2 ms·

The political views impacted were indirectly affected by the aforementioned online communities. Whatever the design of the groups, the resultant effects have be

The political views impacted were indirectly affected by the aforementioned online communities. Whatever the design of the groups, the resultant effects have been overwhelmingly political. I don't know much about Ms. McKew as a writer other than she was present during the Russia-Georgia problems and would have been witness first-hand to Russia's prototyping of these kinds of tactics, as well as she's written for other reputable outlets like the Washington Post and was interviewed for Harvard Political Review[0][1]. Couple that with not only our intelligence agencies, or even the five eyes, but other national agencies like the AIVD (Netherlands) have all confirmed that this is happening. They aren't exactly green. And while I would be remiss to just dismiss a university study, I don't know who the researchers were, their methods, or their scope. If it's only about the fake news items, that stuff was almost passé by the time these other tactics really took hold. If you take a look at the CBC article and the timing of the attacks (for lack of a better word), they aligned quite tidily with a continuing stream of anti-immigrant conversations online to the point where those vitriolic approaches to the subject of immigration were wrapped up in the yellow-vest marches here. [0] http://harvardpolitics.com/interviews/molly-mckew/ http://harvardpolitics.com/interviews/molly-mckew/ [1] She's also a particularly prominant subject of attack for various [outspokenly] right-wing outlets and pro-Russian sources. It doesn't take much of a search to find that.

aksss 8y ago
Yeah, political views were impacted in the sense of "quickened". I agree that the evidence supports that these tactics have been used and documented elsewhere (Ukraine being a great example) and the phenomenon of increasing destabilization seems to be progressively effective. That phenomenon is different than changing someones voting preference - all the studies we've cited (in the US specifically) discuss these tactics as "hardening" existing views, not changing them. I'm only trying to compartmentalize these two phenomenon so they can be talked about separately, because there certainly is a narrative out there that the election was illegitimate because of election interference from Russia, and none of the evidence supports that. In fact, the DNI report explicitly disavows that idea. It is pursuant to the goal of fomenting institutional destabilization to irresponsibly push that narrative or allow a conversation about Russian meddling to implicitly support that narrative. I'm not trying to minimize the concern we should have over a foreign government being an agent provocateur for civil disturbance. I'm just saying that it's contrary to the evidence to think that these actions swayed the election.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  As far as I can tell, knowing explicitly whether somebody's political leanings were shifted is an impossible metric to test—earlier, now, or later. People are prone to lying about those things (either to themselves or to others for many reasons). If you want to see one (non-scientific) example of media affecting someone's political outlook, I recommend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brainwashing_of_My_Dad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brainwashing_of_My_Dad It's from before all of this and mainly focuses on Fox News'/talk radio style of vitriolic, non-factual reporting. Similar tactics were employed and amplified. I'd be surprised if they had no effect with the amount of noise that has gone up. I've personally seen it in others as well, but I understand that adds little to your search.

aksss 8y ago

Yeah, political views were impacted in the sense of "quickened". I agree that the evidence supports that these tactics have been used and documented elsewhere (Ukraine being a great example) and the phenomenon of increasing destabilization seems to be progressively effective. That phenomenon is different than changing someones voting preference - all the studies we've cited (in the US specifically) discuss these tactics as "hardening" existing views, not changing them. I'm only trying to compartmentalize these two phenomenon so they can be talked about separately, because there certainly is a narrative out there that the election was illegitimate because of election interference from Russia, and none of the evidence supports that. In fact, the DNI report explicitly disavows that idea. It is pursuant to the goal of fomenting institutional destabilization to irresponsibly push that narrative or allow a conversation about Russian meddling to implicitly support that narrative. I'm not trying to minimize the concern we should have over a foreign government being an agent provocateur for civil disturbance. I'm just saying that it's contrary to the evidence to think that these actions swayed the election.

52-6F-62 8y ago
As far as I can tell, knowing explicitly whether somebody's political leanings were shifted is an impossible metric to test—earlier, now, or later. People are prone to lying about those things (either to themselves or to others for many reasons). If you want to see one (non-scientific) example of media affecting someone's political outlook, I recommend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brainwashing_of_My_Dad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brainwashing_of_My_Dad It's from before all of this and mainly focuses on Fox News'/talk radio style of vitriolic, non-factual reporting. Similar tactics were employed and amplified. I'd be surprised if they had no effect with the amount of noise that has gone up. I've personally seen it in others as well, but I understand that adds little to your search.