10 ms·

Tracking Political Manipulation Through Social Media

77 points by sajid 8y ago

sudoaza 8y ago
It's weird how when we talk about political manipulation we always talk about bots and fake news as only fringe media, while we overlook the biggest manipulation that comes from right wing concentrated multimedia like CNN, CNBC, etc. They have been caught publishing made up stories, communicates, fabricating witnesses multiple times. Like, dunno, Saddam's weapons of mass destruction comes to mind.
- gonational 8y ago
  That’s because content like this is political manipulation, in meta form.
- juliangoldsmith 8y ago
  I don't think most people in the United States would consider CNN or CNBC right-wing. That's more Fox's purview.
  - neetdeth 8y ago
    Cue a thousand commenters descending to tell you that no party in the US is sufficiently socialist to be considered “left”. But of course, Fox is not authentically right, either. CNN is inner party (Dem) media, Fox is outer party (Rep).
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    "Most people in the United States" haven't admitted to themselves that the overriding purpose of all popular news media is constantly, insidiously to advocate for more spending on armaments and war. Historically that would have been considered rightist, but in the current context one could be forgiven some confusion...
    - pixl97 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
      - NorthOf33rd 8y ago
        Such an important book (and movie.) In my other comment I discussed a class I was lucky enough to take in highschool where explored media bias. But, I bring it up again because I think it's so important that every single person understand that "media bias" isn't necessarily a bad or good thing, it's just reality. However, it is necessarily bad when collectively we do not recognize it. Everyone should go through a civics class at least once where learning about the reality of the media landscape, bias, and motivations are key topics along with lessons on how to responsibly engage.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      I'm sure that's how it comes across to a far-left isolationist, just like the popular news media probably comes across as "insidiously advocating for greater globalization and surrendering American sovereignty" to a John Bircher, but that's probably because the commentators who say these things are extremists, not because the vaguely-centrist media has an appreciable agenda.
      - neetdeth 8y ago
        That's what it looks like to a "far-right" isolationist, too. If you hadn't noticed, Trump has been trying to extricate the US from conflict in Syria, with the media nearly unanimous in opposing this goal. US news media is in fact generally pro-war and pro-globalization, and these are appreciable agendas which are only deemed "centrist" because they are shared by the two major parties. Outlets like CNN closely reflect the consensus of the governing elite, even when it is quite markedly out of step with the prevailing opinion of the public on any given issue. Labeling positions which don't enjoy the endorsement of state-affiliated institutions as "extremist" is a common tactic to solidify control of the discourse. This comment reads to me as nothing more than naked worship of power.
  - andrew_ 8y ago
    > right wing concentrated multimedia I read that to mean: their primary focus/concentration is criticism of the right-from-center political wing. Perhaps poor wording on the OP, but I read it with the understanding that no one would consider CNN or CNBC (did they mean MSNBC?) favorable to the right. The bias is very clear with regard to those outlets.
- salimmadjd 8y ago
  Trump got about $5 billion in free advertising [0] That seems like far more impact than $50k from some memes. It’s clear the media is picking Kamala Harris as their choice [1] And already positioning her as the best candidate to beat Trump [2] This is all after how from the 2018 midterm they positioned her as one of the top Democratic contenders [0] - https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode... [1]https://thehill.com/homenews/media/426349-cnn-to-host-kamala-harris-town-hall-event-in-iowa https://thehill.com/homenews/media/426349-cnn-to-host-kamala... [2] https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/andrea-mitchell-asks-kamala-harris-why-she-s-best-suited-to-beat-trump-1429587011663 https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/andrea-mitchell-asks-ka...
  - blancheneige 8y ago
    >free advertising you mean 24/7 attempts at character assasination?
    - akhilcacharya 8y ago
      Is it really character assassination to report what you say verbatim? If it is, that says more about ones...character than anything else.
      - blancheneige 8y ago
        Right, if only that's all they were doing. Just innocent verbatim reporting and clear contextual analysis instead of ludicrous and deliberate mischaracterizations of every single one of his talking points. How many times have I read about Trump's "dislike of immigrants", conviniently leaving out the illegal part? The list goes on and on. If you read foreign news, it gets even worse and more blatant since most of their readers don't have the luxury of understanding the source.
        akhilcacharya 8y ago
        His policies and the people he surrounds himself with have made his disdain for legal immigrants clear. Stephen Miller wants to reduce all immigration, not just the illegal kind.
- yasp 8y ago
  We also tend to overlook the US government's own propaganda efforts, via the Smith Mundt Modernization Act.
- blancheneige 8y ago
