4 ms·

> There's nothing stopping someone on US soil from exercising their first amendment rights in the same way to subvert an election. Individuals exercising their

by zemo 9y ago

> There's nothing stopping someone on US soil from exercising their first amendment rights in the same way to subvert an election. Individuals exercising their first amendment rights do not have the same reach as a propaganda apparatus of a major nation state. It's ridiculous to say that one person has the same reach as a government propaganda machine.

nejenendn 9y ago
Did you respond to the right comment? I’m having difficulty figuring out where the OP compared reaches.
- davesque 9y ago
  Then you're not reading the OP's comment very carefully.
anilshanbhag 9y ago
The method in question is here RT using Twitter advertising to reach out to millions of Twitter users. RT itself is small but the reach comes from the cheap advertising. They spent ~ $250k in total which is pretty small compared to total ad budget of a number of PACs. There are many individuals who donate more than that amount and could easily spend it on Twitter ads.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  They also spent a lot of man-hours spreading and sharing that content, making it look like it was supported by 'American citizen' sockpuppet accounts, and coordinating that effort across several platforms to actively drive a consistent and singular message. Not the sort of thing that a grassroots could easily manage; buying a few hundred ads was just a small part of the wider propaganda and sabotage. Twitter has just been complete shit at figuring out what happened on their platform, anyways; half of their 'identifications' come from, "Facebook told us this account was a sockpuppet on their platform..."
  - grandalf 9y ago
    What content are you talking about? RT has published a lot of great stories that are are not flattering to the US (such as about the Flint Michigan water crisis) but are absolutely legitimate news stories that our corporate media doesn't care to report on. Might RT simply have the goal of getting a foothold in American news reporting by serving an underserved market? If learning more about the drastic mishandling of the Flint Michigan water crisis stirs class conflict in America, are you telling me you think that is a bad thing? It's what is missing from our democracy!
    - FilterSweep 9y ago
      > Might RT simply have the goal of getting a foothold in American news reporting by serving an underserved market? What, exactly is the underserved market here? Who exactly are they serving with propaganda?
      - grandalf 9y ago
        > propaganda What is the propaganda you are referring to? You seem to assume all of RT's content is propaganda but can't name or link to any stories that qualify. Lol.
    - leggomylibro 9y ago
      Sure, and so was Al Jazeera, but you still have to recognize that they are literally mouthpieces for the nations of Russia and Qatar, respectively. It's like Voice of America. They can break real stories of corruption and dysfunction, but I'd like to see them investigated and picked up by a more impartial source before I'm going to give them much headroom. Which is another reason why local journalism is so important and criminalizing/demonizing it for being unflattering is so heinous.
- FilterSweep 9y ago
  > They spent ~ $250k in total which is pretty small compared to total ad budget of a number of PACs. One could argue their reach is more efficient than pulling out a million dollar 30 second ad aired to less people. Also consider the millions in marketing materials that RT don't need.
mustacheemperor 9y ago
I believe OP is suggesting that the next election will see domestic individuals or cohorts of them with the wherewithal and motivation to at least significantly replicate the reach of a government propaganda machine. Plus, digital advertising's reach has grown cheaper and broader over time, why wouldn't digital propaganda follow the same pattern? I think there's room for debate on what draws the line between "propaganda subverting the election" and "leveraging our modern scary-effective digital marketing techniques to spread your electoral message." Does it only count as an attack on democracy if a foreign state or individual is doing it? Both parties made use of shops like Correct the Record in the last election, what does it mean when in addition to the campaigns, wealthy and influential individuals can exert even more reach in the next election? Is it only propaganda if the message is factually false or misrepresented, or is it enough to have enough money to spend or leverage over the platform that you crowd out all alternate dialogue? Is there a definable ethical spectrum for subversive digital messaging? I think there's plenty of subversive messaging online already, that's advertising. Personally, I think creating fake Americans on twitter to influence the American election crossed whatever the line is. It fails the smell test, it stinks of deception.
- zemo 9y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15559650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15559650 it's not purely about reach. A foreign government acting to affect elections to destabilize and weaken a country is very different from greedy citizens attempting to enrich themselves with political subterfuge. At the very least, rich American corporatists want to ensure the continuity of American hegemony; it's the cornerstone of their empires. Russian government interference is about deteriorating American hegemony; a system from which Twitter is a beneficiary.
  - braderhart 9y ago
    It wasn't my Russian friends tweeting and sharing propaganda, it was my American friends doing it. I'd like to see a study behind memes and those who knowingly trolled this election cycle, treating it more like a sporting event. I mean, you do literally have millions in gambling during the election (all people who have an investment in their choice, regardless of their policies). Would be funny to see that American citizens created and shared more propaganda than any Russian disinfo campaign.
pjc50 9y ago
One very rich individual, or one in charge of a major corporation's propaganda budget, can spend a huge amount of money to move an election. e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-...
- zemo 9y ago
  That's true regardless of whether or not Twitter exists. It's still a false equivalence inasmuch as a rich American is spending money in a way to maintain the status quo; rich Americans like the Koch Brothers benefit from American hegemony. They spend their money to enrich themselves, but they still want the US to remain in power. A rival government, however, does not want the US to remain in power. As an American company, Twitter benefits from American hegemony, and will act to protect it.
grandalf 9y ago
So it's propaganda to talk about the Flint Michigan water crisis and the utter failure of US officials in dealing with it? That's the kind of stuff RT publishes most of the time! Read through the historical headlines. This is a very embarrassing and inappropriate move by Twitter, likely intended only to curry favor with American elected officials.

