7 ms·

> How do politically motivated troll armies influence an election in a reality where people don't use social media as their primary news source? Answer: They do

> How do politically motivated troll armies influence an election in a reality where people don't use social media as their primary news source? Answer: They don't. To what degree do they "influence" an election in our "reality"? (And, how many people can even genuinely and substantially wonder what the truth of the matter is after growing up in countries subject to Western "influence"?)

usrbinbash 2y ago
> To what degree do they "influence" an election in our "reality"? - https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24/716374421/fact-check-russian-interference-went-far-beyond-facebook-ads-kushner-described https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24/716374421/fact-check-russian-... - https://www.axios.com/2021/07/09/facebook-book-russia-zuckerberg-sandberg https://www.axios.com/2021/07/09/facebook-book-russia-zucker... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/18/how-russia-weaponized-social-media-got-caught-escaped-consequences/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/18/how-russi... - https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN25S5UA/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN25S5UA/ - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/01/technology/facebook-russia-disinformation-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/01/technology/facebook-russi... - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/21/facebook-us-2020-elections-foreign-interference-russia https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/21/facebook-... - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/russias-2024-election-interference-already-begun-rcna134204 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/russias-2024-ele... Not limited to the US either: - https://time.com/4955503/germany-elections-2017-far-right-russia-angela-merkel/ https://time.com/4955503/germany-elections-2017-far-right-ru... - https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-botnet-promotes-far-right-messages-in-german-election/ https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-botnet-promotes-far-... - https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-influence-hackers-social-media-facebok-operation-thriving/ https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-influence-hackers-soc... - https://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/germany-uncovers-russian-disinformation-campaign-on-x/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/germany-unco...
- mistermann 2y ago
  In percentage terms please, and please explicitly acknowledge opinions as such. Sorry for ruining a good story (did you even notice you didn't answer the question, but instead posted a bunch of stories...how do you think these things work), but the topic and specific nature of the accusations (misinformation) demands it.
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    the articles they posted had lots of explanations of how the writer of said articles thought things work, perhaps they (the poster) thinks that these things work as laid out in the articles and thus are not required to explain in extra detail how they think these things work. In relation to percentages, lots of the articles had numbers, you could also do the work of deriving percentages from the numbers if you were so inclined. >did you even notice you didn't answer the question, the way English and Internet communication work if you quote a question and then give a bunch of links it is reasonable to assume that is the way they are answering the question - in short they believe that the links they provide are a good faith explanation of 'what degree "they" "influence" an election in our "reality"'. >and please explicitly acknowledge opinions as such. You seem to want them to do an awful lot of work to answer your short one paragraph question!
    - mistermann 2y ago
      > the articles they posted had lots of explanations of how the writer of said articles thought things work, perhaps they (the poster) thinks that these things work as laid out in the articles and thus are not required to explain in extra detail how they think these things work. My question was whether the poster realized propaganda/misinformation ran on stories, since that (and only that) is what he was posting (with no accompanying assertion, a genuinely impressive technique, if intentional (no accusation, just sayin')). > In relation to percentages, lots of the articles had numbers, you could also do the work of deriving percentages from the numbers if you were so inclined. You could also get some percentages with a random number generator. Are you asserting that reasonably accurate quantitative (percentage) truth can be derived from these articles? If so, I'd like to see you explain how, and also how you would determine your theory is correct in fact. > the way English and Internet communication work if you quote a question and then give a bunch of links it is reasonable to assume.... Oh, I am aware. Heck, the "quote a question and then give a bunch of links" isn't even required, since what "is reasonable" varies widely depending on the topic. > ...that is the way they are answering the question... But they didn't even try to answer the question that was asked. This is the beauty of just posting links: no claim of them being an answer is made, readers can assume for themselves that they have answers the question, and confirmed the meme. > ...in short they believe that the links they provide are a good faith explanation of 'what degree "they" "influence" an election in our "reality"'. People are welcome to believe whatever they like, but I am under the impression that what is being discussed here is at least an attempt at the truth. Could I be mistaken? I will ask you point blank: do you care what the truth of the matter is here?