  I think establishment outlets is a better characterization than "right wing". think of CNN and Fox News as two vectors with left and right components, but both conveniently adding up to a net upward direction (just look how excited they get over the prospect of more intervensionism, and let's not forget Fox coverage of Trump until they realized they had to get onboard). That overlapping part is the neo liberal + neocon establishment, both equally averse to "far right" and "far left" momentum, which typically share a common resentment directed toward the top of the pyramid.
gambler 8y ago
I will start taking research like this seriously when authors will start discussing media spin as part of the problem. If you think bots are a problem, but news websites engaging in blatant, Orwellian language and fact bending are not... you should at leas be able to back it up with comparative research on effectiveness, which I've never seen being done. Online "discussions" of political topics are saturated with links to traditional media. Increasingly, I think giving up on "news" and social media altogether is the best solution. I've quit most of it. HN is the closes thing to social media I visit. I watch YouTube, but limit videos to specific educational content.
- InternetUser 8y ago
  You honestly do not consume any news about current world events, whether local, national, or international? Or do you just mean that you continually and deliberately ignore political news? I mean, that's not exactly rare: 100 million eligible voters (42%) did not even care to vote in the 2016 U.S. presidential election[0]; I suppose they either don't believe their vote would matter, or that Hillary and Trump were the same enough. I would think there are still easily tens of thousands of those people are still indifferent about the electoral process. Anyway, to me, it's easy to see how sports, video games, TV shows, porn, eating, alcohol, weed, and drugs can be seen as more interesting than, for instance, the current "battle" about if, when, and where the 2019 State of the Union address will take place. [0] http://archive.is/NDUkb http://archive.is/NDUkb
  - gambler 8y ago
    >You honestly do not consume any news about current world events, whether local, national, or international? Not intentionally. Information about big things still leaks through websites like HN and Slashdot, through articles/interviews about "non-newsy" subjects, as well as through people I know. I've considered quitting HN and Slashdot too, but I need up-to-date technical information to do my job effectively. Can't find a good alternative. >100 million eligible voters (42%) did not even care to vote in the 2016 U.S. presidential election When I need to vote these days, I approach it as buying a piece of electronics. I dedicate time to research my options. As in, sit down and spend several hours or days searching for relevant (to me) information on the candidates. Obviously, this might include news articles if they are relevant, but those have to be articles about something specific (e.g. some particular thing a candidate did in relation to a particular social or economic issue I'm interested in). It's a tedious process, but I think it's better than passively and continuously consuming whatever some media outlet cooks up to fill their air time, print space or website home page.
hnuser1234 8y ago
Giant media corporations owned by billionaires, run by millionaires, and overwhelmingly staffed by members/partisans of a single political party pump out propaganda on all of their mediums 24/7 and totally dominate and saturate public opinion but we are supposed to understand that "bots" are a threat to democracy? As someone who has been deemed a "bot" by people who do not wish to hear information they do not like on more occasions than I can recall, I note an insidious aspect of this emphasis on "bots" is that it allows the ready dismissal of any individual expressing heterodoxy and glorifies/sanctifies the "official" media previously described. Yet we saw this past week that social media users were able to win a rare victory in bringing the "official" media to heel for their lies and manipulation in setting upon a group of innocent schoolchildren. The official media hates it when their marks push back and thus we get propaganda like this study.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Ah, you mean those same innocent schoolchildren that were caught harassing women before the actual incident even went down? The situation is obviously far from black and white, but calling them innocent is such a disengenuous characterization of the situation that I question what is your intent actually is considering the rest of your post.
  - drak0n1c 8y ago
    Your allegation is fitting, as that was another bit of viral fake news from the weekend. The alleged harassers were proven not to be part of the Covington Catholic group. Confirmation bias is tempting, but maybe everyone (including the media) should be more skeptical before taking the word of a tweet for granted? The poster saw a few boys in the midst of a crowded multi-march weekend and falsely ascribed the encounter to Covington in retrospect after the original controversy blew up. Interesting aside - Bots were found to be the viral sharing element accelerating the original spread of the Covington controversy: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/tech/twitter-suspends-account-native-american-maga-teens/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/tech/twitter-suspends-account...
    - 8y ago
rwhitman 8y ago
This interview should be held up as a definitive educational material for anyone working around social media platforms. Really shines an important spotlight on how bad actors manipulate digital information, and how to adjust business and mental models towards mitigating platform manipulation into the future. Really pleased to hear how much research and thought is being done in this area now. Looking forward to hearing more from this team.