by zemo 9y ago

nejenendn 9y ago

Did you respond to the right comment? I’m having difficulty figuring out where the OP compared reaches.

davesque 9y ago
Then you're not reading the OP's comment very carefully.

anilshanbhag 9y ago

The method in question is here RT using Twitter advertising to reach out to millions of Twitter users. RT itself is small but the reach comes from the cheap advertising. They spent ~ $250k in total which is pretty small compared to total ad budget of a number of PACs. There are many individuals who donate more than that amount and could easily spend it on Twitter ads.

leggomylibro 9y ago
They also spent a lot of man-hours spreading and sharing that content, making it look like it was supported by 'American citizen' sockpuppet accounts, and coordinating that effort across several platforms to actively drive a consistent and singular message. Not the sort of thing that a grassroots could easily manage; buying a few hundred ads was just a small part of the wider propaganda and sabotage. Twitter has just been complete shit at figuring out what happened on their platform, anyways; half of their 'identifications' come from, "Facebook told us this account was a sockpuppet on their platform..."
- grandalf 9y ago
  What content are you talking about? RT has published a lot of great stories that are are not flattering to the US (such as about the Flint Michigan water crisis) but are absolutely legitimate news stories that our corporate media doesn't care to report on. Might RT simply have the goal of getting a foothold in American news reporting by serving an underserved market? If learning more about the drastic mishandling of the Flint Michigan water crisis stirs class conflict in America, are you telling me you think that is a bad thing? It's what is missing from our democracy!
  - FilterSweep 9y ago
    > Might RT simply have the goal of getting a foothold in American news reporting by serving an underserved market? What, exactly is the underserved market here? Who exactly are they serving with propaganda?
    - grandalf 9y ago
      > propaganda What is the propaganda you are referring to? You seem to assume all of RT's content is propaganda but can't name or link to any stories that qualify. Lol.
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    Sure, and so was Al Jazeera, but you still have to recognize that they are literally mouthpieces for the nations of Russia and Qatar, respectively. It's like Voice of America. They can break real stories of corruption and dysfunction, but I'd like to see them investigated and picked up by a more impartial source before I'm going to give them much headroom. Which is another reason why local journalism is so important and criminalizing/demonizing it for being unflattering is so heinous.
FilterSweep 9y ago
> They spent ~ $250k in total which is pretty small compared to total ad budget of a number of PACs. One could argue their reach is more efficient than pulling out a million dollar 30 second ad aired to less people. Also consider the millions in marketing materials that RT don't need.

mustacheemperor 9y ago

I believe OP is suggesting that the next election will see domestic individuals or cohorts of them with the wherewithal and motivation to at least significantly replicate the reach of a government propaganda machine. Plus, digital advertising's reach has grown cheaper and broader over time, why wouldn't digital propaganda follow the same pattern? I think there's room for debate on what draws the line between "propaganda subverting the election" and "leveraging our modern scary-effective digital marketing techniques to spread your electoral message." Does it only count as an attack on democracy if a foreign state or individual is doing it? Both parties made use of shops like Correct the Record in the last election, what does it mean when in addition to the campaigns, wealthy and influential individuals can exert even more reach in the next election? Is it only propaganda if the message is factually false or misrepresented, or is it enough to have enough money to spend or leverage over the platform that you crowd out all alternate dialogue? Is there a definable ethical spectrum for subversive digital messaging? I think there's plenty of subversive messaging online already, that's advertising. Personally, I think creating fake Americans on twitter to influence the American election crossed whatever the line is. It fails the smell test, it stinks of deception.

zemo 9y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15559650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15559650 it's not purely about reach. A foreign government acting to affect elections to destabilize and weaken a country is very different from greedy citizens attempting to enrich themselves with political subterfuge. At the very least, rich American corporatists want to ensure the continuity of American hegemony; it's the cornerstone of their empires. Russian government interference is about deteriorating American hegemony; a system from which Twitter is a beneficiary.
- braderhart 9y ago
  It wasn't my Russian friends tweeting and sharing propaganda, it was my American friends doing it. I'd like to see a study behind memes and those who knowingly trolled this election cycle, treating it more like a sporting event. I mean, you do literally have millions in gambling during the election (all people who have an investment in their choice, regardless of their policies). Would be funny to see that American citizens created and shared more propaganda than any Russian disinfo campaign.

pjc50 9y ago

One very rich individual, or one in charge of a major corporation's propaganda budget, can spend a huge amount of money to move an election. e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-...

zemo 9y ago
That's true regardless of whether or not Twitter exists. It's still a false equivalence inasmuch as a rich American is spending money in a way to maintain the status quo; rich Americans like the Koch Brothers benefit from American hegemony. They spend their money to enrich themselves, but they still want the US to remain in power. A rival government, however, does not want the US to remain in power. As an American company, Twitter benefits from American hegemony, and will act to protect it.

grandalf 9y ago

So it's propaganda to talk about the Flint Michigan water crisis and the utter failure of US officials in dealing with it? That's the kind of stuff RT publishes most of the time! Read through the historical headlines. This is a very embarrassing and inappropriate move by Twitter, likely intended only to curry favor with American elected officials.