6 ms·

I try to shy away from politics on this website but I can't shake this nagging feeling that this says something important about the current state of the US and

I try to shy away from politics on this website but I can't shake this nagging feeling that this says something important about the current state of the US and the world. I am not a US citizen nor a resident, nor am I a Russian citizen or resident, so my opinions are absolutely subjective. I feel like whenever an external agent such as Russia opens up the troll farms, the US gets all up in arms about the threat to democracy and how its poor country is under assault by the big bad meanies sending their virtual gargoyles to pray on its innocent citizens and influence their voting habits and put whoever they want in charge of the country and oh woe me, while they are doing it to their own citizens! I don't hear Russia on the world stage as vocal about it as the US, if anything I'm hearing a lot more pragmatic (not something everyone agrees with) geopolitical discussion coming from that side, and I don't hear about them actively targeting their own citizens in "psyops" with the same fervor as the US. Of course, this could mean that the press is free in the US and totally controlled in Russia so of course we hear only one side of the story, but I have this nagging feeling that whereas Russian government is actively and directly sabotaging its citizens, the US is engaged in far more psychologically dangerous activities targeting its state of being, and that the most damage is done by internal forces, not by external baddies. I dunno, might be totally off, who knows...

simula67 7y ago
I am also not a resident of these countries but I also don't think you are that far off. Noam Chomsky talked about this[1] a long time ago. Lies of omission etc are more common in "free" societies. My own view of this is that if you are only presented one side of the story, you are not really free as you are not making an informed choice. Sadly, it is widely accepted everywhere ( even in "liberal" societies ) that certain elites should define what is good and bad and then present it to us in an absolute manner, through deception, if necessary. [1]https://youtu.be/kusAX4Th4N8 https://youtu.be/kusAX4Th4N8
jacobush 7y ago
Most Russians get psyops TV and little internet
- ThalesX 7y ago
  I am not aware of this, but upon a quick google I see the penetration is not that bad; in the U.S. it seems to be 88.5% [0] whereas in Russia it's 71.3% [1], so it's not all that far off. Unless you are talking about the quantity of 'psyops' on the media channels and that I couldn't quantify. [0] https://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/russia/ https://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/russia/ [1] https://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/us/ https://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/us/
  - jacobush 7y ago
    This is not as bad as I imagined it. Can't imagine much free press is allowed in Russia. What's left must self-sensor pretty heavily, especially after Anna was shot.
alwayseasy 7y ago
>and I don't hear about them actively targeting their own citizens in "psyops" with the same fervor as the US. Both countries are well versed in the topic but of course your media diet might affect how much you see on it. Historically more than half the budget and employees of the IRA is dedicated to Russian speaking internet users and have been involved in way more elaborate schemes directed at Russian electors. They've physically impersonated journalists and gone to the door of anti-government activists for example. The Russian government also has a tighter media machine to encircle their propaganda targets by coordinating their attacks using TV, press and internet assets directly aligned with the state. In the USA sockpuppetting and astroturfing by political entities is usually discovered due to healthy democratic tensions where both camps get to freely express themselves when they discover them. The "alt-right" has been building a network of media organizations but have a harder time getting their propaganda laundered by the traditional media who tend to vet what they air/publish. The political fracture of the USA makes it harder to convince the entire country on 1 topic. The recent failed attempts by Jacob Wohl to create "offline" pressure on Robert Mueller or Elizabeth Warren and have them laundered in traditional media is a sign they're trying but not connecting yet. Finally the example here is less about a political operative trying to trick the American constituents than giving the FCC a pretext (or biased analysis) to say their policy was popular.
- ThalesX 7y ago
