8 ms·

I worked in Dem political tech. The Russian Troll Farm/Cambridge Analytica/social ads scandal is mostly noise and no signal. But you’re missing something import

by nooron 6y ago

I worked in Dem political tech. The Russian Troll Farm/Cambridge Analytica/social ads scandal is mostly noise and no signal. But you’re missing something important: Russian state sponsored hackers spearfished and stole data from the RNC, DNC, and the Clinton circle. They deliberately released the latter two and withheld the first. Those releases don’t define the entire election, but they had a demonstrable and empirically validated impact on voters. Those deliberate and asymmetric releases probably changed the outcome of the election. Russia really did interfere in that election and you’ve ignored this crucial fact.

the_optimist 6y ago
This a very interesting, yet curiously unsupported assertion. Indeed, it is a "crucial fact," and one with zero public, supporting evidence. If you were to find this evidence, you would change the world. Do find it, if you can.
- nooron 6y ago
  Which fact?
  - the_optimist 6y ago
    Your stated fact. Assume we are intimately familiar with the various governmental reports, the intelligence agencies, and CrowdStrike.
- DeRock 6y ago
  > zero public, supporting evidence The (GOP-led) senate released a comprehensive report. The head of the FBI gave long testimony. What more do you want? Read the report here: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/745351734/read-senate-intelligence-report-on-russian-interference-in-the-2016-election https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/745351734/read-senate-intelli... Or the comprehensive wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report
  - the_optimist 6y ago
    Public, supporting evidence. The kind you would put in a court filing, for example. A non-zero amount. Edit: I neither live in a groupthink bubble nor care about internet points. Downvote or flag away!
    - theptip 6y ago
      Isolated demand for rigor? Aren't we in a thread complaining about YouTube deplatforming views that don't meet the bar you're setting here?
    - DeRock 6y ago
      This isn't hard to find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... has over 500 references. The senate committee report was over 1300 pages. The evidence is readily available and as well documented as you could expect. At a certain point, the onus is on you to provide refutations on why what exists doesn't meet your impossibly high bar.
      - the_optimist 6y ago
        Your very link quotes: 'investigators “did not have sufficient evidence” to prove active participation in the hacks or knowledge that the electronic thefts were continuing.' Please do not spam non-evidence. It's "an impossibly high bar" for you. But do not call it evidence. I am familiar with the level of information collection that occurs, and I do not view this as a high bar.
        DeRock 6y ago
        That quote is specifically referencing whether Trump actively participated in the efforts, which is not part of any of this discussion (though many of his close associates did).
        the_optimist 6y ago
umvi 6y ago
> Russia really did interfere in that election and in your rush to point out something dumb that Dems did, you’ve ignored this crucial fact. Well democrats clearly interfered in the 2020 election. Emergency laws to allow no excuse mail in voting (which turned out to largely favor Biden), social media banners in your face from every angle to vote vote vote, just go out and vote, don't think - vote, quick - vote, here let me hold your hand to help you register so you can vote! One of the things Dems blamed for Hillary's loss was low voter turnout, so they pushed extremely aggressively for higher voter turnout to change 2020 election results.
- nooron 6y ago
  I can’t tell if this is satire — can you clarify your point?
  - umvi 6y ago
    My point is - so what? Lots of stuff can affect the outcome of an election, as seen recently with emergency no excuse mail in voting. If we really cared about the sanctity of democracy we shouldn't have allowed last second changes that alter the mechanics of an election in favor of one party over another.
    - GordonS 6y ago
      How did allowing mail-in voting favour Biden over Trump? Do you mean because Trump demonised mail-in voting for months before the election, and many of his followers believe COVID is a hoax?
      - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
        Trump didn't "demonise" mail-in voting. He stated that it enabled voter fraud by eliminating chain of custody. I have yet to hear a single advocate of mail-in voting explain how chain of custody can be preserved and ballot harvesting prevented. There is clear evidence of harvesting, e.g. 100K ballots 99% for Biden, dropped off at a polling station in Philadelphia with no chain of custody, no Republican poll watchers allowed in the room, nothing downballot i.e. only Biden was selected on the ballots - this is ballot harvesting, at a very minimum.
blueblisters 6y ago
> Those deliberate and asymmetric releases probably changed the outcome of the election. How is it possible to draw a causation from the releases to the election outcome? I am curious if there are academic studies to support this claim.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
That’s not very accurate and makes a lot of unproven assumptions. They found that an old, disused RNC domain from years prior was compromised. There’s no reason to believe they withheld anything material, and even if they did, it’s not really relevant. All they did was show the public authentic emails. If anyone actually changed their vote based on having additional facts, which I doubt happened in any significant way, then it was for the right reasons. If your wife-to-be was having an affair and this was dumped before the wedding day, would you be mad at the hacker, or at your partner? Blaming Russia for showing truth never made any sense to me. Are we to believe that the process has more integrity when we cast our votes with less information?

