4 ms·

How about successfuly proving there was any, for starters?

by flatfilefan 8y ago

justsomedude43 8y ago
You're stepping on some toes here.
Viliam1234 8y ago
Also, why does everyone blindly believe that a country called Russia even exists? Wake up, sheeple! /s
paulgb 8y ago
I'll play. Which of these claims do you think haven't been sufficiently demonstrated? 1. There was social media interference in the 2016 US elections through the spreading of propaganda on social media. 2. Some of that campaign originated (geographically) from Russia. 3. The Kremlin (whether or not through the Internet Research Agency) was behind some of this propaganda. Separately, I'm curious whether you believe: 4. The Kremlin is involved in social media-based election interference in countries other than the USA.
- sigfubar 8y ago
  I’m a Russian citizen living in the US, and here’s what I think is true. 1. Social media was constructed for all sorts of parties to influence the American consumer as a set of bought & sold “audiences” (in adtech speak). Some of these audiences are defined using political parameters. Some advertisers targeting these audiences via social media are politically motivated. The whole thing - all of social media - is a form in interference in the way people think. 2. Some advertisers are based in Russia. Most are not. Anyone can buy ads targeting a specific audience on any number of platforms. 3. I’m surprised they bothered to create a shell org to do this. Russia - like many other countries - has vested interests in US policy. Consider this a form of lobbying: just like American corporations go to Washington in order to lobby (“have undue influence over”) elected officials, so do countries “lobby” the American electorate come election time, because the public is seen as susceptible to such influence. In fact America even built platforms for this: social media. 4. Probably, but so is the US, and everyone else. I cannot believe Americans are so upset about something they themselves made possible.
  - paulgb 8y ago
    I appreciate your perspective. I've seen allegations that Kremlin-backed interference went as far as organizing opposing protests from afar. If this is true, would you consider it to fall under "lobbying" or would you say a line has been crossed? Re. 4, OP said that the interference was unproven. The extent to which the US has interfered with other elections is a separate discussion worth having, but it's not the issue here.

How about successfuly proving there was any, for starters?

justsomedude43 8y ago

You're stepping on some toes here.

Viliam1234 8y ago

Also, why does everyone blindly believe that a country called Russia even exists? Wake up, sheeple! /s

paulgb 8y ago

I'll play. Which of these claims do you think haven't been sufficiently demonstrated? 1. There was social media interference in the 2016 US elections through the spreading of propaganda on social media. 2. Some of that campaign originated (geographically) from Russia. 3. The Kremlin (whether or not through the Internet Research Agency) was behind some of this propaganda. Separately, I'm curious whether you believe: 4. The Kremlin is involved in social media-based election interference in countries other than the USA.

sigfubar 8y ago
I’m a Russian citizen living in the US, and here’s what I think is true. 1. Social media was constructed for all sorts of parties to influence the American consumer as a set of bought & sold “audiences” (in adtech speak). Some of these audiences are defined using political parameters. Some advertisers targeting these audiences via social media are politically motivated. The whole thing - all of social media - is a form in interference in the way people think. 2. Some advertisers are based in Russia. Most are not. Anyone can buy ads targeting a specific audience on any number of platforms. 3. I’m surprised they bothered to create a shell org to do this. Russia - like many other countries - has vested interests in US policy. Consider this a form of lobbying: just like American corporations go to Washington in order to lobby (“have undue influence over”) elected officials, so do countries “lobby” the American electorate come election time, because the public is seen as susceptible to such influence. In fact America even built platforms for this: social media. 4. Probably, but so is the US, and everyone else. I cannot believe Americans are so upset about something they themselves made possible.
- paulgb 8y ago
  I appreciate your perspective. I've seen allegations that Kremlin-backed interference went as far as organizing opposing protests from afar. If this is true, would you consider it to fall under "lobbying" or would you say a line has been crossed? Re. 4, OP said that the interference was unproven. The extent to which the US has interfered with other elections is a separate discussion worth having, but it's not the issue here.