5 ms·

Is this sarcasm, or is there a subset of people here who truly believe that the Twitter “files” prove the significant investigative effort, offensive actions by

by apstls 4y ago

Is this sarcasm, or is there a subset of people here who truly believe that the Twitter “files” prove the significant investigative effort, offensive actions by US Cyber Command against the IRA, direct acknowledgement of the activities by Yevgeny Prigozhin, additional investigation and confirmation by private security companies that all echoed the same, highly-believable conclusion were fabricated in a coordinated effort by US intelligence to deceive the people into believing that a nation that has been openly hostile against US cyberspace has… continued to do so, this time in a new way? If this was indeed a sarcastic comment, I would consider dialing back the subtlety so you don’t inadvertently appear to lend credence to misinformation currently being spread among less scrupulous portions of the population.

jacquesm 4y ago
Unfortunately there are plenty of people who believe this.
upsidesinclude 4y ago
No, the previous comment brought up Trump, which is clearly alluding to "Russian collusion". I'm fine with distaste for Trump and the realities of disinformation campaigns, but the focus of the Twitter files in this regard is clearly specific to the false Russia Trump connection propagated by Dem polticians and leftists.
- epakai 4y ago
  There's enough there to remain suspicious. The Trump campaign hid their meetings with Russians (see Flynn's transition meetings). They lied about the purpose of the Trump tower meetings. They have claimed financial ties to Russian financial institutions in the past. None of these things are "false connections propagated by Dem politicians and leftists". They have made these connections evident through their own admissions, and denials. There is certainly a narrative that drives beyond what we have evidence for, but it's absurd to pretend these things were only propagated from political rivals trying to attack their rivals.
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    Keep your head in the sand all you like. >There's enough there to remain suspicious. Honestly, after years of the Democrats throwing everything they can at Trump, still nothing. Yet you persist. Switch your focus to Biden perhaps, the current corrupt president that mishandled classified documents, has made a fortune off his political position.... see the similarities here? No? Of course not.
- cmh89 4y ago
  The trump crime family is demonstrably highly connected to russian oligarchs and russia generally.
- apstls 4y ago
  > but the focus of the Twitter files in this regard is clearly specific to the false Russia Trump connection propagated by Dem polticians and leftists. Which makes the comment I was replying to (which is the comment one level above mine, not two levels above mine) even more incorrect, as it claims that the Twitter files prove that Russian meddling did not occur, which is a claim orders of magnitude broader than the claim that Trump-Russian collusion did not occur.
mjfl 4y ago
[flagged]
- mistermann 4y ago
  Absolutely agree, I've read countless articles that are clearly written to make readers believe that Russia is guilty of this or that, but almost never is there a single shred of evidence, it's always "linked to" Russia, the link typically being the opinion of some anonymous informant. I honestly can't understand how so many people buy this story year after year, other than the fact that propaganda clearly works.
- apstls 4y ago
  I apologize if my comment appeared to be disingenuous. I would like to understand why you believe that Russian election meddling did not occur and how this belief formed based on the information contained in the Twitter files, which I have admittedly only partially read. Let's start with a concrete example, like the 2016 DNC hack and subsequent document leaks. US intelligence agencies, and private cybersecurity companies that helped handle the response and investigation, have all claimed with high confidence that an offensive cyber unit within the Russian military had carried out the attack. I assume you are familiar with this example and the corresponding reports/indicment, but I would recommend skimming the indictment for a refresher (https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download) while paying particular attention to parts that relate to the observable events that implied election interference-related motives, like: on or about April 15, 2016, the Conspirators searched one hacked DCCC computer for terms that included “hillary,” “cruz,” and “trump.” The Conspirators also copied select DCCC folders, including “Benghazi Investigations.” The Conspirators targeted computers containing information such as opposition research and field operation plans for the 2016 elections. With this example as a jumping-off point, here are some questions off the top of my head: - Do you believe (1) that this incident did not occur, (2) that the incident did occur but was a case of misattribution, (3) that the incident did occur, and was executed by the GRU, but was not done as part of a broader Russian government effort related to the US election, (3) that the incident did occur [...], but that the broader effort does not constitute election interference? - Do the Twitter files include any evidence that the indictment, conclusions of the federal investigation, and conclusions of the private investigations were false? This is a genuine question, I read the early tweets but did not believe continuing to read the later ones was worth the time. Twitter & this incident were intertwined from the very beginning, as the GRU had created a fake Twitter persona for leaking documents, so I would assume there are some files somewhere inside Twitter related to this. - Your first comment rhetorically implied that "Russia meddling" was a fabricated story, while your second comment changes the framing and refers to "material Russian interference." Is the root of this disagreement that you believe a successful outcome is required for activities to be deemed election meddling/interference? If so, what do you think a reasonable definition of "outcome" is in this context - the ultimate outcome of the election, the outcome of a single voter's time spent in ballot box, somewhere in between? Is your belief that meddling was attempted, but not successful and therefore not ultimately meddling? Are you aware of any estimates of impact of claimed meddling, and/or the methodologies used for estimating it? Personally, my answer to the last question is "no," and I think the most likely case is that the election outcome would be identical in a parallel universe where Russian does not exist, but I personally don't believe that makes the issue significantly less concerning. Your first time doing anything is usually pretty sloppy. - If yes to the above, let's say you were to learn that a foreign government was preparing for an election interference campaign related to an upcoming US presidential election. Would you find this problematic enough to warrant government response and public awareness via media coverage, even though you do not yet know if the operation will be successful? If government response and public awareness are important in this scenario, are they not also important in similar scenarios where our awareness of the campaign does not come until after the campaign has concluded? - Taking the above a few steps back: would you consider efforts coordinated by a foreign government with the express goal of influencing the outcome of a US election to be election meddling? If not, does your opinion change if the efforts intentionally used misinformation as a weapon for achieving the goal? If still not, does your opinion change if the efforts are performed covertly with the intention of avoiding attribution? Are there any additional factors that you would consider requisite here? - If yes to any of the questions in the above bullet, other the last one, then do you simply believe that the Russian government did not coordinate any such activities, including covert activities that made use of false "information" the actors knew to be false, occurred at all throughout the past two election cycles? - If yes to the above, can this belief can be entirely supported by the information in the Twitter files, as your first comment implies? As in, did the Twitter files alone contained sufficient information that all claims, reports, and associated details of Russian election interference were fabricated? - In making this claim, are you confident that you are sufficiently aware of the various information and evidence that has been released, by both government and private entities, that was used to back claims of Russian meddling? If not, is there anything else you have read or learned that helped you become comfortable with claiming this information and evidence were false/fabricated even though you are not aware of what the full scope of the information and evidence is? - Do you have any theories as to how private companies were coerced or tricked by the US intelligence communities into release false conclusions that supported the government's desired narrative? They must have had to be doing significantly more than second-hand moderation of tweets if your claim is valid, so do you have an idea of what else they were doing?

