Also what do we consider dangerous influence? Like I don't give a shit about facebook ads tbh. People who aren't Americans ***** about Trump and spew their opinions on American politics on the global internet all the time.
I'm not gonna screech about interference in our democracy when the BBC, the public news funded by the British state, bitches about Trump.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also what do we consider dangerous influence? Like I don't give a shit about facebook ads tbh. People who aren't Americans ***** about Trump and spew their opinions on American politics on the global internet all the time.I'm not gonna screech about interference in our democracy when the BBC, the public news funded by the British state, bitches about Trump.
I posted on this, before. Posted research. People ignored those ads. A lot. And those that didn't, were far more likely to be responding to their confirmation bias rather than being influenced.
And you make a great point about the BBC. Based on the coverage, they have a far larger influence on the US Populace than Russia could ever dream about. However...be fair. The BBC is less partisan about US Politics than CNN or Fox News. They are still partisan with a left slant, for sure. What CNN used to be in the early 2000s.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, almost none. Almost a near 0 influence.A single TV commercial (by the Dems or GOP) run in just one large city in a battle ground state, for a single week, had greater influence on the election than the entirety of Russia's influence on the 2016 election: primaries and general election.
Russia also spent money in the wrong states if they wanted to influence the election. Laughably stupid of the Russians, really. Incompetence, at best. A disturbing distraction, at worst.
"Russian Interference" has been so overblown, by this point, that you have to wonder what the real conspiracy is, here. Why are so many trying to push the clearly false narrative that Russia influenced the US election when you can simply follow the numbers and see how laughably stupid that idea is?
What's really going on?
Bingo, PB's point gets slapped down once again.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I posted on this, before. Posted research. People ignored those ads. A lot. And those that didn't, were far more likely to be responding to their confirmation bias rather than being influenced.And you make a great point about the BBC. Based on the coverage, they have a far larger influence on the US Populace than Russia could ever dream about. However...be fair. The BBC is less partisan about US Politics than CNN or Fox News. They are still partisan with a left slant, for sure. What CNN used to be in the early 2000s.
https://www.wired.com/story/did-russia-affect-the-2016-election-its-now-undeniable/
According to wired and many others the affect of Russia on 2016 is now Undeniable...
But you know it's fine to take no notice of Muller on that.
. What impact did it have?
We’re only at the beginning of having an answer to this question because we’ve only just begun to ask some of the right questions. But Mueller’s indictment shows that Russian accounts and agents accomplished more than just stoking divisions and tensions with sloppy propaganda memes. The messaging was more sophisticated, and some Americans took action. For example, the indictment recounts a number of instances where events and demonstrations were organized by Russians posing as Americans on social media. These accounts aimed to get people to do specific things. And it turns out—some people did.
Changing or activating behavior in this way is difficult; it’s easier to create awareness of a narrative. Consistent exposure over a period of time has a complex impact on a person’s cognitive environment. If groups were activated, then certainly the narrative being pushed by the IRA penetrated people’s minds. And sure enough, the themes identified in the indictment were topics frequently raised during the election, and they were frequently echoed and promoted across social media and by conservative outlets. A key goal of these campaigns was "mainstreaming" an idea—moving it from the fringe to the mainstream and thus making it appear to be a more widely held than it actually is.
This points to another impact that can be extracted from the indictment: It is now much more difficult to separate what is “Russian†or “American†information architecture in the US information environment. This will make it far harder to assess where stories and narratives are coming from, whether they are real or propaganda, whether they represent the views of our neighbors or not.
This corrosive effect is real and significant. Which part of the fear of “sharia law in America†came from Russian accounts versus readers of InfoWars? How much did the Russian campaigns targeting black voters impact the low turnout, versus the character attacks run against Clinton by the Trump campaign itself? For now, all we can know is that there is shared narrative, and shared responsibility. But if, as the indictment says, Russian information warriors were instructed to support “Sanders and Trump,†and those two campaigns appeared to have the most aggressive and effective online outreach, what piece of that is us, and what is them?
PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE via social media cannot be estimated in linear terms; it requires looking at network effects. It is about the impact of a complex media environment with many layers, inputs, voices, amplifiers, and personalities. All of these elements change over time and interact with each other.
So anyone trying to tell you there was little impact on political views from the tools the Russians used doesn't know. Because none of us knows. No one has looked. Social media companies don't want us to know, and they obfuscate and drag their feet rather than disclosing information. The analytical tools to quantify the impact don’t readily exist. But we know what we see, and what we heard—and the narratives pushed by the Russian information operation made it to all of our ears and eyes.
The groups and narratives identified in the indictment were integral parts of the frenzied election circus that built momentum, shaped perceptions, and activated a core base of support for now-President Trump—just as they helped disgust and dismay other groups, making them less likely to vote (or to vote for marginal candidates in protest).
