3 ms·

How effective was it?

croon 4y ago
The desired outcome was reached, and the effort and money spent likely wouldn't have been spent unless deemed necessary. Always difficult to draw direct causality though.
- vintermann 4y ago
  We don't know that. The situation right now is a great example that Russia likes to adjust its "goals" in retrospect, to say this was what they wanted all along. And "money wouldn't have been spent unless it was deemed necessary"? You have an awfully high opinion of Russian institutions' fiscal responsibility! I still say what I said right after, and have said for 4+ years: Russian propaganda during the election was probably intended to hobble Clinton with domestic political troubles, not actually for Trump to win.
  - croon 4y ago
    > We don't know that. The situation right now is a great example that Russia likes to adjust its "goals" in retrospect, to say this was what they wanted all along. Russia hasn't stated anything on the subject. The goals are evident in the actions. > By constructing a timeline of the IRA messages, they found left-leaning IRA trolls posted large volumes of entertainment content in their artificial liberal community and shifted away from political content late in the campaign. Simultaneously, conservative trolls were targeting their community with increases in political content. The effort would have encouraged the right to vote and the left to ignore politics. > And "money wouldn't have been spent unless it was deemed necessary"? You have an awfully high opinion of Russian institutions' fiscal responsibility! I'm not claiming it was worth it, I'm saying someone there did think it was, evidently.
    - Msw242 4y ago
      Honestly the media coverage makes it sound like the Russians run our elections. That perception is a much bigger win from them than anything they got from Facebook ads and bots. So many Americans want to believe that the only way anybody could ever disagree with their beliefs and preferences is through manipulation by malicious foreign actors. The reality (that half the population disagrees with them and has different values) is completely unpalatable.
      - watwut 4y ago
        I did not detected such perception, really. There is a lot of blaming other party for wrong values going around all the time. That is not even mutually exclusive with foreign actors trying to influence politics, whether successfully or not.
        Msw242 4y ago
        >I did not detected such perception, really. Well, there was such a perception E.g.: "How Russia Helped Swing the Election for Trump" https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-hel...
        watwut 4y ago
        That is one article, you are saying "Honestly the media coverage makes it sound like the Russians run our elections." and "So many Americans want to believe that the only way anybody could ever disagree with their beliefs and preferences is through manipulation by malicious foreign actors." I did not seen this opinion that elections were all about Russia to be frequent fo prevalent or dominating either news or what Americans talk about.
        Msw242 4y ago
        How many sources would satisfy you, given that an institution like New Yorker publishing the take doesn't? If you give me a reasonable number (less than 10 min of work) I'm happy to deliver.
livinginfear 4y ago
Very effective. As long as you only retroactively accuse Russia of responsibility for all of the democratic outcomes that you didn't want.
watwut 4y ago
Looking at abstract, the article is not trying to estimate actual impact. Just what those accounts were doing. As, in, it is analysis of actions rather then achievements.

The desired outcome was reached, and the effort and money spent likely wouldn't have been spent unless deemed necessary. Always difficult to draw direct causality though.

vintermann 4y ago
We don't know that. The situation right now is a great example that Russia likes to adjust its "goals" in retrospect, to say this was what they wanted all along. And "money wouldn't have been spent unless it was deemed necessary"? You have an awfully high opinion of Russian institutions' fiscal responsibility! I still say what I said right after, and have said for 4+ years: Russian propaganda during the election was probably intended to hobble Clinton with domestic political troubles, not actually for Trump to win.
- croon 4y ago
  > We don't know that. The situation right now is a great example that Russia likes to adjust its "goals" in retrospect, to say this was what they wanted all along. Russia hasn't stated anything on the subject. The goals are evident in the actions. > By constructing a timeline of the IRA messages, they found left-leaning IRA trolls posted large volumes of entertainment content in their artificial liberal community and shifted away from political content late in the campaign. Simultaneously, conservative trolls were targeting their community with increases in political content. The effort would have encouraged the right to vote and the left to ignore politics. > And "money wouldn't have been spent unless it was deemed necessary"? You have an awfully high opinion of Russian institutions' fiscal responsibility! I'm not claiming it was worth it, I'm saying someone there did think it was, evidently.
  - Msw242 4y ago
    Honestly the media coverage makes it sound like the Russians run our elections. That perception is a much bigger win from them than anything they got from Facebook ads and bots. So many Americans want to believe that the only way anybody could ever disagree with their beliefs and preferences is through manipulation by malicious foreign actors. The reality (that half the population disagrees with them and has different values) is completely unpalatable.
    - watwut 4y ago
      I did not detected such perception, really. There is a lot of blaming other party for wrong values going around all the time. That is not even mutually exclusive with foreign actors trying to influence politics, whether successfully or not.
      - Msw242 4y ago
        >I did not detected such perception, really. Well, there was such a perception E.g.: "How Russia Helped Swing the Election for Trump" https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-hel...
        watwut 4y ago
        That is one article, you are saying "Honestly the media coverage makes it sound like the Russians run our elections." and "So many Americans want to believe that the only way anybody could ever disagree with their beliefs and preferences is through manipulation by malicious foreign actors." I did not seen this opinion that elections were all about Russia to be frequent fo prevalent or dominating either news or what Americans talk about.
        Msw242 4y ago
        How many sources would satisfy you, given that an institution like New Yorker publishing the take doesn't? If you give me a reasonable number (less than 10 min of work) I'm happy to deliver.

livinginfear 4y ago

Very effective. As long as you only retroactively accuse Russia of responsibility for all of the democratic outcomes that you didn't want.

watwut 4y ago

Looking at abstract, the article is not trying to estimate actual impact. Just what those accounts were doing. As, in, it is analysis of actions rather then achievements.