3 ms·

> 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 pa

> 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
      > 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. For me the strongest evidence (still non-conclusive obviously) is the fact that the users who are heavily pro-Putin, while clearly being a minority on the forums, almost always get ridiculous amounts of upvotes. For example, for a typical political comment on the forum, getting 50-100 upvotes is rare, while these pro-Putin posts routinely pull 200-500.
      - mike_hearn 11y ago
        That's not evidence. That's another supposition. Again, you're just assuming that because a viewpoint you disagree with seems popular it must be due to some kind of manipulation.
        lgieron 11y ago
        That's the thing though - these posts clearly don't represent a majority in terms of volume and yet they get obcenely large number of upvotes.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Agreed. Why would they be doing that? All I can think is that psychological operations always have been part of war (and conflicts short of war), and the obvious place to conduct them in 2015 is not on leaflets dropped from airplanes, but on the Internet. I don't think it's conspiratorial to expect that nations are developing capabilities and training.
- linkregister 11y ago
  I disagree, I believe that every cry of "Wolf!" regarding national disasters benefits the population at large, if only to desensitize them from sensational reports. An analogy: do you know anyone who still falls for inheritance scam emails? Ten years ago, there were many reports of victims succumbing to fraud emails.

> 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
    > 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. For me the strongest evidence (still non-conclusive obviously) is the fact that the users who are heavily pro-Putin, while clearly being a minority on the forums, almost always get ridiculous amounts of upvotes. For example, for a typical political comment on the forum, getting 50-100 upvotes is rare, while these pro-Putin posts routinely pull 200-500.
    - mike_hearn 11y ago
      That's not evidence. That's another supposition. Again, you're just assuming that because a viewpoint you disagree with seems popular it must be due to some kind of manipulation.
      - lgieron 11y ago
        That's the thing though - these posts clearly don't represent a majority in terms of volume and yet they get obcenely large number of upvotes.
hackuser 11y ago
Agreed. Why would they be doing that? All I can think is that psychological operations always have been part of war (and conflicts short of war), and the obvious place to conduct them in 2015 is not on leaflets dropped from airplanes, but on the Internet. I don't think it's conspiratorial to expect that nations are developing capabilities and training.
linkregister 11y ago
I disagree, I believe that every cry of "Wolf!" regarding national disasters benefits the population at large, if only to desensitize them from sensational reports. An analogy: do you know anyone who still falls for inheritance scam emails? Ten years ago, there were many reports of victims succumbing to fraud emails.