7 ms·

> these bad actors are clearly non-partisan No, it's not at all clear. The 2016 disinformation campaign clearly favored one candidate, while simultaneously at

> these bad actors are clearly non-partisan No, it's not at all clear. The 2016 disinformation campaign clearly favored one candidate, while simultaneously attempting to radicalize his opposition. Maybe stirring up anti-fascist counter-protests actually helps the right wing by proving that they're fighting evil scary masked guys wearing black. Maybe the adversaries understand very well the countermeasures Facebook has taken, knew these accounts would be discovered, and the discovery itself is intentionally part of their campaign. Or maybe they're just indiscriminately pouring gasoline into the fire. It's not at all clear that all interests are equally compromised.

equalunique 8y ago
>The 2016 disinformation campaign clearly favored one candidate How then would you characterize Russian sources on the Steele dossier? Edit: Bring on the downvotes. I don't care.
- panarky 8y ago
  Ummm ... maybe those sources weren't part of the disinformation campaign? Or are you trying to argue that evidence of possible Russian influence over one candidate, by its very existence, is evidence that they don't have influence over that candidate?
  - equalunique 8y ago
    >Or are you trying to argue that evidence of possible Russian influence over one candidate, by its very existence, is evidence that they don't have influence over that candidate? No. It's possible evidence - some of it is verifiable while other parts are simply allegations. Can you prove that the part in the dossier about the hotel orgy was not a disinformation campaign used on western intelligence?
    - MaysonL 8y ago
      Has any part of the dossier been proven false? Not so far as I know. Has any part of the dossier been proven true? Yes.
      - gfodor 8y ago
        ^^ Comments like this continue to be stunning in how easily someone can toss out basic critical reasoning like knowing where the burden of proof lies when it comes to politics.
      - equalunique 8y ago
        If I claim MaysonL wore a blue shirt when this comment was made on HN, odds are that nobody can prove my claim is 100% false, and yet part of my claim is proven true, because here you are, and therefore all must believe me. This is your logic.
      - nasredin 8y ago
        My mental framework to study this issue is equally simple, just a single question: Is President Trump the type of dude that would be into golden showers?
    - 18pfsmt 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure the Steele dossier was not made public until Jan. 10, 2017 (i.e. after the election): https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-t...
      - SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
        Furthermore it was raw intelligence not meant for public consumption.
      - programmarchy 8y ago
        But wasn’t the Steele dossier used to get a FISA warrant to spy on the campaign, after the original request was denied? Politicizing the intelligence apparatus would be highly disturbing, even moreso than when the Obama administration apparently used the IRS to target political opponents [1] like the tea party. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
        equalunique 8y ago
        Upvoted. I hope your comment does not get flagged like mine have been.
      - evunveot 8y ago
        Steele was shopping it around to media outlets extensively before the election, and Mother Jones reported on it on October 31, 2016: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gav...
- ben010783 8y ago
  I think the biggest difference is that the disinformation was performed by state actors in Russia while the Steele Dossier was research on the actions and relationships that state actors had. Not to mention the fact that the details of the Dossier did not become public until after the election.
empressplay 8y ago
Umm, didn't the more radical right-wing Russian posts, while energising the alt-right, equally discredit Trump in the eyes of liberals? You can't have it both ways. The truth is the Russian operation appears to have been designed to shake people's faith in Western democracy as it currently stands (and it's working!) Even causing some people to want to use that interference to delegitimise their otherwise legitimately-elected officials (high five, everyone!)
- perfmode 8y ago
  as far as i can see, the effort to meddle would have been considered a failure had the democratic candidate won in 2016.
- enjo 8y ago
  Putin openly campaigned for Trump, promising war if the United Stated elected Hillary Clinton. Russia for whatever its reason clearly had a preference. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trum...
  - nextlevelwizard 8y ago
    >Putin openly campaigned >links article where "Putins ally" is interviewed What even is this? During the actual campaigns this was never brought up with any seriousness. Only war related thing that was brought up was Clinton's eagerness to move troops into Syria which Putin said would lead into war between Russia and US. That cowardly downvote without response... What else to expect from HN
h4b4n3r0 8y ago
“Clear” is a weasel word propagandists use when matters at hand are anything but. Please provide evidence. As far as I can tell, the main aim was (and still is) to sow division, and the ads targeted the liberal side more simply because their rhetoric was more aggressive. They went as far as organizing BLM and “resist” protests. Facebook’s disclosure shows that they (whoever “they” are this time — FB was unable to pin this on anybody) are still doing the exact same thing and rallying the radical left, and racial/ethnic minorities.
- windows_tips 8y ago
  How dare someone organize protests on FB. Is the issue just that the organizers are ostensibly from another country/nation? Maybe the solution is for FB to regionize similar to the DVD industry? Posts in one region can only be seen in the same region?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
Theodores 8y ago
