5 ms·

* US: 39 accounts * China: 81 accounts * Russia: 1,633 accounts Either Russia invests orders of magnitude more in these coordinated inauthentic behavior campai

* US: 39 accounts * China: 81 accounts * Russia: 1,633 accounts Either Russia invests orders of magnitude more in these coordinated inauthentic behavior campaigns, or they are just that much worse at flying under the radar.

droopyEyelids 4y ago
Or russians used more accounts per campaign. Or facebook puts more effort into finding russian campaigns. Or russian campaigns are inherently easier to identify, or trying to achieve more difficult goals.
- 52358 4y ago
  or US adversaries (ie Russia, China, Iran, etc) are not as active on FB properties for example, there may be more US campaigns targeting WeChat or Telegram or VK
- bawolff 4y ago
  Or russia is currently in crisis and needs to use its assets, where others are more biding their time.
polyomino 4y ago
Typically you build up accounts and pages over a long time period and try to fly under the radar until you're big enough to affect change without getting caught. In this case, my read is Russia is much better at growing before getting caught, probably due to more experience with influence operations.
bsder 4y ago
Russia is kind of at war--which means that Russia is probably actively using these accounts. Whereas, the US and China are probably just establishing the account networks.
- watwut 4y ago
  I would say, Russia is actively at war where influencing public is their only chance.
JacobThreeThree 4y ago
You're assuming this sample is representative.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  I mean, it's representative of everything Meta found in the third quarter, no?
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    but what are they incentivised to find?
    - codq 4y ago
      Adversarial threats...? What exactly are you implying?
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        Parents are implying that Facebook is incentivized to find anything they can, and so inevitably finds the easiest things to find. As a consequence, their samples would represent the dumbest/simplest psyops, rather than a random sampling of all psyops. In the same way that tax auditors tend to "find" a lot of basic tax fraud, but almost no sophisticated, structured, high income tax fraud.
        mughinn 4y ago
        That doesn't contradict the first comment, which says they either invest a lot more OR "are very bad at flying under the radar"
      - bllguo 4y ago
        ..you do realize Meta is an American corporation, rather than Chinese or Russian?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
torben-friis 4y ago
Or they use completely different tactics. You can use a single extremely influential account or a swarm of small ones to reach equivalents levels of influence.
rsynnott 4y ago
> or they are just that much worse at flying under the radar. At least some of Russia's operations are likely less covert and more "look what we can do". They're not _really_ trying to hide; if you're trying to produce political disruption, then "look, this political disruption was caused by semi-deniable foreign interference" makes for even more political disruption. Remember Guccifer 2.0? That was a GRU operation, apparently unmasked because the GRU officer 'forgot' to use a VPN (thus leaving an IP address which literally belonged to the GRU in some logs). And, I mean, it's _possible_ that that's what really happened, but it seems far more likely that it was deliberate.
- anon400232 4y ago
  Knowledge of this kind of disruption leads to more disruption? Why? What theories support this? Has this been shown empirically?
  - rsynnott 4y ago
    > Has this been shown empirically? I have no idea. However, if you expect national intelligence agencies to only be interested in stuff that has been shown empirically, then I have some very bad news for you (to take one of the _funnier_ examples, the CIA spent nearly 20 years researching "psychic remote viewing", ie magic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project). That said, you'd expect that this would work (the double-whammy disruption, that is, not the magician-spies). Take the "Guccifer 2.0" example, for instance. "Guccifer 2.0", that is the Russian military intelligence agency, stole and leaked emails from the DNC, causing political disruption. It was then revealed, in pretty short succession, that Trump lackey Roger Stone had been in communication with "Guccifer 2.0", and that "Guccifer 2.0" was a GRU officer. This caused further political disruption, and didn't obviously cost Russia anything, so, really, why would they _not_ reveal it? And it does seem to be a trend; it's not like this is the only example of Russia saying "we totally deny these claims [wink]".
    - anon400232 4y ago
      Fair points. Stargate: wow! With that kind of return on investment on $20 M, psychic readings for $10 a pop sound like a bargain in comparison. At worst, the readers are good at reading some signals hiding in plain sight and prompting some self reflection.
brightball 4y ago
When you think about the volume of divisive political messages that have been coming through over the last few years, you have to assume that it’s Russia driven. They’ll amplify anything that divides the US.
WaitWaitWha 4y ago
Or the limited FB resources were concentrating in that area? Or, combination thereof.
noworriesnate 4y ago
They could be fake Russian bots. It wouldn't be the first time Democrats prop up fake Russian bots that are really obviously Russian bots and are saying things in favor of the Republicans. https://heavy.com/news/2017/10/roy-moore-alabama-twitter-russian-bots/ https://heavy.com/news/2017/10/roy-moore-alabama-twitter-rus... https://siliconangle.com/2018/12/26/reid-hoffman-apologizes-funding-fake-russian-bot-campaign-alabama-election/ https://siliconangle.com/2018/12/26/reid-hoffman-apologizes-...
hnbad 4y ago
Traditionally, the strategy for the US when it comes to exerting influence internationally has been to facilitate regime changes by force, either through the military apparatus or by funding and training opposition groups. This has left the US as a "pointilist empire" with military bases strewn throughout the world. China's strategy has been to use its massive workforce and economy, buying US debt, investing (and thus buying out) infrastructure in developing nations and becoming an integral part of the supply chain for most of Western industry. Russia's strategy has primarily been to create a neverending stream of disinformation, misinformation and half-truths. Instead of creating a false narrative, it creates tens or hundreds of them without fully committing to any of them so the "objective truth" just becomes one of many possible truths and any minor factual mistake leads people to "question the narrative". Opposition groups in foreign countries are funded, but only to an extent that provides a cover of plausible deniability for them. Individuals are assinated in the most blatantly obvious way but with full denial of any involvement. Internal opposition is jailed with selectively enforced laws that seem relevant enough to be plausible but seem to be based on bogus evidence the deeper you dig. Russia's goal is not to get you to believe a lie, Russia's goal is to get you to question reality itself. Basically, for the US and China disinformation is just another weapon in the arsenal. For Russia it's just what Russia does. PS: The invasion of Ukraine is a bit of a counterexample to this but given how much it is dragging out, that just demonstrates how bad they are at solving conflicts "the American way". Of course you could make the argument that all countries use all of these techniques to exert influence. The annexation of Crimea was as much a military operation as it was a disinformation campaign. The US is a vital part of the supply chain for many of its allies. China infamously engages in information warfare even against its own population. But what I'm arguing is what each country's primary weapon of choice is. And for Russia it's to attack the concept of reality itself.