usrbinbash 2y ago

> To what degree do they "influence" an election in our "reality"? - https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24/716374421/fact-check-russian-interference-went-far-beyond-facebook-ads-kushner-described https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24/716374421/fact-check-russian-... - https://www.axios.com/2021/07/09/facebook-book-russia-zuckerberg-sandberg https://www.axios.com/2021/07/09/facebook-book-russia-zucker... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/18/how-russia-weaponized-social-media-got-caught-escaped-consequences/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/18/how-russi... - https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN25S5UA/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN25S5UA/ - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/01/technology/facebook-russia-disinformation-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/01/technology/facebook-russi... - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/21/facebook-us-2020-elections-foreign-interference-russia https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/21/facebook-... - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/russias-2024-election-interference-already-begun-rcna134204 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/russias-2024-ele... Not limited to the US either: - https://time.com/4955503/germany-elections-2017-far-right-russia-angela-merkel/ https://time.com/4955503/germany-elections-2017-far-right-ru... - https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-botnet-promotes-far-right-messages-in-german-election/ https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-botnet-promotes-far-... - https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-influence-hackers-social-media-facebok-operation-thriving/ https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-influence-hackers-soc... - https://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/germany-uncovers-russian-disinformation-campaign-on-x/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/germany-unco...

mistermann 2y ago
In percentage terms please, and please explicitly acknowledge opinions as such. Sorry for ruining a good story (did you even notice you didn't answer the question, but instead posted a bunch of stories...how do you think these things work), but the topic and specific nature of the accusations (misinformation) demands it.
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  the articles they posted had lots of explanations of how the writer of said articles thought things work, perhaps they (the poster) thinks that these things work as laid out in the articles and thus are not required to explain in extra detail how they think these things work. In relation to percentages, lots of the articles had numbers, you could also do the work of deriving percentages from the numbers if you were so inclined. >did you even notice you didn't answer the question, the way English and Internet communication work if you quote a question and then give a bunch of links it is reasonable to assume that is the way they are answering the question - in short they believe that the links they provide are a good faith explanation of 'what degree "they" "influence" an election in our "reality"'. >and please explicitly acknowledge opinions as such. You seem to want them to do an awful lot of work to answer your short one paragraph question!
  - mistermann 2y ago
    > the articles they posted had lots of explanations of how the writer of said articles thought things work, perhaps they (the poster) thinks that these things work as laid out in the articles and thus are not required to explain in extra detail how they think these things work. My question was whether the poster realized propaganda/misinformation ran on stories, since that (and only that) is what he was posting (with no accompanying assertion, a genuinely impressive technique, if intentional (no accusation, just sayin')). > In relation to percentages, lots of the articles had numbers, you could also do the work of deriving percentages from the numbers if you were so inclined. You could also get some percentages with a random number generator. Are you asserting that reasonably accurate quantitative (percentage) truth can be derived from these articles? If so, I'd like to see you explain how, and also how you would determine your theory is correct in fact. > the way English and Internet communication work if you quote a question and then give a bunch of links it is reasonable to assume.... Oh, I am aware. Heck, the "quote a question and then give a bunch of links" isn't even required, since what "is reasonable" varies widely depending on the topic. > ...that is the way they are answering the question... But they didn't even try to answer the question that was asked. This is the beauty of just posting links: no claim of them being an answer is made, readers can assume for themselves that they have answers the question, and confirmed the meme. > ...in short they believe that the links they provide are a good faith explanation of 'what degree "they" "influence" an election in our "reality"'. People are welcome to believe whatever they like, but I am under the impression that what is being discussed here is at least an attempt at the truth. Could I be mistaken? I will ask you point blank: do you care what the truth of the matter is here?