Elections come and go, the interests of the state remain the same regardless of whom is sat on the throne. However there are differences of opinion on the interests of the state, do you mean citizens or those that are controlling and manipulating the elected representatives? These latter folk are known as the 'deep state' although on HN the correct terminology is the 'military industrial complex'. Under normal circumstances the deep pockets of the 'deep state' back both sides of the house with contributions to both the liberal and conservative sides. No matter who gets in they have people in their pocket to further their interests and project their interests as the national interest. The rest of the world determines who the outside enemy is supposed to be. A resurgent Russia is the current enemy, although first among many with China, axis of evil states Iran and North Korea also at the top of this very long list. In reality nobody wants to be an enemy, the enemy has to be imagined and incited into being the enemy. With the last election no matter who won the interests of the deep state had put in the groundwork to be able to blame Russia for meddling in the result. The candidate and political party were immaterial, whatever the outcome there would be proof of Russian interference. Had the world situation been different then there would have been proof in this post truth age that China, Iran, North Korea, you name it had been meddling. Domestically this works well as much squabbling goes on at a belief rather than a fact-based level as to whether or not the Russians did interfere. It all depends whom you get your news from. It is like a wedge strategy all over again. The wedge strategy was used to get people talking about whether 'Creationism' should be taught in schools, meanwhile vast cuts to science funding were made and nobody talked about that because they had such strong opinions of freedom as applied to schools and 'Creationism'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
- jerkstate 8y ago
  "Deep State" and "Military Industrial Complex" are two different but related things. The former are unelected diplomatic, intelligence, and military government employees who consider themselves the true bearers of the power of the republic and consider it their duty to manipulate elected officials and the general public to carry out their long-term plans for the world order. The latter is the cycle of military lobbying, funding, and spending of US taxpayer money, chasing military supremacy against threats real and imagined. Of course the two are related in that the deep state and military industrial complex are in communication about what kind of weapons to build. But I don't agree that it is two names for the same thing.
philwelch 8y ago
I’d say it’s closer to the truth that the 2016 disinformation clearly disfavored one candidate.
dogma1138 8y ago
I don’t think that is the point. Foreign intervention with the clear aim of causing political rift doesn’t care about party lines other than the fact that they can be used to manufacture outrage and division. If Trump was a democratic candidate or if the Dems had a different loon in play while the republicans had someone say like McCain running then the same actors would have been working in the same manner just now in favor of a different party. These actors will exploit any vulnerability and there is no hidden intention to benefit a single party other than to further their own goals. During the Cold War the Soviets we’re finding both communist and neo-Nazi groups in west Germany at same time because for them the goal was always to cause as much chaos as possible. In the US during Vietnam they were funding anti-war groups on campuses again simply because they were seeking to incite as much dissent as possible. All interests are or at least can be easily compromised it’s just a matter of circumstance and timing.
- monkeydreams 8y ago
  > Foreign intervention with the clear aim of causing political rift doesn’t care about party lines other than the fact that they can be used to manufacture outrage and division. Putin said in Helsinki that he favoured Trump and directed his officials to help Trump. This was not a non-partisan issue. They wanted Trump, and causing chaos was one of the features which likely attracted them to Trump.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    Ofc they favored a less effective leader that can be used to cause chaos, the US also favors the same leaders in it's opponents. That does not make it a partisan issue however, Putin doesn't give two fucks if Trump was republican or democrat and attempting to make it look like a clear partisan issue is actually playing into their hands.
  - Veelox 8y ago
    >Putin said in Helsinki that he favoured Trump and directed his officials to help Trump. Wait, what? Can I get a cite for that because I have heard a lot of claims about Helsinki but I have never heard that.
Veelox 8y ago
>> these bad actors are clearly non-partisan >No, it's not at all clear. > The 2016 disinformation campaign clearly favored one candidate, while simultaneously attempting to radicalize his opposition. Per a recent article by FiveThirtyEight.com [0] they labeled 719,087 tweets as "Right Troll" and 427,811 tweets as "Left Troll." When describing the two types they say "Right Trolls behave like “bread-and-butter MAGA Americans, only all they do is talk about politics all day long,” Linvill said. Left Trolls often adopt the personae of Black Lives Matter activists, typically expressing support for Bernie Sanders and derision for Hillary Clinton, along with “clearly trying to divide the Democratic Party and lower voter turnout.”" So on one hand, yes they clearly favored Trump. On the other hand, favoring Trump was the most divisive and destabilizing thing they could do. > Or maybe they're just indiscriminately pouring gasoline into the fire. I think that is a huge part of the strategy. Was there collusion as well? Probably but Putin is happy to watch the West burn. [0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-million-russian-troll-tweets/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-mill...