by nooron 6y ago

the_optimist 6y ago

This a very interesting, yet curiously unsupported assertion. Indeed, it is a "crucial fact," and one with zero public, supporting evidence. If you were to find this evidence, you would change the world. Do find it, if you can.

nooron 6y ago
Which fact?
- the_optimist 6y ago
  Your stated fact. Assume we are intimately familiar with the various governmental reports, the intelligence agencies, and CrowdStrike.
DeRock 6y ago
> zero public, supporting evidence The (GOP-led) senate released a comprehensive report. The head of the FBI gave long testimony. What more do you want? Read the report here: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/745351734/read-senate-intelligence-report-on-russian-interference-in-the-2016-election https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/745351734/read-senate-intelli... Or the comprehensive wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report
- the_optimist 6y ago
  Public, supporting evidence. The kind you would put in a court filing, for example. A non-zero amount. Edit: I neither live in a groupthink bubble nor care about internet points. Downvote or flag away!
  - theptip 6y ago
    Isolated demand for rigor? Aren't we in a thread complaining about YouTube deplatforming views that don't meet the bar you're setting here?
  - DeRock 6y ago
    This isn't hard to find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... has over 500 references. The senate committee report was over 1300 pages. The evidence is readily available and as well documented as you could expect. At a certain point, the onus is on you to provide refutations on why what exists doesn't meet your impossibly high bar.
    - the_optimist 6y ago
      Your very link quotes: 'investigators “did not have sufficient evidence” to prove active participation in the hacks or knowledge that the electronic thefts were continuing.' Please do not spam non-evidence. It's "an impossibly high bar" for you. But do not call it evidence. I am familiar with the level of information collection that occurs, and I do not view this as a high bar.
      - DeRock 6y ago
        That quote is specifically referencing whether Trump actively participated in the efforts, which is not part of any of this discussion (though many of his close associates did).
        the_optimist 6y ago

umvi 6y ago

> Russia really did interfere in that election and in your rush to point out something dumb that Dems did, you’ve ignored this crucial fact. Well democrats clearly interfered in the 2020 election. Emergency laws to allow no excuse mail in voting (which turned out to largely favor Biden), social media banners in your face from every angle to vote vote vote, just go out and vote, don't think - vote, quick - vote, here let me hold your hand to help you register so you can vote! One of the things Dems blamed for Hillary's loss was low voter turnout, so they pushed extremely aggressively for higher voter turnout to change 2020 election results.

nooron 6y ago
I can’t tell if this is satire — can you clarify your point?
- umvi 6y ago
  My point is - so what? Lots of stuff can affect the outcome of an election, as seen recently with emergency no excuse mail in voting. If we really cared about the sanctity of democracy we shouldn't have allowed last second changes that alter the mechanics of an election in favor of one party over another.
  - GordonS 6y ago
    How did allowing mail-in voting favour Biden over Trump? Do you mean because Trump demonised mail-in voting for months before the election, and many of his followers believe COVID is a hoax?
    - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
      Trump didn't "demonise" mail-in voting. He stated that it enabled voter fraud by eliminating chain of custody. I have yet to hear a single advocate of mail-in voting explain how chain of custody can be preserved and ballot harvesting prevented. There is clear evidence of harvesting, e.g. 100K ballots 99% for Biden, dropped off at a polling station in Philadelphia with no chain of custody, no Republican poll watchers allowed in the room, nothing downballot i.e. only Biden was selected on the ballots - this is ballot harvesting, at a very minimum.

blueblisters 6y ago

> Those deliberate and asymmetric releases probably changed the outcome of the election. How is it possible to draw a causation from the releases to the election outcome? I am curious if there are academic studies to support this claim.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

That’s not very accurate and makes a lot of unproven assumptions. They found that an old, disused RNC domain from years prior was compromised. There’s no reason to believe they withheld anything material, and even if they did, it’s not really relevant. All they did was show the public authentic emails. If anyone actually changed their vote based on having additional facts, which I doubt happened in any significant way, then it was for the right reasons. If your wife-to-be was having an affair and this was dumped before the wedding day, would you be mad at the hacker, or at your partner? Blaming Russia for showing truth never made any sense to me. Are we to believe that the process has more integrity when we cast our votes with less information?