  Thanks for the comment, food for thought! > Historically more than half the budget and employees of the IRA is dedicated to Russian speaking internet users and have been involved in way more elaborate schemes directed at Russian electors. They've physically impersonated journalists and gone to the door of anti-government activists for example. The Russian government also has a tighter media machine to encircle their propaganda targets by coordinating their attacks using TV, press and internet assets directly aligned with the state. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this were true. Russia's government viewed from a distance does seem like the kind of entity engaged in this kind of 'persuasion' and operations, even through third party 'private' entities. > In the USA sockpuppetting and astroturfing by political entities is usually discovered due to healthy democratic tensions where both camps get to freely express themselves when they discover them. I think there's danger in this kind of statement. If one truly believes one's country to have a healthy way of resolving such operations because the balance of powers is so great, that person is prime for getting manipulated as they are letting their guard down. > Finally the example here is less about a political operative trying to trick the American constituents than giving the FCC a pretext (or biased analysis) to say their policy was popular. I agree, however if you ask me this gives an even smaller group of people control of the majority than if the target would be directly influencing the average American constituent. I'm not sure if I understood the idea clearly, but it seems a lot more dangerous for an entity to just be able to justify its own actions in order to influence laws in a nation, than to have to go through the hurdle of influencing the masses.
lagadu 7y ago
Not only that but it's legit hilarious how the US spent decades influencing (some times by force even) foreign elections and governments but suddenly when someone does it to them it's unacceptable. It's pathetic.
- ThalesX 7y ago
  I wouldn't call it pathetic. Hypocrisy? Yes, but all countries do this. I'm a bit afraid for people living in any country believing their little piece of the planet doesn't engage in geopolitics.
- coldcode 7y ago
  It's pathetic when people from any country equate what a country's politicians do with what their people want. I am not the US government. The US government may love the idea of foreign influence and hacking but a big chunk of its people do not. Please do not confuse these two things.
  - ThalesX 7y ago
    What's the alternative though? Politicians are elected by the people to represent the people's needs and wants because as of yet we can't really ask everyone's opinion on every decision. I think the political decisions of a country can be equated to the will of the majority, because every election cycle the majority can change their government's body. Or protest. Or get involved in politics. Maybe you're not part of the majority, and you disagree with the majority's views, but I think it's not at all pathetic to equate the country's politicians with what the people want. You are not the US government, the the US government represents the US people's interests; both domestic and externally.
    - kazagistar 7y ago
      The US president was elected by 25.7% of the public. US democracy is beyond broken, and pretending the government represents the will of the majority, especially on any given issue, is a joke.
  - 7y ago
peterwwillis 7y ago
I think it says something about the world indirectly, in that the US and Russia are big enough to influence other parts of the world through ripple effects. However, there are many nations that aren't going through existential crises of faith in their government to effectively lead them without institutionalized corruption and subversion. So I think the actual effects are more local than global. In many ways the political body is just a reflection of the citizenry. The US is part of a global cultural shift, and that has consequences. It's not nearly as dangerous as, say, the Protestant Reformation, but there are some parallels. Belief and trust in the authority of the state is waning, new ideas about the ethics of treating each other are becoming more entrenched, and technology is furthering the spread of these ideas. The US political machine is slowly eating itself, and a very bad economic downtown could threaten its foundations. If the US is going to be hurt, it'll probably be by within more than without. But you also can't talk about politics anymore without geopolitics. As the US changes internally, that makes it vulnerable externally. The current administration has been systematically giving up international influence in favor of nationalism, a trend other Western nations are also going with, which will result in an international shift of power. China may not be fermenting revolution here, but they're obviously bolstering their role on the world stage. They will be ready to pick up any money and power we leave on the table, which weakens the US and the west in general. So sure, these kinds of "oh no our government is subverting itself" posts are problematic, but I don't think nearly as problematic as just how the minds of the citizens are changing, and how that is then affecting its stability.
cat199 7y ago
> I am not a US citizen nor a resident, nor am I a Russian citizen or resident, so my opinions are absolutely subjective. believe me, this doesn't make your opinions objective ;)
- iptq 7y ago
  Looks like u didn't read the last word
  - cat199 7y ago
    dyslexia for the win
shmerl 7y ago
What's so "geopolitically pragmatic" in the discussion coming from the mafia that gained access to nuclear weapons and now dreams that it should be accepted as a world power? Unless you view mob tactics as pragmatic in general. Also, don't mix up the mafia that's in power there now with Russia itself. They don't represent the country and its people, they are usurpers.