equalunique 8y ago

>The 2016 disinformation campaign clearly favored one candidate How then would you characterize Russian sources on the Steele dossier? Edit: Bring on the downvotes. I don't care.

panarky 8y ago
Ummm ... maybe those sources weren't part of the disinformation campaign? Or are you trying to argue that evidence of possible Russian influence over one candidate, by its very existence, is evidence that they don't have influence over that candidate?
- equalunique 8y ago
  >Or are you trying to argue that evidence of possible Russian influence over one candidate, by its very existence, is evidence that they don't have influence over that candidate? No. It's possible evidence - some of it is verifiable while other parts are simply allegations. Can you prove that the part in the dossier about the hotel orgy was not a disinformation campaign used on western intelligence?
  - MaysonL 8y ago
    Has any part of the dossier been proven false? Not so far as I know. Has any part of the dossier been proven true? Yes.
    - gfodor 8y ago
      ^^ Comments like this continue to be stunning in how easily someone can toss out basic critical reasoning like knowing where the burden of proof lies when it comes to politics.
    - equalunique 8y ago
      If I claim MaysonL wore a blue shirt when this comment was made on HN, odds are that nobody can prove my claim is 100% false, and yet part of my claim is proven true, because here you are, and therefore all must believe me. This is your logic.
    - nasredin 8y ago
      My mental framework to study this issue is equally simple, just a single question: Is President Trump the type of dude that would be into golden showers?
  - 18pfsmt 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure the Steele dossier was not made public until Jan. 10, 2017 (i.e. after the election): https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-t...
    - SimbaOnSteroids 8y ago
      Furthermore it was raw intelligence not meant for public consumption.
    - programmarchy 8y ago
      But wasn’t the Steele dossier used to get a FISA warrant to spy on the campaign, after the original request was denied? Politicizing the intelligence apparatus would be highly disturbing, even moreso than when the Obama administration apparently used the IRS to target political opponents [1] like the tea party. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
      - equalunique 8y ago
        Upvoted. I hope your comment does not get flagged like mine have been.
    - evunveot 8y ago
      Steele was shopping it around to media outlets extensively before the election, and Mother Jones reported on it on October 31, 2016: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gav...
ben010783 8y ago
I think the biggest difference is that the disinformation was performed by state actors in Russia while the Steele Dossier was research on the actions and relationships that state actors had. Not to mention the fact that the details of the Dossier did not become public until after the election.

empressplay 8y ago

Umm, didn't the more radical right-wing Russian posts, while energising the alt-right, equally discredit Trump in the eyes of liberals? You can't have it both ways. The truth is the Russian operation appears to have been designed to shake people's faith in Western democracy as it currently stands (and it's working!) Even causing some people to want to use that interference to delegitimise their otherwise legitimately-elected officials (high five, everyone!)

perfmode 8y ago
as far as i can see, the effort to meddle would have been considered a failure had the democratic candidate won in 2016.
enjo 8y ago
Putin openly campaigned for Trump, promising war if the United Stated elected Hillary Clinton. Russia for whatever its reason clearly had a preference. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trum...
- nextlevelwizard 8y ago
  >Putin openly campaigned >links article where "Putins ally" is interviewed What even is this? During the actual campaigns this was never brought up with any seriousness. Only war related thing that was brought up was Clinton's eagerness to move troops into Syria which Putin said would lead into war between Russia and US. That cowardly downvote without response... What else to expect from HN

h4b4n3r0 8y ago

“Clear” is a weasel word propagandists use when matters at hand are anything but. Please provide evidence. As far as I can tell, the main aim was (and still is) to sow division, and the ads targeted the liberal side more simply because their rhetoric was more aggressive. They went as far as organizing BLM and “resist” protests. Facebook’s disclosure shows that they (whoever “they” are this time — FB was unable to pin this on anybody) are still doing the exact same thing and rallying the radical left, and racial/ethnic minorities.

windows_tips 8y ago
How dare someone organize protests on FB. Is the issue just that the organizers are ostensibly from another country/nation? Maybe the solution is for FB to regionize similar to the DVD industry? Posts in one region can only be seen in the same region?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Theodores 8y ago

