5 ms·

There's not a conspiracy theory that Russia manipulated US elections, rather, they were a major source of disinformation throughout the 2016 presidential campai

by zzzeek 5y ago

There's not a conspiracy theory that Russia manipulated US elections, rather, they were a major source of disinformation throughout the 2016 presidential campaign. This is well documented throughout myriad sources and is not a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory here is in fact that it was a hoax, so you might want to check that you aren't a victim to this theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

raxxorrax 5y ago
That is just not true. It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. Wikipedia isn't really straight here. At first the story was that people were manipulated. But no message could be found that allegedly influenced voters. Later it was changed they were stirring the pot. Really questionable sources were pulled that later proved to be more than unreliable. The readiness to believe these plain lies explains the Iraq invasion though...
- knowaveragejoe 5y ago
  > It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. This is the conspiracy theory. Russian interference in global elections is well documented. In the 2016 election it was already being investigated & reported on before election day.
- knownjorbist 5y ago
  > It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. This is the conspiracy theory in and of itself, not the other way around. Russia interfering in the election was already being investigated & reported on BEFORE election day.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    And how would they have done that? Facebook ads? Please... People were fed up with career politicians and voted out of spite. End of story. The DNC hacking could have been Russia. I have seen the public evidence and it is inconclusive. An internal source sounds more likely, but there is just no evidence on anything.
    - SonicScrub 5y ago
      Microtargeted advertisements to the exact people who need to hear a message have been shown to be incredibly effective at persuasion. That's why targeted advertisements are a billion dollar industry. Tracking influence due to advertisements is tricky, as it's hard to make a direct 1-to-1 connection being being exposed to a consistent ad campaign and the decision to buy a product at a particular moment. Did I buy a Coca-Cola today because I saw a YouTube ad? Or is more the constant awareness of the Coca-Cola due to a dedicated persistent ad campaign? The exact influence is hard to measure, but nevertheless we can say it must be effective, or why would Coca-Cola spend billions on ads? I bring up this example to try to steer your thinking away from the unrealistic scenario of someone seeing a Facebook ad, and then choosing to vote differently because of it. That idea is obviously ludicrous, and you should rightly scoff at such a proposition. However that is not the scenario that the people arguing against you are stating. They are concerned with a foreign state actor spending so much money and attention to nudge public attention to a few key ideas. The entire advertising industry is proof that such techniques are effective. The question you should be asking is why the idea that "people are fed up with career politicians" was so prominent in this election. Why did that message resonate with some, but completely bypass others? Note: that Russia spending lots of money on targeted ads doesn't make people's frustrations not real, or manufactured. But why was so many people's attention drawn to this issue?
      - remarkEon 5y ago
        >Microtargeted advertisements to the exact people who need to hear a message have been shown to be incredibly effective at persuasion. That's why targeted advertisements are a billion dollar industry. Is the argument that this strategy is just completely lost on legacy incumbent politicians (because they're tech-illiterate, don't understand ads, whatever), and the "Russians" were able to spend 1/1000th the cash as the DNC on these targeted advertisements and actually effect the outcome? What makes all of this unconvincing to me is we have to act like the only set of political science "experts" in the 2016 election was a Russian troll farm. If that is the case, it's a much more serious point about the viability of American democracy in the 21st century than anything about "the Russians".