In the indictment, Trump campaign officials are referred to as “unwitting†participants in Russian information warfare. This gives the White House an out—and a chance to finally act against what the Kremlin did. But the evidence presented in the indictment makes it increasingly hard to say Russian efforts to influence the American mind were a failure.
Molly K. McKew (@MollyMcKew) is an expert on information warfare and the narrative architect at New Media Frontier. She advised Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s government from 2009 to 2013 and former Moldovan Prime Minister Vlad Filat in 2014-15.
RELATED VIDEO
CULTURE
How the Internet Tricks You Into Thinking You're Always Right
A guide to busting through confirmation bias, the cognitive fallacy that's destroying our discourse.
#RUSSIAN#INDICTMENT#AMERICAN#2016 ELECTION#RUSSIA#ROBERT MUELLER
Another article that has a title that does not match it's content. Should be a red flag when the article you posted even says what I just said:
The content was not designed to persuade people to change their views, but to harden those views. Confirmation bias is powerful and commonly employed in these kinds of psychological operations...
Also, the article talks about something that has long since been debunked: the Russians tried to cost Hillary the election by taking votes from her and giving them to Bernie.
This is called the "Sanders Effect." And it doesn't exist.
Bernie did not cause Hillary to lose the election as the article implies.
Also, we've long since reviewed the margins of loss and victory in each state and compared those to the targeted Russian propaganda. Russia completely missed the boat. They targeted the wrong states, lol.
Careful consuming that scare-propaganda, Whirly. There are a ton of media sources trying to misrepresent Russia's part in the 2016 election. It's obviously partisan politics. Read more than just the headlines - those are almost assuredly propaganda to get quick reads from people who are too dumb or lazy to read the articles.
Originally posted by dadudemonActually DDM it mainly talks about shifting perception and it's knock on affect now and it says no tools exist for measuring that. Read it all, it's really saying no methods exist for measuring how far the Overton Window was shifted. But, you know.
Another article that has a title that does not match it's content. Should be a red flag when the article you posted even says what I just said:Also, the article talks about something that has long since been debunked: the Russians tried to cost Hillary the election by taking votes from her and giving them to Bernie.
This is called the "Sanders Effect." And it doesn't exist.
Bernie did not cause Hillary to lose the election as the article implies.
Also, we've long since reviewed the margins of loss and victory in each state and compared those to the targeted Russian propaganda. Russia completely missed the boat. They targeted the wrong states, lol.
Careful consuming that scare-propaganda, Whirly. There are a ton of media sources trying to misrepresent Russia's part in the 2016 election. It's obviously partisan politics. Read more than just the headlines - those are almost assuredly propaganda to get quick reads from people who are too dumb or lazy to read the articles.
Targeted propaganda is only a part of what was going on, it's very clear that wasn't the main attack method or aim.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Actually DDM it mainly talks about shifting perception and it's knock on affect now and it says no tools exist for measuring that. Read it all, it's really saying no methods exist for measuring how far the Overton Window was shifted. But, you know.Targeted propaganda is only a part of what was going on, it's very clear that wasn't the main attack method or aim.
I read it all. As evidenced by me addressing multiple elements from the article in my reply. You would know that if you read the entire article and my reply. 😉
Feel free to go through my many previous replies on this topic, including the actual propaganda that I posted for all to see. You don't have to hid behind abstracted ideas, like this. You can review the actual identified propaganda yourself. Sure, it's thousands. But it definitely removes this imaginary boogeyman you believe in once you delve into the content. 👆
Unless, of course, you think the majority of that propaganda; which was about how Native Americans should be valued, black people are important, immigrants are people, too; caused Hillary Clinton to lose the election. By all means, I'm ready to read those arguments. Please, be my guest: show me the specific ads that influenced the US Election to cause Hillary to lose and Trump to win. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemonI'll have a look, did you look at the overlap with useful fools like Infowars and the idea of putting extreme views out there through actors on web forums etc. Not being a dick mate, but if you did, people would be interested. Link me up
I read it all. As evidenced by me addressing multiple elements from the article in my reply. You would know that if you read the entire article and my reply. 😉Feel free to go through my many previous replies on this topic, including the actual propaganda that I posted for all to see. You don't have to hid behind abstracted ideas, like this. You can review the actual identified propaganda yourself. Sure, it's thousands. But it definitely removes this imaginary boogeyman you believe in once you delve into the content. 👆
Unless, of course, you think the majority of that propaganda; which was about how Native Americans should be valued, black people are important, immigrants are people, too; caused Hillary Clinton to lose the election. By all means, I'm ready to read those arguments. Please, be my guest: show me the specific ads that influenced the US Election to cause Hillary to lose and Trump to win. 🙂
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Do you mean this one?https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/opinion/mueller-report-barr-trump-russian-disinformation.html
Equalization is the only move Trumpers have.
