were involved back then?
coldtea 9y ago
Which shows why China (corrupt/autocratic ruling elite or not) feels a need to control its own internet/web -- and would still would be justified to feel that need even if it was a perfect democracy. Because when country X runs the most/biggest internet properties, then X country's propaganda ops can run uninterrupted on all of its-owned/run web players and services spanning the globe, but other countries' political propaganda can be stopped at any time. Now, if you're in the side which owns the most/biggest internet properties, then you'll probably feel there's no problem with this imbalance -- nor would you find any reason to control your own internet. That's because, since all the big players are yours, the global internet is "your own internet" anyway. Plus it's not like your citizens are ever going to venture that far of your national services for alternative news sources. Heck, it's not even like your domestic alternative news sources are much popular, the vast majority is fed 2 partisan shades of the same BS. And because facts are facts, it gets worse when one side get to unilaterally control and mark as "political propaganda ops" not just actual political propaganda ops, but facts too for everybody concerned. Especially since, whether you're in country X or another, if you never venture outside of mainstream media (of whatever political persuasion), you'll also tend to find your country's propaganda ops as just neutral reporting. After all, that's what your own media tells you 24/7, what your "neutral" official history books say, etc.
alexc05 9y ago
I saw this on Rachel Maddow this morning. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/us-tech-giants-oddly-unhelpful-on-russia-1067167299819 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/us-tech-giants-oddl... Near as she can tell, they live in Nigeria (though I don't think she's actually been able to back that up). She also digs into a number of the other accounts that did this. The "I love Texas" twitter account was another one that seemed pretty egregious. For example encouraging armed revolt if hillary wins. Switching their account-name and branding to "Secede if Hilary Win" days before the election to make it LOOK like their followers were ALWAYS in favor of extreme political action. This stuff is pretty dark.
golemotron 9y ago
Many companies play up the pretense that they are 'global' corporations. There are only nations. Google is a US corporation. A global corporation would not pay this much attention to the influence of a single nation or it would pay more attention to all of them.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
So Google is censoring again. It's not extremist. It's not violent. Why does it need censorship? What will they label and censor as "propaganda" next?

58 points by doppp 9y ago

mushinron4 9y ago

"Hey, Alexei, activate account number two"!

bolololo12 9y ago
"Hey Sasha, niet problema I'll ask Kaspersky Lab to help us with this one"

sschueller 9y ago

Will Google shut down all the USA [1] propaganda channels as well? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America

arrrg 9y ago
VOA is not covert and its intentions are quite clear. This equivocation makes no sense.
- coldtea 9y ago
  On the other hands, tons of "NGO"s, foreign journalists, parties, etc sponsored under the table and over the table by various agencies, think tanks, etc, are indeed covert.
misleading 9y ago
That's the American equivalent to RT, neither of which is in dispute. The channel mentioned in TFA features black actors pretending to be american aimed at discrediting political opponents of Russia and inciting racial conflict to sow instability among Americans. That's not censorship of an alternative viewpoint: this is unambiguously hateful propaganda.
- cremno 9y ago
  >discrediting political opponents [...] and inciting racial conflict to sow instability among Americans Your mass media/ruling class does that too (especially on the political right). And they have much more influence than some largely unknown YT channel allegedly backed by Russia.
  - aluhut 9y ago
    > And they have much more influence than some largely unknown YT channel allegedly backed by Russia. How about RT? They play in the same conspiracy league though RT reaches far more people since they air the same agenda in different western countries and languages.

bolololo12 9y ago

when will they shut down Russia Today?

saalweachter 9y ago
I would note there is a bit of a difference between something called "Russia Today" (or Voice of America) and something purporting to be grassroots activism. If you want to trust clearly labeled foreign news, whether it's Russia Today or Voice of America or the BBC, you're at least making a semi-informed decision.

hasenj 9y ago

So, Russia influenced the election by having two black men run a YouTube channel?