zyxzevn 7y ago
All media in the US is controlled by just a few companies. Both companies and military units are working on forums to control the discussions. Sometimes pretending to be on both sides to make a discussion deviate from the actual issues. Some US "friend"-states also have a huge influence in the online discussions, and in the media. They have their own military units and action groups. And this is just the beginning of the manipulation that is going on online by actors. The foreign influence is just minor and is exaggerated by the internal influencers as a distraction. That way the internal influencers can pretend that they are doing good work. And this is just the beginning. A good solution is to detect logical fallacies in the stories. How much are they used to push a certain idea? Is there actual evidence? And/or is there possible manipulation by an involved party.
WillPostForFood 7y ago
while they are doing it to their own citizens! That's not what the story is saying. The FCC didn't create any fake comments. From one we know so far, one "grassroots" marketing company has been identified as creating fake comments. Their client hasn't been identified, but likely is an ISP, or an ISP lobbying group. This is bad behavior, but far from the Government psyops on its own citizens. edit: yes, multiple industry lobbying groups have been identified. The FCC wasn't behind this, this isn't an example of a government psyop against its own citizens.
- murph-almighty 7y ago
  > likely is an ISP, or an ISP lobbying group The devil is in the details here- consider the current state of regulatory capture of the FCC, where Ajit Pai is arguably representing the interests of his previous employer, Verizon. It's not a giant leap to argue that the placement of Pai and the comments on the net neutrality board were 1) orchestrated by Verizon and 2) strategically use the government as a proxy to hide the exercise of their will. I wouldn't say this is a case of `the government is doing psyops`, but rather `some entity is using the government to gaslight the people`. I don't blame the structure for this problem, but the people who corrupted it.
  - kazagistar 7y ago
    I certainly blame the structure, as in, the Citizens United supreme court decision that the constitution protects spending unlimited money convincing politicians to do what you want. It's just not something you can change without clarifying or modifying the constitution, and thus corruption is fundamentally a inevitable outcome of our current political structure.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    I agree completely. And I'd go a little further, and say that allowing unaccountable commenting is incompetent or negligent. If there is going to be government sponsored public comment, there needs to a penalty for fraud.
- calibas 7y ago
philipov 7y ago
> I try to shy away from politics on this website but... Who was it that said, "Those who don't do politics will have politics done to them"
- ThalesX 7y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree, but this is a community where I would like to see less politics. Outside of forums, I am involved in the low scale politics of where I live because, as that one person said, I like to at least have a say in the way I am governed.
duxup 7y ago
>I don't hear Russia on the world stage as vocal about it as the US Does that, matter? Does your hearing one country talk about this topic, and you not hearing another country talk about it matter or mean something in some way?
- ThalesX 7y ago
  For me it does. For me it does as a major part of my opinion forming mechanism is actually listening to the official declaration of countries regarding matters of importance to me. Is there a reason why you are asking me these questions? Should it not matter? Am I an idiot for listening to the official statements of countries regarding international matters?
  - duxup 7y ago
    Do you consider the buzzfeed article "official declaration of countries"? I feel like you anthropomorphize this situation almost to irrelevance. "This country complained, this one didn't." is such a simplification that I think you're missing the actual topic. If two countries nuked each other and one complained more, would it matter?
    - ThalesX 7y ago
      > Do you consider the buzzfeed article "official declaration of countries"? No. > If two countries nuked each other and one complained more, would it matter? For me, yes, the official statements on the nuking countries would matter.
      - duxup 7y ago
        Why though? Countries make statements for internal audiences, external, etc. They're hardly a good indicator of much of anything. Let alone that you'd be basing your opinion about what they said, not what they did.
        ThalesX 7y ago
52-6F-62 7y ago
Tangential, probably, but this is a great article on the subject of the IRA/troll farms: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html
stjohnswarts 7y ago
Sure the US pushes propaganda on Russia, but it doesn't go around shooting dissident reporters in the face and throwing them in jail on false charges.