Because believing Russia interfered in our election process is as whacky as believing pedo rings in the nonexistent basement of a pizza palor or that the Earth is flat.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
I'll have a look
Great. I had a spreadsheet I was categorizing stuff into. It became tedious after a while so I stopped categorizing. It was a whole lotta nothing. As I went through more and more of those ads, I realized how terrible the US Propaganda machine is. Mostly just Democrats mad about Trump winning making those ads into something they never were.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
did you look at the overlap with useful fools like Infowars and the idea of putting extreme views out there through actors on web forums etc. Not being a dick mate, but if you did, people would be interested. Link me up
If you know how to parse through that information and could come up with something actionable, the CIA and Federal Security Service (successor to KGB, in Russia) would probably detain you and force you to teach them how.
Until then, how about not moving the goalposts or trying to toss a red herring into the conversation? 🙂
Probably stick with what I was talking about. We can start a new thread and talk about how AI can be used to do what you're talking about. It was the subject to one of the episodes in House of Cards, I believe.
Originally posted by dadudemoni'm not tossing a red herring in mate, the main thrust of the article i posted is the chaotic cascade effect the Russians were looking to do. I think the memes themselves may have done nothing a climate was perhaps being created to introduce extreme idea's to the mainstream. So people discuss said idea's and more radical ideas could be added. Whilst the Russians were happier with either Bernie or Trump; they wanted the people questioning the entire structure. With a slant towards the far right. I thinknonly post Muller can the rightvquestions be asked.
Great. I had a spreadsheet I was categorizing stuff into. It became tedious after a while, so I stopped categorizing. It was a whole lot of nothing.If you know how to parse through that information and could come up with something actionable, the CIA and Federal Security Service (successor to KGB, in Russia) would probably detain you and force you to teach them how.
Until then, how about not moving the goalposts or trying to toss a red herring into the conversation? 🙂
Probably stick with what I was talking about. We can start a new thread and talk about how AI can be used to do what you're talking about. It was the subject to one of the episodes in House of Cards, I believe.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
i'm not tossing a red herring in mate, the main thrust of the article i posted is the chaotic cascade effect the Russians were looking to do. I think the memes themselves may have done nothing a climate was perhaps being created to introduce extreme idea's to the mainstream. So people discuss said idea's and more radical ideas could be added. Whilst the Russians were happier with either Bernie or Trump; they wanted the people questioning the entire structure. With a slant towards the far right. I thinknonly post Muller can the rightvquestions be asked.
I'm still open to reading arguments for how you think the majority of that propaganda; which was about how Native Americans should be valued, black people are important, immigrants are people, too; caused Hillary Clinton to lose the election.
I'm interested to see how a Black Lives Matter ad on Instagram, which got 2400 views and 24 "taps" resulted in Hillary Clinton losing the election especially when those ads were targeted in non-battleground states.
I've setup your argument, perfectly. All you have to do is make an evidenced based argument. It's very easy to prove your position...if the evidence is actually there. Stay away from opinion pieces and shoddy headlines. Go straight to the evidence.
Originally posted by dadudemonI think we are talking about two different things, because what I'm talking about is still ongoing and aimed to shift perception, not just get Trump in, the two are part of a larger whole.https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2178483/russian-disinformation-campaign-help-donald-trump
I'm still open to reading arguments for how you think the majority of that propaganda; which was about how Native Americans should be valued, black people are important, immigrants are people, too; caused Hillary Clinton to lose the election.I'm interested to see how a Black Lives Matter and on Instagram, which got 2400 views and 24 "taps" resulted in Hillary Clinton losing the election mainly when those ads were targeted in non-battleground states.
I've set up your argument, correctly. All you have to do is make an evidence-based argument. It's effortless to prove your position...if the evidence is there. Stay away from opinion pieces and shoddy headlines. Go straight to the evidence.
You and us are still being undermined. This is a long game.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
I think we are talking about two different things, because what I'm talking about is still ongoing and aimed to shift perception, not just get Trump in, the two are part of a larger whole.https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2178483/russian-disinformation-campaign-help-donald-trumpYou and us are still being undermined. This is a long game.
How many times has Britain interfered in elections in the past 50 years?
Originally posted by Putinbot1
I think we are talking about two different things, because what I'm talking about is still ongoing and aimed to shift perception, not just get Trump in, the two are part of a larger whole.https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2178483/russian-disinformation-campaign-help-donald-trumpYou and us are still being undermined. This is a long game.
Okay, fair enough, then. My apologies.
Supra beat me to the next point, then.
China, Japan, the UK, Canada, Mexico: all countries doing the same work but arguably in far far vaster resource quantities than Russia. The Chinese are purchasing up holding interests in multiple American companies that have large public-sway.
Where are the news headlines about those? Why isn't this what everyone is talking about? It's far more important and larger of a problem.
We can start with Mexico, if you'd like. Then work our way up to China. IIRC, Mexico spends the least out of the top countries, influencing our politics and business. But it still greatly eclipses Russia.