redblacktree 9y ago
Among other things, yes.
- neuronexmachina 9y ago
  Yup. This was just one channel among many, following the Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" approach to propaganda. It used the same DDoS-like approach during it's incursion into Georgia and annexation of Crimea. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html > The Russian propaganda model is high-volume and multichannel, and it disseminates messages without regard for the truth. It is also rapid, continuous, and repetitive, and it lacks commitment to consistency. Although these techniques would seem to run counter to the received wisdom for successful information campaigns, research in psychology supports many of the most successful aspects of the model. Furthermore, the very factors that make the firehose of falsehood effective also make it difficult to counter.
  - hasenj 9y ago
    If the US was doing the same thing on a global scale, how would we know? We'd probably be entirely under its influence. We would see certain falsehoods as self-evident facts, because every source we try to read or research, more or less confirms the propaganda.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - neuronexmachina 9y ago
      The distinguishing feature is that the claims are provably false, but the sheer quantity and repetition of claims overwhelms the ability to debunk them. The current US administration actually has quite a few examples of this, but it's arguable whether it's due to incompetence or malice. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/stateme...

zeep 9y ago

If they would shutdown all news channels that sometime distribute "propaganda", there would not be many left...

aluhut 9y ago
Sure, but only if your definition of "propaganda" is completely useless.
- hasenj 9y ago
  So you think that there are a lot of honest media channels that never ran propaganda pieces, not even once!
  - aluhut 9y ago
    No, I just think you have no idea what propaganda is since you've probably never witnessed it. Otherwise you would be careful with those superlatives you throw around here.
    - hasenj 9y ago
      I know exactly what it looks like, as I've lived under two different third world dictatorships for several years. It looks like this: everyone repeating the exact same narrative, broadcast everywhere, to the point where it's taken for granted, and anyone who dares point out other possibilities is immediately ostracized and shamed.

bestest 9y ago

Will they shut down the Russian YouTube offices, which are overrun by the same Kremlin propagandists, wrecking havoc on Russian Youtube (shutting down opposition videos etc)?

kushti 9y ago
What are you talking about? Do you have credible links?
- bestest 9y ago
  Of course I have no proof, but there are links, and this is one of them: http://www.bbc.com/russian/news-40674508 http://www.bbc.com/russian/news-40674508, which you can use as a point of reference. The Russian net is talking about it (on youtube, on twitter, on VK etc), but no one has proof — if there was proof, it would be scandalous. Thus it's just common knowledge.

enord 9y ago

This is only suprising (or outrageous) under the assumption that we live in a global civil rights society. Only commerce is more or less global because it directly serves the interests of states around the world. Is normal.

readhn 9y ago

"..although the videos did not gain significant traction .. only garnered “hundreds” of views prior to the channel being closed (vs the pair’s Facebook page having ~48,000 fans before it was closed, and videos uploaded there racking up “thousands” of views)." really hundreds of likes and thousands of views are going to have any impact on the election? Come on! Show us the money, i want to see proof of some real money (millions of dollars channeled in) before i buy this whole "Russia backed" story. Not some pocket change lunch money and a couple of guys (are they even real?). They are basically saying i can sell an average home and use that money to influence the results of the American elections. Complete BS.

sschueller 9y ago
If 100k is all it took to win an election then facebook must be the best advertising that money can buy. Why even run TV ads? :)
- aluhut 9y ago
  To be sure the TV stations will be thankful for your money and to reach all the old people?
aluhut 9y ago
I'm pretty sure that it never is one thing. However if you have a US president who is knee deep in Russia and several accounts here and there, RT, subreddits, twitter bots who also support Russian policies, doesn't that make you think a bit? You are taking one (obviously failed) campaign and act like it's all while ignoring the whole picture that is evolving around this presidency. This looks...weird.
- readhn 9y ago
  i would like to see them expose a real money channel if there is one. Why cant they do that? Real names, real money and banks involved. Not 2 ghosts with a failed youtube channel. ....you know what nobody cares though. Average intelligence of an American citizen is pretty low so they will buy any story they are fed.