droopyEyelids 4y ago

Or russians used more accounts per campaign. Or facebook puts more effort into finding russian campaigns. Or russian campaigns are inherently easier to identify, or trying to achieve more difficult goals.

52358 4y ago
or US adversaries (ie Russia, China, Iran, etc) are not as active on FB properties for example, there may be more US campaigns targeting WeChat or Telegram or VK
bawolff 4y ago
Or russia is currently in crisis and needs to use its assets, where others are more biding their time.

polyomino 4y ago

Typically you build up accounts and pages over a long time period and try to fly under the radar until you're big enough to affect change without getting caught. In this case, my read is Russia is much better at growing before getting caught, probably due to more experience with influence operations.

bsder 4y ago

Russia is kind of at war--which means that Russia is probably actively using these accounts. Whereas, the US and China are probably just establishing the account networks.

watwut 4y ago
I would say, Russia is actively at war where influencing public is their only chance.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

You're assuming this sample is representative.

ShredKazoo 4y ago
I mean, it's representative of everything Meta found in the third quarter, no?
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  but what are they incentivised to find?
  - codq 4y ago
    Adversarial threats...? What exactly are you implying?
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      Parents are implying that Facebook is incentivized to find anything they can, and so inevitably finds the easiest things to find. As a consequence, their samples would represent the dumbest/simplest psyops, rather than a random sampling of all psyops. In the same way that tax auditors tend to "find" a lot of basic tax fraud, but almost no sophisticated, structured, high income tax fraud.
      - mughinn 4y ago
        That doesn't contradict the first comment, which says they either invest a lot more OR "are very bad at flying under the radar"
    - bllguo 4y ago
      ..you do realize Meta is an American corporation, rather than Chinese or Russian?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

torben-friis 4y ago

Or they use completely different tactics. You can use a single extremely influential account or a swarm of small ones to reach equivalents levels of influence.