simula67 7y ago

I am also not a resident of these countries but I also don't think you are that far off. Noam Chomsky talked about this[1] a long time ago. Lies of omission etc are more common in "free" societies. My own view of this is that if you are only presented one side of the story, you are not really free as you are not making an informed choice. Sadly, it is widely accepted everywhere ( even in "liberal" societies ) that certain elites should define what is good and bad and then present it to us in an absolute manner, through deception, if necessary. [1]https://youtu.be/kusAX4Th4N8 https://youtu.be/kusAX4Th4N8

jacobush 7y ago

Most Russians get psyops TV and little internet

ThalesX 7y ago
I am not aware of this, but upon a quick google I see the penetration is not that bad; in the U.S. it seems to be 88.5% [0] whereas in Russia it's 71.3% [1], so it's not all that far off. Unless you are talking about the quantity of 'psyops' on the media channels and that I couldn't quantify. [0] https://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/russia/ https://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/russia/ [1] https://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/us/ https://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/us/
- jacobush 7y ago
  This is not as bad as I imagined it. Can't imagine much free press is allowed in Russia. What's left must self-sensor pretty heavily, especially after Anna was shot.

alwayseasy 7y ago

>and I don't hear about them actively targeting their own citizens in "psyops" with the same fervor as the US. Both countries are well versed in the topic but of course your media diet might affect how much you see on it. Historically more than half the budget and employees of the IRA is dedicated to Russian speaking internet users and have been involved in way more elaborate schemes directed at Russian electors. They've physically impersonated journalists and gone to the door of anti-government activists for example. The Russian government also has a tighter media machine to encircle their propaganda targets by coordinating their attacks using TV, press and internet assets directly aligned with the state. In the USA sockpuppetting and astroturfing by political entities is usually discovered due to healthy democratic tensions where both camps get to freely express themselves when they discover them. The "alt-right" has been building a network of media organizations but have a harder time getting their propaganda laundered by the traditional media who tend to vet what they air/publish. The political fracture of the USA makes it harder to convince the entire country on 1 topic. The recent failed attempts by Jacob Wohl to create "offline" pressure on Robert Mueller or Elizabeth Warren and have them laundered in traditional media is a sign they're trying but not connecting yet. Finally the example here is less about a political operative trying to trick the American constituents than giving the FCC a pretext (or biased analysis) to say their policy was popular.

ThalesX 7y ago
Thanks for the comment, food for thought! > Historically more than half the budget and employees of the IRA is dedicated to Russian speaking internet users and have been involved in way more elaborate schemes directed at Russian electors. They've physically impersonated journalists and gone to the door of anti-government activists for example. The Russian government also has a tighter media machine to encircle their propaganda targets by coordinating their attacks using TV, press and internet assets directly aligned with the state. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this were true. Russia's government viewed from a distance does seem like the kind of entity engaged in this kind of 'persuasion' and operations, even through third party 'private' entities. > In the USA sockpuppetting and astroturfing by political entities is usually discovered due to healthy democratic tensions where both camps get to freely express themselves when they discover them. I think there's danger in this kind of statement. If one truly believes one's country to have a healthy way of resolving such operations because the balance of powers is so great, that person is prime for getting manipulated as they are letting their guard down. > Finally the example here is less about a political operative trying to trick the American constituents than giving the FCC a pretext (or biased analysis) to say their policy was popular. I agree, however if you ask me this gives an even smaller group of people control of the majority than if the target would be directly influencing the average American constituent. I'm not sure if I understood the idea clearly, but it seems a lot more dangerous for an entity to just be able to justify its own actions in order to influence laws in a nation, than to have to go through the hurdle of influencing the masses.

lagadu 7y ago

Not only that but it's legit hilarious how the US spent decades influencing (some times by force even) foreign elections and governments but suddenly when someone does it to them it's unacceptable. It's pathetic.

ThalesX 7y ago
I wouldn't call it pathetic. Hypocrisy? Yes, but all countries do this. I'm a bit afraid for people living in any country believing their little piece of the planet doesn't engage in geopolitics.
coldcode 7y ago
It's pathetic when people from any country equate what a country's politicians do with what their people want. I am not the US government. The US government may love the idea of foreign influence and hacking but a big chunk of its people do not. Please do not confuse these two things.
- ThalesX 7y ago
  What's the alternative though? Politicians are elected by the people to represent the people's needs and wants because as of yet we can't really ask everyone's opinion on every decision. I think the political decisions of a country can be equated to the will of the majority, because every election cycle the majority can change their government's body. Or protest. Or get involved in politics. Maybe you're not part of the majority, and you disagree with the majority's views, but I think it's not at all pathetic to equate the country's politicians with what the people want. You are not the US government, the the US government represents the US people's interests; both domestic and externally.
  - kazagistar 7y ago
    The US president was elected by 25.7% of the public. US democracy is beyond broken, and pretending the government represents the will of the majority, especially on any given issue, is a joke.
- 7y ago

peterwwillis 7y ago

I think it says something about the world indirectly, in that the US and Russia are big enough to influence other parts of the world through ripple effects. However, there are many nations that aren't going through existential crises of faith in their government to effectively lead them without institutionalized corruption and subversion. So I think the actual effects are more local than global. In many ways the political body is just a reflection of the citizenry. The US is part of a global cultural shift, and that has consequences. It's not nearly as dangerous as, say, the Protestant Reformation, but there are some parallels. Belief and trust in the authority of the state is waning, new ideas about the ethics of treating each other are becoming more entrenched, and technology is furthering the spread of these ideas. The US political machine is slowly eating itself, and a very bad economic downtown could threaten its foundations. If the US is going to be hurt, it'll probably be by within more than without. But you also can't talk about politics anymore without geopolitics. As the US changes internally, that makes it vulnerable externally. The current administration has been systematically giving up international influence in favor of nationalism, a trend other Western nations are also going with, which will result in an international shift of power. China may not be fermenting revolution here, but they're obviously bolstering their role on the world stage. They will be ready to pick up any money and power we leave on the table, which weakens the US and the west in general. So sure, these kinds of "oh no our government is subverting itself" posts are problematic, but I don't think nearly as problematic as just how the minds of the citizens are changing, and how that is then affecting its stability.