- Loughla 5y ago
  From the page >The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goals of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States. According to U.S. intelligence agencies, the operation—code named Project Lakhta[1]—was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin.[2] How is that not straight? I don't understand what you're getting at, other than just ignoring most of that page.
- everdrive 5y ago
  You're confusing two statements: - Russia interfered in the 2016 election. - Clinton lost the 2016 election primarily due to Russian interference.
  - mariodiana 5y ago
    Exactly. If there were a 1-ton stone in my backyard, and you peered over my fence to see me making the greatest personal effort to move it, you wouldn't say I "manipulated" it.
    - everdrive 5y ago
      Well, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Let's say that you agree with the following statement: Even if there had been no Russian interference, the 2016 election would have been very close. Clinton was more unpopular than her supporters realized. Now from there, you could take that single statement and try to interpret the impact of the Russian interference two ways: - The election was so close it was nearly a toss-up, and the Russian interference probably had very little effect on most voters. - Alternately, because the election was so close, Russian interference would have only had to influence a few people in some key districts, and therefore a very small amount of influence could have had a large outsized effect. I'm not necessarily vying for either of these arguments, however I am trying to make a point about how both sides of this problem are talking past each other with regards to a pretty simple point.
      - mariodiana 5y ago
        You make good points. But from what I remember, "Russia" (I put that in scare quotes because I do not know what Russian entity was behind this) bought 100 thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads. By contrast, the Clinton campaign spent $132 million. That's enough to make me skeptical as to the extent of Russian influence. I'm only half-joking here, but if these Russians were able to undermine the 2016 election's integrity, spending that pittance, either Trump or Biden would have hired these political science geniuses for 2020. My understand is that their efforts were mainly meant to sow political discord. If you ask me, what they learned is that we don't need their help with that.
- zzzeek 5y ago
  > But no message could be found that allegedly influenced voters. the linked page is chock full of messages that allegedly influenced voters. Such as: > Influence operations included recruiting typically unknowing assets who would stage events and spread content from Russian influencers, spreading videos of police abuse and spreading misleading information about how to vote and whom to vote for.[76][46] The attempt to target Black Americans has been compared to the KGB's attempt to foster racial tensions during Operation INFEKTION.[149] it of course is impossible to prove that a specific voter changed their vote due to a specific message from a disinformation campaign, short of them telling you so. But certainly we are well within the range to "allege" that the enormous amount of propaganda coming from Russia may have influenced voters, it would be ridiculous to claim otherwise.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    > spreading videos of police abuse Laughable. Sure that wasn't voters of democrats? Or general Youtubers? > The attempt to target Black Americans I would think people have much more problems with virtue signaling domestic companies than Russians, but there is again no evidence. These are plain conspiracy theories. > enormous amount of propaganda It isn't enormous. Propaganda targeting civilians has one property and that is visibility. The more of it, the better. So where is it? I don't believe in ghosts.
    - zzzeek 5y ago
      at this point it seems reasonable to conclude you are trolling this discussion.
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        Not every form of objection is a troll. I just don't accept claims like yours that voters had contact with Russian spies. It is still ridiculous.
      - panarky 5y ago
        How meta that an HN discussion about conspiracy theories devolves into propagation and defense of conspiracy theories.

