5 ms·

I think the lesson from 2016 is that it’s easier and cheaper to use social media advertising and posting to manipulate than actually penetrating digital voting

I think the lesson from 2016 is that it’s easier and cheaper to use social media advertising and posting to manipulate than actually penetrating digital voting infrastructure.

zaroth 8y ago
Not meta enough. The lesson from 2016 is a bullshit social media campaign in Russia is enough to whip US media into spending billions of dollars of air time sowing doubt and confusion about an election result. Not only were no votes changed by anything Russia did, it is highly dubious that any opinions were changed by what Russia did. Trolls on the Internet are not, in fact, the most persuasive advertising force by orders of magnitude that the world has ever seen.
- nameistaken 8y ago
  Changed directly? No, well maybe no. I would consider the possibility that people otherwise apathetic or independent ran to the nearest ideological corner and stayed there evidence be damned. A person who might be open to ideas, closed off pulling the lever for someone based on out right lies. Someone who might have stayed home or voted for someone else. I think that's a real possibility.
  - shard972 8y ago
    So what about the europeans and Australians who peddled lies on their social media accounts? Has the FBI managed to track down any of those yet?
- akiselev 8y ago
  I'm sorry to break it to you, but you've been living under a rock: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download Russian operations stretched far beyond a social media campaign.
  - shard972 8y ago
    So some russians conspired to go on a phishing expedition and ended up finding that hillary clinton broke the law and tried to cover it up? Where does it show the votes that were changed?
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      Where is the comment in this thread that said votes were changed? If you want to punch straw men, go find yourself a farm.
- orf 8y ago
  Knowing that the Fancybear APT group broke into the DNC and released a lot of information that clearly swayed people's opinions, I can't think what you said was true.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Not only were no votes changed by anything Russia did, it is highly dubious that any opinions were changed by what Russia did. It's clear that concrete actions were manipulated by the Russian campaign, and that false ideas spread by it gained currency. It is pretty clear that it affected opinion, belief, and action, even if not in a way which changed partisan preferences. > Trolls on the Internet are not, in fact, the most persuasive advertising force by orders of magnitude that the world has ever seen. Probably not; lots of low budget groups leveraging current events are quite efficient compared to major campaigns, and that's without carefully crafting propaganda without concern for truth and with freedom to misrepresent origin; Russia’s operation may be much more cost effective than major campaigns especially if you consider just the known as spend and not other supporting costs, but that's not unusual.

I think the lesson from 2016 is that it’s easier and cheaper to use social media advertising and posting to manipulate than actually penetrating digital voting infrastructure.

zaroth 8y ago

Not meta enough. The lesson from 2016 is a bullshit social media campaign in Russia is enough to whip US media into spending billions of dollars of air time sowing doubt and confusion about an election result. Not only were no votes changed by anything Russia did, it is highly dubious that any opinions were changed by what Russia did. Trolls on the Internet are not, in fact, the most persuasive advertising force by orders of magnitude that the world has ever seen.

nameistaken 8y ago
Changed directly? No, well maybe no. I would consider the possibility that people otherwise apathetic or independent ran to the nearest ideological corner and stayed there evidence be damned. A person who might be open to ideas, closed off pulling the lever for someone based on out right lies. Someone who might have stayed home or voted for someone else. I think that's a real possibility.
- shard972 8y ago
  So what about the europeans and Australians who peddled lies on their social media accounts? Has the FBI managed to track down any of those yet?
akiselev 8y ago
I'm sorry to break it to you, but you've been living under a rock: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download Russian operations stretched far beyond a social media campaign.
- shard972 8y ago
  So some russians conspired to go on a phishing expedition and ended up finding that hillary clinton broke the law and tried to cover it up? Where does it show the votes that were changed?
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    Where is the comment in this thread that said votes were changed? If you want to punch straw men, go find yourself a farm.
orf 8y ago
Knowing that the Fancybear APT group broke into the DNC and released a lot of information that clearly swayed people's opinions, I can't think what you said was true.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Not only were no votes changed by anything Russia did, it is highly dubious that any opinions were changed by what Russia did. It's clear that concrete actions were manipulated by the Russian campaign, and that false ideas spread by it gained currency. It is pretty clear that it affected opinion, belief, and action, even if not in a way which changed partisan preferences. > Trolls on the Internet are not, in fact, the most persuasive advertising force by orders of magnitude that the world has ever seen. Probably not; lots of low budget groups leveraging current events are quite efficient compared to major campaigns, and that's without carefully crafting propaganda without concern for truth and with freedom to misrepresent origin; Russia’s operation may be much more cost effective than major campaigns especially if you consider just the known as spend and not other supporting costs, but that's not unusual.