by apstls 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago

Unfortunately there are plenty of people who believe this.

upsidesinclude 4y ago

No, the previous comment brought up Trump, which is clearly alluding to "Russian collusion". I'm fine with distaste for Trump and the realities of disinformation campaigns, but the focus of the Twitter files in this regard is clearly specific to the false Russia Trump connection propagated by Dem polticians and leftists.

epakai 4y ago
There's enough there to remain suspicious. The Trump campaign hid their meetings with Russians (see Flynn's transition meetings). They lied about the purpose of the Trump tower meetings. They have claimed financial ties to Russian financial institutions in the past. None of these things are "false connections propagated by Dem politicians and leftists". They have made these connections evident through their own admissions, and denials. There is certainly a narrative that drives beyond what we have evidence for, but it's absurd to pretend these things were only propagated from political rivals trying to attack their rivals.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  Keep your head in the sand all you like. >There's enough there to remain suspicious. Honestly, after years of the Democrats throwing everything they can at Trump, still nothing. Yet you persist. Switch your focus to Biden perhaps, the current corrupt president that mishandled classified documents, has made a fortune off his political position.... see the similarities here? No? Of course not.
cmh89 4y ago
The trump crime family is demonstrably highly connected to russian oligarchs and russia generally.
apstls 4y ago
> but the focus of the Twitter files in this regard is clearly specific to the false Russia Trump connection propagated by Dem polticians and leftists. Which makes the comment I was replying to (which is the comment one level above mine, not two levels above mine) even more incorrect, as it claims that the Twitter files prove that Russian meddling did not occur, which is a claim orders of magnitude broader than the claim that Trump-Russian collusion did not occur.

