4 ms·

> “Russiagate” is now about foreign policy in the Middle East? I don't think you get my point at all. It's about any non-mainstream opinion on a political topi

> “Russiagate” is now about foreign policy in the Middle East? I don't think you get my point at all. It's about any non-mainstream opinion on a political topic now. Specifically, Russiagate led to increased censhorship by social media companies out of fear of being accused of hosting Russian bots. As a result, they overacted and are now banning everything in sight that's not mainstream enough. That means the next Iraq War, which all mainstream media were for, is going to have marginalized position on social media as these sorts of opinions are 'fringe' and banned. For example were this implemented back then, if you said Iraq did not have WMDs, you'd get a 'fact check' saying it did, even as that was false. Anything with words like 'military-industrial complex' etc. > People get banned from Twitter every day, on both sides of the aisle. A Wired article from October 2018 about people connected to the Occupy movement being banned Right. That's exactly my point. They weren't banning people as aggressively prior to Russiagate, however that whole frenzy led them to be a lot more proactive about banning than before. Furthermore, all this sets a precedent that I am certain the Republicans are going to be happy to take masterful advantage of once Biden is president. All I am really saying is that while the FBI investigations themselves were fine in my opinion, the media frenzy and the resulting pressure on social media companies to ban everything in sight that's not NYT, (which does spread misinformation from time to time btw), so that they don't spread 'misinformation' was a short-sighted strategy that is very likely long-term going to be used against the left, which am not at all happy about.

take_a_breath 6y ago
==Russiagate led to increased censhorship by social media companies out of being accused of hosting Russian bots.== But they were hosting Russian (and other) bots. You’re premise seems to rely on the idea that there weren’t actually bots. We know they existed [1] and still exist [2]. A bonus report from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee [3]. ==They weren't banning people as aggressively prior to Russiagate, however that whole frenzy led them to be a lot more proactive about banning than before.== Correct. They didn’t do much to stop it before knowing it existed. Once they had evidence, they started banning. I’m not sure what point that proves. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/03/522503844/how-russian-twitter-bots-pumped-out-fake-news-during-the-2016-election https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/03/52... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/bot-army-behind-reopen-america-push-on-social-media-study-finds/#60fa2d7b39b2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/bot-a... [3] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > But they were hosting Russian (and other) bots. You’re premise seems to rely on the idea that there weren’t actually bots. No. My premise relies on the idea that the Occupy accounts banned weren't bots, but were banned due to increased frenzy about banning everything non-mainstream as "Russian bots". I am not saying that Russian bots don't exist. Merely that the increased frenzy around them has led to a bunch of accounts being banned that are in fact neither bots, nor Russian, for merely expressing some non-mainstream views. That's a bit different than just banning actual Russian bots. I understand why they do it, in this environment, when unsure, proactively banning is the easiest way out, but that's exactly my problem with this. And it's not just Twitter either[1]. > Correct. They didn’t do much to stop it before knowing it existed. So in your view left-wing people who want to reform Wall Street or are anti-war should be banned? 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/16/facebook-political-activism-pages-inauthentic-behavior-censorship https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/16/facebook-...
- thu2111 6y ago
  No they weren't. The whole "Russian bots influence elections" story is a QAnon style conspiracy theory, just one that took off amongst New York/Washington types, so they can't see that it's a conspiracy theory.
  - take_a_breath 6y ago
    The question is about whether the bots existed, not whether they changed the outcome of the election.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      No, a huge amount of coverage has been devoted both to trying to prove they exist and that they influenced elections or referendums. I dug into this extensively at the time. A very large number of accounts being labelled as "bots" or "Putin trolls" turned out to be real people who lived in the west, when investigated by people who weren't under the spell of the conspiracy theory. For example this guy who was accused of being a professional Russian troll but turned out to be a security guard in Glasgow: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/im-not-russian-troll-im-security-guard-glasgow-1436658 https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/im-not-russian-troll-... Or this one that identified the official account of the Russian embassy as a "Twitter bot". https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-used-web-posts-to-disrupt-brexit-vote-h9nv5zg6c https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-used-web-posts-to-... You can tell it's a conspiracy theory because it's filled with stupid internal contradictions, like that Times article which claims the Russian accounts are both human and "cyborg", which they define as "automated but with human involvement" (which is it and why automate if you still need human involvement), or that the posts are simultaneously pro-Brexit and also pro-Remain: Most of the tweets seen by this newspaper encouraged people to vote for Brexit, an outcome which Russia would have regarded as destabilising for the European Union. A number were pro-Remain, however, suggesting that the Russian goal may have been simply to sow division That's something that comes up a lot. Journalists and lefty politicians claim "Russia" is trying to push all kinds of random policies they disapprove of, like Brexit. Yet when investigated these supposed bot accounts always turned out to have a wide variety of opinions, which is why the narrative eventually changed to generic "sowing division". Another common theme is that Twitter accounts get fingered as bots based on nothing at all: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41982569 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41982569 Bot-spotting tips. The Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRL) offers social-media users tips for spotting a bot: Frequency: Bots are prolific posters. The more frequently they post, the more caution should be shown. The DFRL classifies 72 posts a day as suspicious, and more than 144 per day as highly suspicious. Anonymity: Bots often lack any personal information. The accounts often have generic profile pictures and political slogans as "bios". Amplification: A bot's timeline will often consist of re-tweets and verbatim quotes, with few posts containing original wording. Common content: Networks of bots can be identified if multiple profiles tweet the same content almost simultaneously One influential account that these bots retweeted, which claims to be based in the Isle of Wight, now has the handle @davidjobrexit. In August The Times identified it as a probable Russian propaganda account because it tweeted the Kremlin line during Moscow office hours, among other indicators Moscow office hours is GMT+3, i.e. same as European office hours. So these criteria describe 90% of Twitter. The fact that they can't even pick a coherent motivation for the proposed conspiracy makes it one of the most pathetic such theories of our time, yet amazingly it's totally convincing to metropolitan centre-left types. The very same people who decry how easily the masses are fooled by misinformation and conspiracy theories.

