7 ms·

I'm not sure when you're referencing, but Russian troll farms used Sanders to divide the left on social media websites.

kop316 7y ago
He was referring to just how pro-Sanders/Anti-Hillary Reddit was up until the electron primaries. Right after Hillary got the nomination in 2016, it turned to Pro-Hillary. /r/politics was particularly bad on all of that. The first day after the election was the first time any news about the private email server was even allowed on /r/politics.
- iron0013 7y ago
  "Right after Hillary got the nomination in 2016, it turned to Pro-Hillary." Isn't that exactly what you'd expect to happen if a lot of the commenters where Democratic voters acting as rational agents in good faith? If I were a Bernie supporter in 2016 who wanted the Democratic candidate (whoever that might end up being) to win, why would I shit on Clinton after she won the nomination? It'd make more sense to support her, and I think that's what a lot of people did. That's certainly exactly what I did.
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    Because they maliciously sabotaged Sanders in an extremely undemocratic way and Sanders supporters would want accountability and change so that doesn't happen again?
mieseratte 7y ago
> but Russian troll farms used Sanders to divide the left on social media websites. Weird, IMHO Hillary and the Democrat party really seemed to be the one's doing the dividing.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  It's a tired argument. Like saying Jill Stein is a Russian asset because literally 1 post in 10,000 (from troll farms) mentioned her as a "redirection" effort. Yes, mentioning Sanders is also a way to redirect from voting for Hillary. Suggesting he's somehow accountable or responsible for this is ridiculous though. The only person HRC has to blame for losing is herself. The amount of actual-fake-news where there was total bullshit made up about her was nearly non-existent, and especially so when compared to the bullshit made up about Trump (paying hookers to pee in a bed Obama slept in, which got REAL mainstream media coverage thousands of times).
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    > Like saying Jill Stein is a Russian asset because literally 1 post in 10,000 (from troll farms) mentioned her as a "redirection" effort. Therein lies a good point I routinely use to befuddle, is how do you know these trolls are working on behalf of someone for their benefit, or working on behalf of the opposition as a way to attempt to discredit? Attribution is hard.
  - klyrs 7y ago
    > compared to the bullshit made up about Trump (paying hookers to pee in a bed Obama slept in, which got REAL mainstream media coverage thousands of times). This is so absurd. Given the quantity of bullshit, self-incrimination and self-contradiction coming out of his mouth, it's really hard to imagine feeling a need to make up more...
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Like saying Jill Stein is a Russian asset because literally 1 post in 10,000 (from troll farms) mentioned her as a "redirection" effort. That's not why Stein is called a Russian asset; they did the same with Sanders, who acknowledged and rejected what they were doing when it was discovered, and wasn't nearly as often labeled that way. Aside from the difference in each candidates response there's other behavioral differences including, well, things like this: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-fly...
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  It's weird that the fact Russians targeted also heavily BLM doesn't get attention. They ran the biggest FB page, tons of other on other platform. Mueller pdf is s fascinating read, I suggest everyone to read it. It's not dry at all and has everything for every side in it.
mistermann 7y ago
This is news to me, are you able to cite any specific evidence? (Not vague allegations or assertions of fact, but rather actual, specific, somewhat confirmable evidence.)
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  I mean if you want to make a startup that analyzes language and maps it to a political bias and then run an analysis on the millions of reddit comments, you'd probably make a decent amount of money. Otherwise no, you'd have to go spend dozens of hours reading reddit comments over various historical timeframes
- bduerst 7y ago
  It comes from the federal indictment of the Russian troll farm called the Internet Research Agency in February 2016, in which the IRA would “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them.)” This has been confirmed with research by independent media analysts like Johnathan Albright. There's a good summary here: https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/what-we-know-about-the-internet-research-agency-and-how-it-meddled-in-the-2016-election.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/what-we-know-about-the-...
  - mistermann 7y ago
    There is no evidence in there, only claims with a healthy peppering of qualification or misleadingly speculative terms like "alleged", "according to", "supports the idea", "believed to be", Russian-"linked", etc. If you look carefully, you might even notice there's not even an attempt to provide any evidence. Like any other article on this topic, it just presents the claims as if evidence has been provided. But there is none, only allegations, and "believed to be" based on easily spoofable attributes. I'm not denying all of this was the Russians, I'm just pointing out that I've never seen any actual evidence, or encountered anyone who was able to provide me anything that is more than narrative based allegations, completely devoid of evidence. I in no way expect to change your mind, I am simply stating my understanding of what is actually known (and published) versus what is speculation. I likely won't be able to reply again due to going against the grain, but if you can post any actual evidence I promise to read it and adjust my beliefs accordingly. If posting a link to a multi-hundred page document, please include some hint as to what page some actual evidence exists on as 100% of the people I've encountered online who have taken this approach have all for some reason decided to not reveal where these shocking proofs that they've certainly personally read can be found in the document, for some strange reason.