creaghpatr 9y ago

>The content appeared intended for an African-American audience, although the videos did not gain significant traction on YouTube, according to The Daily Beast, which said they had only garnered “hundreds” of views prior to the channel being closed (vs the pair’s Facebook page having ~48,000 fans before it was closed, and videos uploaded there racking up “thousands” of views). Hundreds of views? For the whole channel, huh? Not sure what their distribution targets were but they sure failed to meet them. And they (presumably) shared these videos on their 48k fan facebook page, yet the videos only managed to get "thousands" of views? Hope they didn't have that Kremlin ad spend behind them because those numbers are pitiful. >And their content was pulled from Facebook back in August after being identified as Russian-backed propaganda, according to the Daily Beast’s sources. I think it would be helpful for community moderators everywhere, including Hacker News, to understand how they were identified as Russian-backed propaganda.

aluhut 9y ago
> And they (presumably) shared these videos on their 48k fan facebook page, yet the videos only managed to get "thousands" of views? Hope they didn't have that Kremlin ad spend behind them because those numbers are pitiful. Wasn't the main aim for the facbook network to host Ads? I've read somewhere that they reached millions with that. > I think it would be helpful for community moderators everywhere, including Hacker News, to understand how they were identified as Russian-backed propaganda. The most obvious would be the content. You can just turn on the still existing propaganda channels like Russia Today to compare the content.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >The most obvious would be the content. You can just turn on the still existing propaganda channels like Russia Today to compare the content. So, like, anything not agreeing with the mainstream US opinion on things?
  - aluhut 9y ago
    > So, like, anything not agreeing with the mainstream US opinion on things? No, however such narrow view of the world as you demonstrate here would cause suspicions. Edit: Pinochet? What has he to do with the current situation today? Are you so desperate that you have to reach 40 years back? What youtube channels were involved back then?

coldtea 9y ago

Which shows why China (corrupt/autocratic ruling elite or not) feels a need to control its own internet/web -- and would still would be justified to feel that need even if it was a perfect democracy. Because when country X runs the most/biggest internet properties, then X country's propaganda ops can run uninterrupted on all of its-owned/run web players and services spanning the globe, but other countries' political propaganda can be stopped at any time. Now, if you're in the side which owns the most/biggest internet properties, then you'll probably feel there's no problem with this imbalance -- nor would you find any reason to control your own internet. That's because, since all the big players are yours, the global internet is "your own internet" anyway. Plus it's not like your citizens are ever going to venture that far of your national services for alternative news sources. Heck, it's not even like your domestic alternative news sources are much popular, the vast majority is fed 2 partisan shades of the same BS. And because facts are facts, it gets worse when one side get to unilaterally control and mark as "political propaganda ops" not just actual political propaganda ops, but facts too for everybody concerned. Especially since, whether you're in country X or another, if you never venture outside of mainstream media (of whatever political persuasion), you'll also tend to find your country's propaganda ops as just neutral reporting. After all, that's what your own media tells you 24/7, what your "neutral" official history books say, etc.

alexc05 9y ago

I saw this on Rachel Maddow this morning. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/us-tech-giants-oddly-unhelpful-on-russia-1067167299819 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/us-tech-giants-oddl... Near as she can tell, they live in Nigeria (though I don't think she's actually been able to back that up). She also digs into a number of the other accounts that did this. The "I love Texas" twitter account was another one that seemed pretty egregious. For example encouraging armed revolt if hillary wins. Switching their account-name and branding to "Secede if Hilary Win" days before the election to make it LOOK like their followers were ALWAYS in favor of extreme political action. This stuff is pretty dark.

golemotron 9y ago

Many companies play up the pretense that they are 'global' corporations. There are only nations. Google is a US corporation. A global corporation would not pay this much attention to the influence of a single nation or it would pay more attention to all of them.

Overtonwindow 9y ago

So Google is censoring again. It's not extremist. It's not violent. Why does it need censorship? What will they label and censor as "propaganda" next?