Elections come and go, the interests of the state remain the same regardless of whom is sat on the throne. However there are differences of opinion on the interests of the state, do you mean citizens or those that are controlling and manipulating the elected representatives? These latter folk are known as the 'deep state' although on HN the correct terminology is the 'military industrial complex'. Under normal circumstances the deep pockets of the 'deep state' back both sides of the house with contributions to both the liberal and conservative sides. No matter who gets in they have people in their pocket to further their interests and project their interests as the national interest. The rest of the world determines who the outside enemy is supposed to be. A resurgent Russia is the current enemy, although first among many with China, axis of evil states Iran and North Korea also at the top of this very long list. In reality nobody wants to be an enemy, the enemy has to be imagined and incited into being the enemy. With the last election no matter who won the interests of the deep state had put in the groundwork to be able to blame Russia for meddling in the result. The candidate and political party were immaterial, whatever the outcome there would be proof of Russian interference. Had the world situation been different then there would have been proof in this post truth age that China, Iran, North Korea, you name it had been meddling. Domestically this works well as much squabbling goes on at a belief rather than a fact-based level as to whether or not the Russians did interfere. It all depends whom you get your news from. It is like a wedge strategy all over again. The wedge strategy was used to get people talking about whether 'Creationism' should be taught in schools, meanwhile vast cuts to science funding were made and nobody talked about that because they had such strong opinions of freedom as applied to schools and 'Creationism'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

jerkstate 8y ago
"Deep State" and "Military Industrial Complex" are two different but related things. The former are unelected diplomatic, intelligence, and military government employees who consider themselves the true bearers of the power of the republic and consider it their duty to manipulate elected officials and the general public to carry out their long-term plans for the world order. The latter is the cycle of military lobbying, funding, and spending of US taxpayer money, chasing military supremacy against threats real and imagined. Of course the two are related in that the deep state and military industrial complex are in communication about what kind of weapons to build. But I don't agree that it is two names for the same thing.

philwelch 8y ago

I’d say it’s closer to the truth that the 2016 disinformation clearly disfavored one candidate.

dogma1138 8y ago

I don’t think that is the point. Foreign intervention with the clear aim of causing political rift doesn’t care about party lines other than the fact that they can be used to manufacture outrage and division. If Trump was a democratic candidate or if the Dems had a different loon in play while the republicans had someone say like McCain running then the same actors would have been working in the same manner just now in favor of a different party. These actors will exploit any vulnerability and there is no hidden intention to benefit a single party other than to further their own goals. During the Cold War the Soviets we’re finding both communist and neo-Nazi groups in west Germany at same time because for them the goal was always to cause as much chaos as possible. In the US during Vietnam they were funding anti-war groups on campuses again simply because they were seeking to incite as much dissent as possible. All interests are or at least can be easily compromised it’s just a matter of circumstance and timing.

monkeydreams 8y ago
> Foreign intervention with the clear aim of causing political rift doesn’t care about party lines other than the fact that they can be used to manufacture outrage and division. Putin said in Helsinki that he favoured Trump and directed his officials to help Trump. This was not a non-partisan issue. They wanted Trump, and causing chaos was one of the features which likely attracted them to Trump.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  Ofc they favored a less effective leader that can be used to cause chaos, the US also favors the same leaders in it's opponents. That does not make it a partisan issue however, Putin doesn't give two fucks if Trump was republican or democrat and attempting to make it look like a clear partisan issue is actually playing into their hands.
- Veelox 8y ago
  >Putin said in Helsinki that he favoured Trump and directed his officials to help Trump. Wait, what? Can I get a cite for that because I have heard a lot of claims about Helsinki but I have never heard that.

Veelox 8y ago

>> these bad actors are clearly non-partisan >No, it's not at all clear. > The 2016 disinformation campaign clearly favored one candidate, while simultaneously attempting to radicalize his opposition. Per a recent article by FiveThirtyEight.com [0] they labeled 719,087 tweets as "Right Troll" and 427,811 tweets as "Left Troll." When describing the two types they say "Right Trolls behave like “bread-and-butter MAGA Americans, only all they do is talk about politics all day long,” Linvill said. Left Trolls often adopt the personae of Black Lives Matter activists, typically expressing support for Bernie Sanders and derision for Hillary Clinton, along with “clearly trying to divide the Democratic Party and lower voter turnout.”" So on one hand, yes they clearly favored Trump. On the other hand, favoring Trump was the most divisive and destabilizing thing they could do. > Or maybe they're just indiscriminately pouring gasoline into the fire. I think that is a huge part of the strategy. Was there collusion as well? Probably but Putin is happy to watch the West burn. [0] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-million-russian-troll-tweets/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-mill...