8 ms·

Poorly titled and therefore hard to share on Hacker News, but lengthy and worth reading investigative reporting into a bizarre 'Internet Research Agency' that m

Poorly titled and therefore hard to share on Hacker News, but lengthy and worth reading investigative reporting into a bizarre 'Internet Research Agency' that mainly produces pro-Putin propaganda, in both English and Russian. I'm surprised, frankly, that they don't have better English-language proficiency.

golergka 11y ago
Russians have a very low English level by european standards, and people proficient in English cost more. Main profit model of this establishments was always cutting costs while charging more — especially when the person you're charging is a government official (whom you know very closely), who is hiring your company to get some of this budget in his pocket in the first place. So, the quality is not at all the priority, and when it is, the % of the money that gets stolen is still enormous (Sochi).
- ptaipale 11y ago
  And perhaps people who are proficient in English are not only costly, but they might also be politically unreliable...
hackuser 11y ago
> that mainly produces pro-Putin propaganda, in both English and Russian. And also seems to be testing disinformation campaigns in the US, such as spreading panic about (fake) disasters.
- josefresco 11y ago
  I feel like this (testing disinformation campaigns within the US) wasn't addressed fully and is the most significant aspect of the "trolling" operations. Not many care if Russians are spreading lies to Russians about Putin, but attempting to cause panic in the US by faking a disaster is the most dangerous aspect of this practice.
  - lgieron 11y ago
    It's also spreading lies about Russians to non-Russians. See for example The Guardian online forums - these guys dominate conversations which have something do to with Putin's policies (say the Crimea situation etc).
    - mike_hearn 11y ago
      Ugh, fail. The Guardian comments sections are a trashbag of political censorship and general idiocy, but I see no evidence that they are being trolled by the Kremlin. A whole lot of people THINK they are, and the Guardian has levelled such accusations (without presenting evidence) but my own experience is that I am routinely accused of working for the Kremlin there, based on no evidence at all. Their view is simply "you disagree with me therefore you must be a paid troll". Making things worse: the Guardian moderators delete vast numbers of comments that would be considered completely acceptable anywhere else, merely for questioning what their articles say. I think the only way to respond to government-sponsored trolling is to just ignore it. Who cares what someone's motivation is? The only practical response is the same anyway: answer back and be more convincing than they are.
      - Canada 11y ago
        I've found the CBC comment moderators like that as well. The moderation policy is essentially, "Don't be vulgar or threatening" Yet comments that violate the policy but agree with CBC writers views are allowed while polite, ad-hominem free dissenting comments are removed. When there's too much dissent comments are simply closed.
        mike_hearn 11y ago
        Right. The Guardian has a rule that you're not allowed to insult the journalists. Unfortunately, suggesting that they're wrong, biased or maybe didn't do their homework is routinely considered to be insulting the journalists :(
      - lgieron 11y ago
prostoalex 11y ago
> I'm surprised, frankly, that they don't have better English-language proficiency. People with high English proficiency are probably employed at better-paying gigs.

golergka 11y ago

Russians have a very low English level by european standards, and people proficient in English cost more. Main profit model of this establishments was always cutting costs while charging more — especially when the person you're charging is a government official (whom you know very closely), who is hiring your company to get some of this budget in his pocket in the first place. So, the quality is not at all the priority, and when it is, the % of the money that gets stolen is still enormous (Sochi).

ptaipale 11y ago
And perhaps people who are proficient in English are not only costly, but they might also be politically unreliable...

hackuser 11y ago

> that mainly produces pro-Putin propaganda, in both English and Russian. And also seems to be testing disinformation campaigns in the US, such as spreading panic about (fake) disasters.

josefresco 11y ago
I feel like this (testing disinformation campaigns within the US) wasn't addressed fully and is the most significant aspect of the "trolling" operations. Not many care if Russians are spreading lies to Russians about Putin, but attempting to cause panic in the US by faking a disaster is the most dangerous aspect of this practice.
- lgieron 11y ago
  It's also spreading lies about Russians to non-Russians. See for example The Guardian online forums - these guys dominate conversations which have something do to with Putin's policies (say the Crimea situation etc).
  - mike_hearn 11y ago
    Ugh, fail. The Guardian comments sections are a trashbag of political censorship and general idiocy, but I see no evidence that they are being trolled by the Kremlin. A whole lot of people THINK they are, and the Guardian has levelled such accusations (without presenting evidence) but my own experience is that I am routinely accused of working for the Kremlin there, based on no evidence at all. Their view is simply "you disagree with me therefore you must be a paid troll". Making things worse: the Guardian moderators delete vast numbers of comments that would be considered completely acceptable anywhere else, merely for questioning what their articles say. I think the only way to respond to government-sponsored trolling is to just ignore it. Who cares what someone's motivation is? The only practical response is the same anyway: answer back and be more convincing than they are.
    - Canada 11y ago
      I've found the CBC comment moderators like that as well. The moderation policy is essentially, "Don't be vulgar or threatening" Yet comments that violate the policy but agree with CBC writers views are allowed while polite, ad-hominem free dissenting comments are removed. When there's too much dissent comments are simply closed.
      - mike_hearn 11y ago
        Right. The Guardian has a rule that you're not allowed to insult the journalists. Unfortunately, suggesting that they're wrong, biased or maybe didn't do their homework is routinely considered to be insulting the journalists :(
    - lgieron 11y ago

prostoalex 11y ago

> I'm surprised, frankly, that they don't have better English-language proficiency. People with high English proficiency are probably employed at better-paying gigs.