77 points by sajid 8y ago

It's weird how when we talk about political manipulation we always talk about bots and fake news as only fringe media, while we overlook the biggest manipulation that comes from right wing concentrated multimedia like CNN, CNBC, etc. They have been caught publishing made up stories, communicates, fabricating witnesses multiple times. Like, dunno, Saddam's weapons of mass destruction comes to mind.

gonational 8y ago
That’s because content like this is political manipulation, in meta form.
juliangoldsmith 8y ago
I don't think most people in the United States would consider CNN or CNBC right-wing. That's more Fox's purview.
- neetdeth 8y ago
  Cue a thousand commenters descending to tell you that no party in the US is sufficiently socialist to be considered “left”. But of course, Fox is not authentically right, either. CNN is inner party (Dem) media, Fox is outer party (Rep).
- jessaustin 8y ago
  "Most people in the United States" haven't admitted to themselves that the overriding purpose of all popular news media is constantly, insidiously to advocate for more spending on armaments and war. Historically that would have been considered rightist, but in the current context one could be forgiven some confusion...
  - pixl97 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
    - NorthOf33rd 8y ago
      Such an important book (and movie.) In my other comment I discussed a class I was lucky enough to take in highschool where explored media bias. But, I bring it up again because I think it's so important that every single person understand that "media bias" isn't necessarily a bad or good thing, it's just reality. However, it is necessarily bad when collectively we do not recognize it. Everyone should go through a civics class at least once where learning about the reality of the media landscape, bias, and motivations are key topics along with lessons on how to responsibly engage.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    I'm sure that's how it comes across to a far-left isolationist, just like the popular news media probably comes across as "insidiously advocating for greater globalization and surrendering American sovereignty" to a John Bircher, but that's probably because the commentators who say these things are extremists, not because the vaguely-centrist media has an appreciable agenda.
    - neetdeth 8y ago
      That's what it looks like to a "far-right" isolationist, too. If you hadn't noticed, Trump has been trying to extricate the US from conflict in Syria, with the media nearly unanimous in opposing this goal. US news media is in fact generally pro-war and pro-globalization, and these are appreciable agendas which are only deemed "centrist" because they are shared by the two major parties. Outlets like CNN closely reflect the consensus of the governing elite, even when it is quite markedly out of step with the prevailing opinion of the public on any given issue. Labeling positions which don't enjoy the endorsement of state-affiliated institutions as "extremist" is a common tactic to solidify control of the discourse. This comment reads to me as nothing more than naked worship of power.
- andrew_ 8y ago
  > right wing concentrated multimedia I read that to mean: their primary focus/concentration is criticism of the right-from-center political wing. Perhaps poor wording on the OP, but I read it with the understanding that no one would consider CNN or CNBC (did they mean MSNBC?) favorable to the right. The bias is very clear with regard to those outlets.
salimmadjd 8y ago
Trump got about $5 billion in free advertising [0] That seems like far more impact than $50k from some memes. It’s clear the media is picking Kamala Harris as their choice [1] And already positioning her as the best candidate to beat Trump [2] This is all after how from the 2018 midterm they positioned her as one of the top Democratic contenders [0] - https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode... [1]https://thehill.com/homenews/media/426349-cnn-to-host-kamala-harris-town-hall-event-in-iowa https://thehill.com/homenews/media/426349-cnn-to-host-kamala... [2] https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/andrea-mitchell-asks-kamala-harris-why-she-s-best-suited-to-beat-trump-1429587011663 https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/andrea-mitchell-asks-ka...
- blancheneige 8y ago
  >free advertising you mean 24/7 attempts at character assasination?
  - akhilcacharya 8y ago
    Is it really character assassination to report what you say verbatim? If it is, that says more about ones...character than anything else.
    - blancheneige 8y ago
      Right, if only that's all they were doing. Just innocent verbatim reporting and clear contextual analysis instead of ludicrous and deliberate mischaracterizations of every single one of his talking points. How many times have I read about Trump's "dislike of immigrants", conviniently leaving out the illegal part? The list goes on and on. If you read foreign news, it gets even worse and more blatant since most of their readers don't have the luxury of understanding the source.
      - akhilcacharya 8y ago
        His policies and the people he surrounds himself with have made his disdain for legal immigrants clear. Stephen Miller wants to reduce all immigration, not just the illegal kind.
yasp 8y ago
We also tend to overlook the US government's own propaganda efforts, via the Smith Mundt Modernization Act.
blancheneige 8y ago
I think establishment outlets is a better characterization than "right wing". think of CNN and Fox News as two vectors with left and right components, but both conveniently adding up to a net upward direction (just look how excited they get over the prospect of more intervensionism, and let's not forget Fox coverage of Trump until they realized they had to get onboard). That overlapping part is the neo liberal + neocon establishment, both equally averse to "far right" and "far left" momentum, which typically share a common resentment directed toward the top of the pyramid.

