5 ms·

Not sure I see the effective difference between bad faith domestic interference in democratic process and foreign interference in democratic process. Both have

Not sure I see the effective difference between bad faith domestic interference in democratic process and foreign interference in democratic process. Both have the same end result.

darth_skywalker 7y ago
On the other hand, politicians have been trying to manipulate voters for centuries - it seems like a new danger that foreign governments are now trying to manipulate voters.
- wuliwong 7y ago
  I would argue the foreign govt angle also is not new. The US at least has interfered with foreign elections before the internet era.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Sure but just because the US are hypocrites on the issue doesn't mean we should tolerate it.
    - wuliwong 7y ago
      I certainly am not arguing against that. My point was that it isn't new not that we should tolerate it.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  >it seems like a new danger that foreign governments are now trying to manipulate voters This is not a new thing. Take for example, Poland historically used to elect a monarch. Various European powers would try to influence who was elected. In 1733, this famously culminated in the War of the Polish Succession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Polish_Succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Polish_Succession Going back even further, Persia would back different Greek politicians. This game of influencing foreign elections is a game that has been played for centuries, and is likely not going away any time soon.
- Amezarak 7y ago
  It isn’t new at all. Foreign countries have been doing it since the invention of democracy. You can see this very vividly demonstrated in any classical histories, like Thucydides, all the way up through history, with all types of elections, from actual every-single-citizen democracies to the just-the-Electors HRE. This is also true in American history from the very beginning, when French interests, for example, worked against Adams. Or more famously, when the British strongly intervened to ensure the re-election of FDR. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/when-a-foreign-government-interfered-in-a-us-electionto-reelect-fdr-214634 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/when-a-forei... The Kennedy election was also famously the target of Russian interference. https://time.com/4851449/trump-jr-russian-kennedy-history/ https://time.com/4851449/trump-jr-russian-kennedy-history/ Simply put, there’s no foreign country in world history that wasn’t or isn’t interfering in domestic elections they have any kind of interest in. It would be very foolish not to. It’s a game that has gone on since the invention of democracy and will always go on, because every incentive is aligned with it and there are no norms against it. In general, you have to be very careful when people claim something is new and unprecedented. Sometimes they just don’t know and lack the necessary context, but often they’re constructing a narrative that relies on historical innocence/ignorance of relatively mundane detail. This has been a major problem with our news media that has been getting worse for decades: they don’t do the very important job of putting things into historical or even a current cultural context. Instead, they create narratives that are easy, get people fired up and consuming more news, and often inadvertently (or sometimes advertently) serve a partisan purpose.
ineedasername 7y ago
Well, one of them is illegal. Also, the foreign variety advances the possibly incompatible goals of the foreign country while the domestic version tends to be between individuals with differing but legitimate visions of how the country should be run.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- inetknght 7y ago
  > Well, one of them is illegal. I would argue that both of them are illegal.
  - mocha_nate 7y ago
    Yeah. And the original statement was ”vastly different”... Definitely disagreeing on that first point
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      If it's illegal for a campaign to have paid shills posting bad things about one candidate and good things about another, then I'd agree the difference is much smaller than I first started, but I'm not aware of any law that would be breaking.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    I could be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal to have paid shills talking up one candidate or smearing another.

Not sure I see the effective difference between bad faith domestic interference in democratic process and foreign interference in democratic process. Both have the same end result.

darth_skywalker 7y ago

On the other hand, politicians have been trying to manipulate voters for centuries - it seems like a new danger that foreign governments are now trying to manipulate voters.

wuliwong 7y ago
I would argue the foreign govt angle also is not new. The US at least has interfered with foreign elections before the internet era.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Sure but just because the US are hypocrites on the issue doesn't mean we should tolerate it.
  - wuliwong 7y ago
    I certainly am not arguing against that. My point was that it isn't new not that we should tolerate it.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
>it seems like a new danger that foreign governments are now trying to manipulate voters This is not a new thing. Take for example, Poland historically used to elect a monarch. Various European powers would try to influence who was elected. In 1733, this famously culminated in the War of the Polish Succession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Polish_Succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Polish_Succession Going back even further, Persia would back different Greek politicians. This game of influencing foreign elections is a game that has been played for centuries, and is likely not going away any time soon.
Amezarak 7y ago
It isn’t new at all. Foreign countries have been doing it since the invention of democracy. You can see this very vividly demonstrated in any classical histories, like Thucydides, all the way up through history, with all types of elections, from actual every-single-citizen democracies to the just-the-Electors HRE. This is also true in American history from the very beginning, when French interests, for example, worked against Adams. Or more famously, when the British strongly intervened to ensure the re-election of FDR. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/when-a-foreign-government-interfered-in-a-us-electionto-reelect-fdr-214634 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/when-a-forei... The Kennedy election was also famously the target of Russian interference. https://time.com/4851449/trump-jr-russian-kennedy-history/ https://time.com/4851449/trump-jr-russian-kennedy-history/ Simply put, there’s no foreign country in world history that wasn’t or isn’t interfering in domestic elections they have any kind of interest in. It would be very foolish not to. It’s a game that has gone on since the invention of democracy and will always go on, because every incentive is aligned with it and there are no norms against it. In general, you have to be very careful when people claim something is new and unprecedented. Sometimes they just don’t know and lack the necessary context, but often they’re constructing a narrative that relies on historical innocence/ignorance of relatively mundane detail. This has been a major problem with our news media that has been getting worse for decades: they don’t do the very important job of putting things into historical or even a current cultural context. Instead, they create narratives that are easy, get people fired up and consuming more news, and often inadvertently (or sometimes advertently) serve a partisan purpose.

ineedasername 7y ago

Well, one of them is illegal. Also, the foreign variety advances the possibly incompatible goals of the foreign country while the domestic version tends to be between individuals with differing but legitimate visions of how the country should be run.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
inetknght 7y ago
> Well, one of them is illegal. I would argue that both of them are illegal.
- mocha_nate 7y ago
  Yeah. And the original statement was ”vastly different”... Definitely disagreeing on that first point
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    If it's illegal for a campaign to have paid shills posting bad things about one candidate and good things about another, then I'd agree the difference is much smaller than I first started, but I'm not aware of any law that would be breaking.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  I could be wrong, but I don't think it's illegal to have paid shills talking up one candidate or smearing another.