cat199 7y ago

> I am not a US citizen nor a resident, nor am I a Russian citizen or resident, so my opinions are absolutely subjective. believe me, this doesn't make your opinions objective ;)

iptq 7y ago
Looks like u didn't read the last word
- cat199 7y ago
  dyslexia for the win

shmerl 7y ago

What's so "geopolitically pragmatic" in the discussion coming from the mafia that gained access to nuclear weapons and now dreams that it should be accepted as a world power? Unless you view mob tactics as pragmatic in general. Also, don't mix up the mafia that's in power there now with Russia itself. They don't represent the country and its people, they are usurpers.

zyxzevn 7y ago

All media in the US is controlled by just a few companies. Both companies and military units are working on forums to control the discussions. Sometimes pretending to be on both sides to make a discussion deviate from the actual issues. Some US "friend"-states also have a huge influence in the online discussions, and in the media. They have their own military units and action groups. And this is just the beginning of the manipulation that is going on online by actors. The foreign influence is just minor and is exaggerated by the internal influencers as a distraction. That way the internal influencers can pretend that they are doing good work. And this is just the beginning. A good solution is to detect logical fallacies in the stories. How much are they used to push a certain idea? Is there actual evidence? And/or is there possible manipulation by an involved party.

WillPostForFood 7y ago

while they are doing it to their own citizens! That's not what the story is saying. The FCC didn't create any fake comments. From one we know so far, one "grassroots" marketing company has been identified as creating fake comments. Their client hasn't been identified, but likely is an ISP, or an ISP lobbying group. This is bad behavior, but far from the Government psyops on its own citizens. edit: yes, multiple industry lobbying groups have been identified. The FCC wasn't behind this, this isn't an example of a government psyop against its own citizens.

murph-almighty 7y ago
> likely is an ISP, or an ISP lobbying group The devil is in the details here- consider the current state of regulatory capture of the FCC, where Ajit Pai is arguably representing the interests of his previous employer, Verizon. It's not a giant leap to argue that the placement of Pai and the comments on the net neutrality board were 1) orchestrated by Verizon and 2) strategically use the government as a proxy to hide the exercise of their will. I wouldn't say this is a case of `the government is doing psyops`, but rather `some entity is using the government to gaslight the people`. I don't blame the structure for this problem, but the people who corrupted it.
- kazagistar 7y ago
  I certainly blame the structure, as in, the Citizens United supreme court decision that the constitution protects spending unlimited money convincing politicians to do what you want. It's just not something you can change without clarifying or modifying the constitution, and thus corruption is fundamentally a inevitable outcome of our current political structure.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  I agree completely. And I'd go a little further, and say that allowing unaccountable commenting is incompetent or negligent. If there is going to be government sponsored public comment, there needs to a penalty for fraud.
calibas 7y ago

philipov 7y ago

> I try to shy away from politics on this website but... Who was it that said, "Those who don't do politics will have politics done to them"

ThalesX 7y ago
I wholeheartedly agree, but this is a community where I would like to see less politics. Outside of forums, I am involved in the low scale politics of where I live because, as that one person said, I like to at least have a say in the way I am governed.

duxup 7y ago

>I don't hear Russia on the world stage as vocal about it as the US Does that, matter? Does your hearing one country talk about this topic, and you not hearing another country talk about it matter or mean something in some way?

ThalesX 7y ago
For me it does. For me it does as a major part of my opinion forming mechanism is actually listening to the official declaration of countries regarding matters of importance to me. Is there a reason why you are asking me these questions? Should it not matter? Am I an idiot for listening to the official statements of countries regarding international matters?
- duxup 7y ago
  Do you consider the buzzfeed article "official declaration of countries"? I feel like you anthropomorphize this situation almost to irrelevance. "This country complained, this one didn't." is such a simplification that I think you're missing the actual topic. If two countries nuked each other and one complained more, would it matter?
  - ThalesX 7y ago
    > Do you consider the buzzfeed article "official declaration of countries"? No. > If two countries nuked each other and one complained more, would it matter? For me, yes, the official statements on the nuking countries would matter.
    - duxup 7y ago
      Why though? Countries make statements for internal audiences, external, etc. They're hardly a good indicator of much of anything. Let alone that you'd be basing your opinion about what they said, not what they did.
      - ThalesX 7y ago

52-6F-62 7y ago

Tangential, probably, but this is a great article on the subject of the IRA/troll farms: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

stjohnswarts 7y ago

Sure the US pushes propaganda on Russia, but it doesn't go around shooting dissident reporters in the face and throwing them in jail on false charges.