gambler 8y ago

I will start taking research like this seriously when authors will start discussing media spin as part of the problem. If you think bots are a problem, but news websites engaging in blatant, Orwellian language and fact bending are not... you should at leas be able to back it up with comparative research on effectiveness, which I've never seen being done. Online "discussions" of political topics are saturated with links to traditional media. Increasingly, I think giving up on "news" and social media altogether is the best solution. I've quit most of it. HN is the closes thing to social media I visit. I watch YouTube, but limit videos to specific educational content.

InternetUser 8y ago
You honestly do not consume any news about current world events, whether local, national, or international? Or do you just mean that you continually and deliberately ignore political news? I mean, that's not exactly rare: 100 million eligible voters (42%) did not even care to vote in the 2016 U.S. presidential election[0]; I suppose they either don't believe their vote would matter, or that Hillary and Trump were the same enough. I would think there are still easily tens of thousands of those people are still indifferent about the electoral process. Anyway, to me, it's easy to see how sports, video games, TV shows, porn, eating, alcohol, weed, and drugs can be seen as more interesting than, for instance, the current "battle" about if, when, and where the 2019 State of the Union address will take place. [0] http://archive.is/NDUkb http://archive.is/NDUkb
- gambler 8y ago
  >You honestly do not consume any news about current world events, whether local, national, or international? Not intentionally. Information about big things still leaks through websites like HN and Slashdot, through articles/interviews about "non-newsy" subjects, as well as through people I know. I've considered quitting HN and Slashdot too, but I need up-to-date technical information to do my job effectively. Can't find a good alternative. >100 million eligible voters (42%) did not even care to vote in the 2016 U.S. presidential election When I need to vote these days, I approach it as buying a piece of electronics. I dedicate time to research my options. As in, sit down and spend several hours or days searching for relevant (to me) information on the candidates. Obviously, this might include news articles if they are relevant, but those have to be articles about something specific (e.g. some particular thing a candidate did in relation to a particular social or economic issue I'm interested in). It's a tedious process, but I think it's better than passively and continuously consuming whatever some media outlet cooks up to fill their air time, print space or website home page.

hnuser1234 8y ago

Giant media corporations owned by billionaires, run by millionaires, and overwhelmingly staffed by members/partisans of a single political party pump out propaganda on all of their mediums 24/7 and totally dominate and saturate public opinion but we are supposed to understand that "bots" are a threat to democracy? As someone who has been deemed a "bot" by people who do not wish to hear information they do not like on more occasions than I can recall, I note an insidious aspect of this emphasis on "bots" is that it allows the ready dismissal of any individual expressing heterodoxy and glorifies/sanctifies the "official" media previously described. Yet we saw this past week that social media users were able to win a rare victory in bringing the "official" media to heel for their lies and manipulation in setting upon a group of innocent schoolchildren. The official media hates it when their marks push back and thus we get propaganda like this study.

fzeroracer 8y ago
Ah, you mean those same innocent schoolchildren that were caught harassing women before the actual incident even went down? The situation is obviously far from black and white, but calling them innocent is such a disengenuous characterization of the situation that I question what is your intent actually is considering the rest of your post.
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  Your allegation is fitting, as that was another bit of viral fake news from the weekend. The alleged harassers were proven not to be part of the Covington Catholic group. Confirmation bias is tempting, but maybe everyone (including the media) should be more skeptical before taking the word of a tweet for granted? The poster saw a few boys in the midst of a crowded multi-march weekend and falsely ascribed the encounter to Covington in retrospect after the original controversy blew up. Interesting aside - Bots were found to be the viral sharing element accelerating the original spread of the Covington controversy: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/tech/twitter-suspends-account-native-american-maga-teens/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/tech/twitter-suspends-account...
  - 8y ago

rwhitman 8y ago

This interview should be held up as a definitive educational material for anyone working around social media platforms. Really shines an important spotlight on how bad actors manipulate digital information, and how to adjust business and mental models towards mitigating platform manipulation into the future. Really pleased to hear how much research and thought is being done in this area now. Looking forward to hearing more from this team.