He was referring to just how pro-Sanders/Anti-Hillary Reddit was up until the electron primaries. Right after Hillary got the nomination in 2016, it turned to Pro-Hillary. /r/politics was particularly bad on all of that. The first day after the election was the first time any news about the private email server was even allowed on /r/politics.

iron0013 7y ago
"Right after Hillary got the nomination in 2016, it turned to Pro-Hillary." Isn't that exactly what you'd expect to happen if a lot of the commenters where Democratic voters acting as rational agents in good faith? If I were a Bernie supporter in 2016 who wanted the Democratic candidate (whoever that might end up being) to win, why would I shit on Clinton after she won the nomination? It'd make more sense to support her, and I think that's what a lot of people did. That's certainly exactly what I did.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  Because they maliciously sabotaged Sanders in an extremely undemocratic way and Sanders supporters would want accountability and change so that doesn't happen again?

mieseratte 7y ago

> but Russian troll farms used Sanders to divide the left on social media websites. Weird, IMHO Hillary and the Democrat party really seemed to be the one's doing the dividing.

whamlastxmas 7y ago
It's a tired argument. Like saying Jill Stein is a Russian asset because literally 1 post in 10,000 (from troll farms) mentioned her as a "redirection" effort. Yes, mentioning Sanders is also a way to redirect from voting for Hillary. Suggesting he's somehow accountable or responsible for this is ridiculous though. The only person HRC has to blame for losing is herself. The amount of actual-fake-news where there was total bullshit made up about her was nearly non-existent, and especially so when compared to the bullshit made up about Trump (paying hookers to pee in a bed Obama slept in, which got REAL mainstream media coverage thousands of times).
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > Like saying Jill Stein is a Russian asset because literally 1 post in 10,000 (from troll farms) mentioned her as a "redirection" effort. Therein lies a good point I routinely use to befuddle, is how do you know these trolls are working on behalf of someone for their benefit, or working on behalf of the opposition as a way to attempt to discredit? Attribution is hard.
- klyrs 7y ago
  > compared to the bullshit made up about Trump (paying hookers to pee in a bed Obama slept in, which got REAL mainstream media coverage thousands of times). This is so absurd. Given the quantity of bullshit, self-incrimination and self-contradiction coming out of his mouth, it's really hard to imagine feeling a need to make up more...
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Like saying Jill Stein is a Russian asset because literally 1 post in 10,000 (from troll farms) mentioned her as a "redirection" effort. That's not why Stein is called a Russian asset; they did the same with Sanders, who acknowledged and rejected what they were doing when it was discovered, and wasn't nearly as often labeled that way. Aside from the difference in each candidates response there's other behavioral differences including, well, things like this: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-fly...
9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
It's weird that the fact Russians targeted also heavily BLM doesn't get attention. They ran the biggest FB page, tons of other on other platform. Mueller pdf is s fascinating read, I suggest everyone to read it. It's not dry at all and has everything for every side in it.

mistermann 7y ago

This is news to me, are you able to cite any specific evidence? (Not vague allegations or assertions of fact, but rather actual, specific, somewhat confirmable evidence.)

whamlastxmas 7y ago
I mean if you want to make a startup that analyzes language and maps it to a political bias and then run an analysis on the millions of reddit comments, you'd probably make a decent amount of money. Otherwise no, you'd have to go spend dozens of hours reading reddit comments over various historical timeframes
bduerst 7y ago
It comes from the federal indictment of the Russian troll farm called the Internet Research Agency in February 2016, in which the IRA would “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them.)” This has been confirmed with research by independent media analysts like Johnathan Albright. There's a good summary here: https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/what-we-know-about-the-internet-research-agency-and-how-it-meddled-in-the-2016-election.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/what-we-know-about-the-...
- mistermann 7y ago
  There is no evidence in there, only claims with a healthy peppering of qualification or misleadingly speculative terms like "alleged", "according to", "supports the idea", "believed to be", Russian-"linked", etc. If you look carefully, you might even notice there's not even an attempt to provide any evidence. Like any other article on this topic, it just presents the claims as if evidence has been provided. But there is none, only allegations, and "believed to be" based on easily spoofable attributes. I'm not denying all of this was the Russians, I'm just pointing out that I've never seen any actual evidence, or encountered anyone who was able to provide me anything that is more than narrative based allegations, completely devoid of evidence. I in no way expect to change your mind, I am simply stating my understanding of what is actually known (and published) versus what is speculation. I likely won't be able to reply again due to going against the grain, but if you can post any actual evidence I promise to read it and adjust my beliefs accordingly. If posting a link to a multi-hundred page document, please include some hint as to what page some actual evidence exists on as 100% of the people I've encountered online who have taken this approach have all for some reason decided to not reveal where these shocking proofs that they've certainly personally read can be found in the document, for some strange reason.