by zzzeek 5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago

That is just not true. It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. Wikipedia isn't really straight here. At first the story was that people were manipulated. But no message could be found that allegedly influenced voters. Later it was changed they were stirring the pot. Really questionable sources were pulled that later proved to be more than unreliable. The readiness to believe these plain lies explains the Iraq invasion though...

knowaveragejoe 5y ago
> It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. This is the conspiracy theory. Russian interference in global elections is well documented. In the 2016 election it was already being investigated & reported on before election day.
knownjorbist 5y ago
> It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. This is the conspiracy theory in and of itself, not the other way around. Russia interfering in the election was already being investigated & reported on BEFORE election day.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  And how would they have done that? Facebook ads? Please... People were fed up with career politicians and voted out of spite. End of story. The DNC hacking could have been Russia. I have seen the public evidence and it is inconclusive. An internal source sounds more likely, but there is just no evidence on anything.
  - SonicScrub 5y ago
    Microtargeted advertisements to the exact people who need to hear a message have been shown to be incredibly effective at persuasion. That's why targeted advertisements are a billion dollar industry. Tracking influence due to advertisements is tricky, as it's hard to make a direct 1-to-1 connection being being exposed to a consistent ad campaign and the decision to buy a product at a particular moment. Did I buy a Coca-Cola today because I saw a YouTube ad? Or is more the constant awareness of the Coca-Cola due to a dedicated persistent ad campaign? The exact influence is hard to measure, but nevertheless we can say it must be effective, or why would Coca-Cola spend billions on ads? I bring up this example to try to steer your thinking away from the unrealistic scenario of someone seeing a Facebook ad, and then choosing to vote differently because of it. That idea is obviously ludicrous, and you should rightly scoff at such a proposition. However that is not the scenario that the people arguing against you are stating. They are concerned with a foreign state actor spending so much money and attention to nudge public attention to a few key ideas. The entire advertising industry is proof that such techniques are effective. The question you should be asking is why the idea that "people are fed up with career politicians" was so prominent in this election. Why did that message resonate with some, but completely bypass others? Note: that Russia spending lots of money on targeted ads doesn't make people's frustrations not real, or manufactured. But why was so many people's attention drawn to this issue?
    - remarkEon 5y ago
      >Microtargeted advertisements to the exact people who need to hear a message have been shown to be incredibly effective at persuasion. That's why targeted advertisements are a billion dollar industry. Is the argument that this strategy is just completely lost on legacy incumbent politicians (because they're tech-illiterate, don't understand ads, whatever), and the "Russians" were able to spend 1/1000th the cash as the DNC on these targeted advertisements and actually effect the outcome? What makes all of this unconvincing to me is we have to act like the only set of political science "experts" in the 2016 election was a Russian troll farm. If that is the case, it's a much more serious point about the viability of American democracy in the 21st century than anything about "the Russians".
Loughla 5y ago
From the page >The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goals of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States. According to U.S. intelligence agencies, the operation—code named Project Lakhta[1]—was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin.[2] How is that not straight? I don't understand what you're getting at, other than just ignoring most of that page.
everdrive 5y ago
You're confusing two statements: - Russia interfered in the 2016 election. - Clinton lost the 2016 election primarily due to Russian interference.
- mariodiana 5y ago
  Exactly. If there were a 1-ton stone in my backyard, and you peered over my fence to see me making the greatest personal effort to move it, you wouldn't say I "manipulated" it.
  - everdrive 5y ago
    Well, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Let's say that you agree with the following statement: Even if there had been no Russian interference, the 2016 election would have been very close. Clinton was more unpopular than her supporters realized. Now from there, you could take that single statement and try to interpret the impact of the Russian interference two ways: - The election was so close it was nearly a toss-up, and the Russian interference probably had very little effect on most voters. - Alternately, because the election was so close, Russian interference would have only had to influence a few people in some key districts, and therefore a very small amount of influence could have had a large outsized effect. I'm not necessarily vying for either of these arguments, however I am trying to make a point about how both sides of this problem are talking past each other with regards to a pretty simple point.
    - mariodiana 5y ago
      You make good points. But from what I remember, "Russia" (I put that in scare quotes because I do not know what Russian entity was behind this) bought 100 thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads. By contrast, the Clinton campaign spent $132 million. That's enough to make me skeptical as to the extent of Russian influence. I'm only half-joking here, but if these Russians were able to undermine the 2016 election's integrity, spending that pittance, either Trump or Biden would have hired these political science geniuses for 2020. My understand is that their efforts were mainly meant to sow political discord. If you ask me, what they learned is that we don't need their help with that.
zzzeek 5y ago
> But no message could be found that allegedly influenced voters. the linked page is chock full of messages that allegedly influenced voters. Such as: > Influence operations included recruiting typically unknowing assets who would stage events and spread content from Russian influencers, spreading videos of police abuse and spreading misleading information about how to vote and whom to vote for.[76][46] The attempt to target Black Americans has been compared to the KGB's attempt to foster racial tensions during Operation INFEKTION.[149] it of course is impossible to prove that a specific voter changed their vote due to a specific message from a disinformation campaign, short of them telling you so. But certainly we are well within the range to "allege" that the enormous amount of propaganda coming from Russia may have influenced voters, it would be ridiculous to claim otherwise.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  > spreading videos of police abuse Laughable. Sure that wasn't voters of democrats? Or general Youtubers? > The attempt to target Black Americans I would think people have much more problems with virtue signaling domestic companies than Russians, but there is again no evidence. These are plain conspiracy theories. > enormous amount of propaganda It isn't enormous. Propaganda targeting civilians has one property and that is visibility. The more of it, the better. So where is it? I don't believe in ghosts.
  - zzzeek 5y ago
    at this point it seems reasonable to conclude you are trolling this discussion.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Not every form of objection is a troll. I just don't accept claims like yours that voters had contact with Russian spies. It is still ridiculous.
    - panarky 5y ago
      How meta that an HN discussion about conspiracy theories devolves into propagation and defense of conspiracy theories.