take_a_breath 6y ago

==Russiagate led to increased censhorship by social media companies out of being accused of hosting Russian bots.== But they were hosting Russian (and other) bots. You’re premise seems to rely on the idea that there weren’t actually bots. We know they existed [1] and still exist [2]. A bonus report from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee [3]. ==They weren't banning people as aggressively prior to Russiagate, however that whole frenzy led them to be a lot more proactive about banning than before.== Correct. They didn’t do much to stop it before knowing it existed. Once they had evidence, they started banning. I’m not sure what point that proves. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/03/522503844/how-russian-twitter-bots-pumped-out-fake-news-during-the-2016-election https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/03/52... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/bot-army-behind-reopen-america-push-on-social-media-study-finds/#60fa2d7b39b2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/bot-a... [3] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

AsyncAwait 6y ago
> But they were hosting Russian (and other) bots. You’re premise seems to rely on the idea that there weren’t actually bots. No. My premise relies on the idea that the Occupy accounts banned weren't bots, but were banned due to increased frenzy about banning everything non-mainstream as "Russian bots". I am not saying that Russian bots don't exist. Merely that the increased frenzy around them has led to a bunch of accounts being banned that are in fact neither bots, nor Russian, for merely expressing some non-mainstream views. That's a bit different than just banning actual Russian bots. I understand why they do it, in this environment, when unsure, proactively banning is the easiest way out, but that's exactly my problem with this. And it's not just Twitter either[1]. > Correct. They didn’t do much to stop it before knowing it existed. So in your view left-wing people who want to reform Wall Street or are anti-war should be banned? 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/16/facebook-political-activism-pages-inauthentic-behavior-censorship https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/16/facebook-...
thu2111 6y ago
No they weren't. The whole "Russian bots influence elections" story is a QAnon style conspiracy theory, just one that took off amongst New York/Washington types, so they can't see that it's a conspiracy theory.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  The question is about whether the bots existed, not whether they changed the outcome of the election.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    No, a huge amount of coverage has been devoted both to trying to prove they exist and that they influenced elections or referendums. I dug into this extensively at the time. A very large number of accounts being labelled as "bots" or "Putin trolls" turned out to be real people who lived in the west, when investigated by people who weren't under the spell of the conspiracy theory. For example this guy who was accused of being a professional Russian troll but turned out to be a security guard in Glasgow: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/im-not-russian-troll-im-security-guard-glasgow-1436658 https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/im-not-russian-troll-... Or this one that identified the official account of the Russian embassy as a "Twitter bot". https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-used-web-posts-to-disrupt-brexit-vote-h9nv5zg6c https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-used-web-posts-to-... You can tell it's a conspiracy theory because it's filled with stupid internal contradictions, like that Times article which claims the Russian accounts are both human and "cyborg", which they define as "automated but with human involvement" (which is it and why automate if you still need human involvement), or that the posts are simultaneously pro-Brexit and also pro-Remain: Most of the tweets seen by this newspaper encouraged people to vote for Brexit, an outcome which Russia would have regarded as destabilising for the European Union. A number were pro-Remain, however, suggesting that the Russian goal may have been simply to sow division That's something that comes up a lot. Journalists and lefty politicians claim "Russia" is trying to push all kinds of random policies they disapprove of, like Brexit. Yet when investigated these supposed bot accounts always turned out to have a wide variety of opinions, which is why the narrative eventually changed to generic "sowing division". Another common theme is that Twitter accounts get fingered as bots based on nothing at all: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41982569 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41982569 Bot-spotting tips. The Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRL) offers social-media users tips for spotting a bot: Frequency: Bots are prolific posters. The more frequently they post, the more caution should be shown. The DFRL classifies 72 posts a day as suspicious, and more than 144 per day as highly suspicious. Anonymity: Bots often lack any personal information. The accounts often have generic profile pictures and political slogans as "bios". Amplification: A bot's timeline will often consist of re-tweets and verbatim quotes, with few posts containing original wording. Common content: Networks of bots can be identified if multiple profiles tweet the same content almost simultaneously One influential account that these bots retweeted, which claims to be based in the Isle of Wight, now has the handle @davidjobrexit. In August The Times identified it as a probable Russian propaganda account because it tweeted the Kremlin line during Moscow office hours, among other indicators Moscow office hours is GMT+3, i.e. same as European office hours. So these criteria describe 90% of Twitter. The fact that they can't even pick a coherent motivation for the proposed conspiracy makes it one of the most pathetic such theories of our time, yet amazingly it's totally convincing to metropolitan centre-left types. The very same people who decry how easily the masses are fooled by misinformation and conspiracy theories.