4 ms·

I think far more concerning are the cases where the perpetrators are foreign entities.

jka 7y ago
The effect could be the same regardless of source, and the attribution could become fractally difficult depending on how many channels of influence are available to the perpetrator. Personally, I'd recommend that people focus on the results of the actions that are taking place, and devise measures to lead or redirect those towards positive outcomes. The time spent attempting to attribute nefarious outside actors -- even if you end up being correct -- could end up essentially wasted relative to the real-world impact that has occurred. Edit: I'm not suggesting that attribution or recording provenance are not worthwhile. They are valuable, especially in future. But focus should remain on what is going to happen in the near-term as a result of real-world actions.
- empath75 7y ago
  Foreign actors have different motivations— and most importantly, don’t have to live in a country if they destroy it with terrible policies.
  - Smoosh 7y ago
    This is also true of the very wealthy.
    - empath75 7y ago
      That’s pretty insightful, honestly.
  - vkou 7y ago
    There are plenty of non-foreigners who: 1. Have nefarious motivations. 2. Stand to benefit directly from the terrible policies they wish to enact. You're making the mistake of thinking that just because they wear your colours, mean that they care about your team's success. They don't. They do, however, appreciate the foreign/not-foreign red herring get used as a point of distraction.
stainforth 7y ago
Step 1: Deflect.
smolder 7y ago
And maybe slightly more concerning still that those foreign entities may or may not be doing favors for domestic entities.
RobertoG 7y ago
I find more concerning this (from the article): 'A number of other sites — such as reopennc.com — seem to exist merely to sell t-shirts, decals and yard signs with such slogans as “Know Your Rights,” “Live Free or Die,” and “Facts not Fear.' I mean, that marketing tools would be used for political gain was to be expected, but, it seems that we have arrived to a point where politics is used for marketing. One thing is to sell t-shirts with slogans and another is to create (or amplify) a movement in order to sell t-shirts, regardless of the consequences. I suppose that, as so many things, once you are inside the vortex it's difficult to tell the difference.

jka 7y ago

The effect could be the same regardless of source, and the attribution could become fractally difficult depending on how many channels of influence are available to the perpetrator. Personally, I'd recommend that people focus on the results of the actions that are taking place, and devise measures to lead or redirect those towards positive outcomes. The time spent attempting to attribute nefarious outside actors -- even if you end up being correct -- could end up essentially wasted relative to the real-world impact that has occurred. Edit: I'm not suggesting that attribution or recording provenance are not worthwhile. They are valuable, especially in future. But focus should remain on what is going to happen in the near-term as a result of real-world actions.

empath75 7y ago
Foreign actors have different motivations— and most importantly, don’t have to live in a country if they destroy it with terrible policies.
- Smoosh 7y ago
  This is also true of the very wealthy.
  - empath75 7y ago
    That’s pretty insightful, honestly.
- vkou 7y ago
  There are plenty of non-foreigners who: 1. Have nefarious motivations. 2. Stand to benefit directly from the terrible policies they wish to enact. You're making the mistake of thinking that just because they wear your colours, mean that they care about your team's success. They don't. They do, however, appreciate the foreign/not-foreign red herring get used as a point of distraction.

stainforth 7y ago

Step 1: Deflect.

smolder 7y ago

And maybe slightly more concerning still that those foreign entities may or may not be doing favors for domestic entities.

RobertoG 7y ago

I find more concerning this (from the article): 'A number of other sites — such as reopennc.com — seem to exist merely to sell t-shirts, decals and yard signs with such slogans as “Know Your Rights,” “Live Free or Die,” and “Facts not Fear.' I mean, that marketing tools would be used for political gain was to be expected, but, it seems that we have arrived to a point where politics is used for marketing. One thing is to sell t-shirts with slogans and another is to create (or amplify) a movement in order to sell t-shirts, regardless of the consequences. I suppose that, as so many things, once you are inside the vortex it's difficult to tell the difference.