mjfl 4y ago

[flagged]

mistermann 4y ago
Absolutely agree, I've read countless articles that are clearly written to make readers believe that Russia is guilty of this or that, but almost never is there a single shred of evidence, it's always "linked to" Russia, the link typically being the opinion of some anonymous informant. I honestly can't understand how so many people buy this story year after year, other than the fact that propaganda clearly works.
apstls 4y ago
I apologize if my comment appeared to be disingenuous. I would like to understand why you believe that Russian election meddling did not occur and how this belief formed based on the information contained in the Twitter files, which I have admittedly only partially read. Let's start with a concrete example, like the 2016 DNC hack and subsequent document leaks. US intelligence agencies, and private cybersecurity companies that helped handle the response and investigation, have all claimed with high confidence that an offensive cyber unit within the Russian military had carried out the attack. I assume you are familiar with this example and the corresponding reports/indicment, but I would recommend skimming the indictment for a refresher (https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download) while paying particular attention to parts that relate to the observable events that implied election interference-related motives, like: on or about April 15, 2016, the Conspirators searched one hacked DCCC computer for terms that included “hillary,” “cruz,” and “trump.” The Conspirators also copied select DCCC folders, including “Benghazi Investigations.” The Conspirators targeted computers containing information such as opposition research and field operation plans for the 2016 elections. With this example as a jumping-off point, here are some questions off the top of my head: - Do you believe (1) that this incident did not occur, (2) that the incident did occur but was a case of misattribution, (3) that the incident did occur, and was executed by the GRU, but was not done as part of a broader Russian government effort related to the US election, (3) that the incident did occur [...], but that the broader effort does not constitute election interference? - Do the Twitter files include any evidence that the indictment, conclusions of the federal investigation, and conclusions of the private investigations were false? This is a genuine question, I read the early tweets but did not believe continuing to read the later ones was worth the time. Twitter & this incident were intertwined from the very beginning, as the GRU had created a fake Twitter persona for leaking documents, so I would assume there are some files somewhere inside Twitter related to this. - Your first comment rhetorically implied that "Russia meddling" was a fabricated story, while your second comment changes the framing and refers to "material Russian interference." Is the root of this disagreement that you believe a successful outcome is required for activities to be deemed election meddling/interference? If so, what do you think a reasonable definition of "outcome" is in this context - the ultimate outcome of the election, the outcome of a single voter's time spent in ballot box, somewhere in between? Is your belief that meddling was attempted, but not successful and therefore not ultimately meddling? Are you aware of any estimates of impact of claimed meddling, and/or the methodologies used for estimating it? Personally, my answer to the last question is "no," and I think the most likely case is that the election outcome would be identical in a parallel universe where Russian does not exist, but I personally don't believe that makes the issue significantly less concerning. Your first time doing anything is usually pretty sloppy. - If yes to the above, let's say you were to learn that a foreign government was preparing for an election interference campaign related to an upcoming US presidential election. Would you find this problematic enough to warrant government response and public awareness via media coverage, even though you do not yet know if the operation will be successful? If government response and public awareness are important in this scenario, are they not also important in similar scenarios where our awareness of the campaign does not come until after the campaign has concluded? - Taking the above a few steps back: would you consider efforts coordinated by a foreign government with the express goal of influencing the outcome of a US election to be election meddling? If not, does your opinion change if the efforts intentionally used misinformation as a weapon for achieving the goal? If still not, does your opinion change if the efforts are performed covertly with the intention of avoiding attribution? Are there any additional factors that you would consider requisite here? - If yes to any of the questions in the above bullet, other the last one, then do you simply believe that the Russian government did not coordinate any such activities, including covert activities that made use of false "information" the actors knew to be false, occurred at all throughout the past two election cycles? - If yes to the above, can this belief can be entirely supported by the information in the Twitter files, as your first comment implies? As in, did the Twitter files alone contained sufficient information that all claims, reports, and associated details of Russian election interference were fabricated? - In making this claim, are you confident that you are sufficiently aware of the various information and evidence that has been released, by both government and private entities, that was used to back claims of Russian meddling? If not, is there anything else you have read or learned that helped you become comfortable with claiming this information and evidence were false/fabricated even though you are not aware of what the full scope of the information and evidence is? - Do you have any theories as to how private companies were coerced or tricked by the US intelligence communities into release false conclusions that supported the government's desired narrative? They must have had to be doing significantly more than second-hand moderation of tweets if your claim is valid, so do you have an idea of what else they were doing?