rsynnott 4y ago

> or they are just that much worse at flying under the radar. At least some of Russia's operations are likely less covert and more "look what we can do". They're not _really_ trying to hide; if you're trying to produce political disruption, then "look, this political disruption was caused by semi-deniable foreign interference" makes for even more political disruption. Remember Guccifer 2.0? That was a GRU operation, apparently unmasked because the GRU officer 'forgot' to use a VPN (thus leaving an IP address which literally belonged to the GRU in some logs). And, I mean, it's _possible_ that that's what really happened, but it seems far more likely that it was deliberate.

anon400232 4y ago
Knowledge of this kind of disruption leads to more disruption? Why? What theories support this? Has this been shown empirically?
- rsynnott 4y ago
  > Has this been shown empirically? I have no idea. However, if you expect national intelligence agencies to only be interested in stuff that has been shown empirically, then I have some very bad news for you (to take one of the _funnier_ examples, the CIA spent nearly 20 years researching "psychic remote viewing", ie magic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project). That said, you'd expect that this would work (the double-whammy disruption, that is, not the magician-spies). Take the "Guccifer 2.0" example, for instance. "Guccifer 2.0", that is the Russian military intelligence agency, stole and leaked emails from the DNC, causing political disruption. It was then revealed, in pretty short succession, that Trump lackey Roger Stone had been in communication with "Guccifer 2.0", and that "Guccifer 2.0" was a GRU officer. This caused further political disruption, and didn't obviously cost Russia anything, so, really, why would they _not_ reveal it? And it does seem to be a trend; it's not like this is the only example of Russia saying "we totally deny these claims [wink]".
  - anon400232 4y ago
    Fair points. Stargate: wow! With that kind of return on investment on $20 M, psychic readings for $10 a pop sound like a bargain in comparison. At worst, the readers are good at reading some signals hiding in plain sight and prompting some self reflection.

brightball 4y ago

When you think about the volume of divisive political messages that have been coming through over the last few years, you have to assume that it’s Russia driven. They’ll amplify anything that divides the US.

WaitWaitWha 4y ago

Or the limited FB resources were concentrating in that area? Or, combination thereof.

noworriesnate 4y ago

They could be fake Russian bots. It wouldn't be the first time Democrats prop up fake Russian bots that are really obviously Russian bots and are saying things in favor of the Republicans. https://heavy.com/news/2017/10/roy-moore-alabama-twitter-russian-bots/ https://heavy.com/news/2017/10/roy-moore-alabama-twitter-rus... https://siliconangle.com/2018/12/26/reid-hoffman-apologizes-funding-fake-russian-bot-campaign-alabama-election/ https://siliconangle.com/2018/12/26/reid-hoffman-apologizes-...

hnbad 4y ago

Traditionally, the strategy for the US when it comes to exerting influence internationally has been to facilitate regime changes by force, either through the military apparatus or by funding and training opposition groups. This has left the US as a "pointilist empire" with military bases strewn throughout the world. China's strategy has been to use its massive workforce and economy, buying US debt, investing (and thus buying out) infrastructure in developing nations and becoming an integral part of the supply chain for most of Western industry. Russia's strategy has primarily been to create a neverending stream of disinformation, misinformation and half-truths. Instead of creating a false narrative, it creates tens or hundreds of them without fully committing to any of them so the "objective truth" just becomes one of many possible truths and any minor factual mistake leads people to "question the narrative". Opposition groups in foreign countries are funded, but only to an extent that provides a cover of plausible deniability for them. Individuals are assinated in the most blatantly obvious way but with full denial of any involvement. Internal opposition is jailed with selectively enforced laws that seem relevant enough to be plausible but seem to be based on bogus evidence the deeper you dig. Russia's goal is not to get you to believe a lie, Russia's goal is to get you to question reality itself. Basically, for the US and China disinformation is just another weapon in the arsenal. For Russia it's just what Russia does. PS: The invasion of Ukraine is a bit of a counterexample to this but given how much it is dragging out, that just demonstrates how bad they are at solving conflicts "the American way". Of course you could make the argument that all countries use all of these techniques to exert influence. The annexation of Crimea was as much a military operation as it was a disinformation campaign. The US is a vital part of the supply chain for many of its allies. China infamously engages in information warfare even against its own population. But what I'm arguing is what each country's primary weapon of choice is. And for Russia it's to attack the concept of reality itself.