Sure. The problem with Russia is twofold: They're doing it really effectively, and they're doing it to us.
We haven't ever seen a disinformation campaign that was this effective before. At least, we haven't seen one that was this effective against countries with free media and an educated population. (Though the effectiveness of this attack might lead one to question both the freedom of the media and the educatedness of the population...)
Them doing it to us may be "turnabout is fair play", but that doesn't mean that we have to like it, approve of it, or accept it.
The Russian Internet Research Agency activity on Facebook was miniscule compared to what was spent by the Clinton and Trump campaigns, not even including PACs. It beggars belief that somehow their 'weird tricks' were so effective and novel that US political advertising consultants -by far the largest and most sophisticated in the world- never figured them out. (Remember Willie Horton? https://www.vox.com/2018/12/1/18121221/george-hw-bush-willie...)
'Without counting PACs, the top campaigns spent 1,760X more on election ads than one group of Russian meddlers puts the situation into context.'
'We haven't ever seen a disinformation campaign that was this effective before.'
I think you're right on that one, but not in the way you think; the most effective disinformation campaign in history was waged by the DNC to blame the Russians for everything when they were a.) caught out in throwing the Democratic nomination to Hillary and b.) being so inept at electioneering that they left the door open for Trump to win.
The amount that they spent on advertising might be small, but the amount that they spent on managing troll accounts stoking conspiracy theories definitely wasn't, with hundreds of accounts removed on multiple platforms. Neither campaign is legally allowed to use that trick, which is evidently very effective by how many people are seen spouting political conspiracy theories these days.
The fact that the trolling campaign was effective can be seen in GP's erroneous claim that the DNC was "caught out in throwing the Democratic nomination to Hillary." Nobody with any sense would believe that conspiracy theory (Clinton beat Sanders by so many votes that the very idea that the DNC would feel the need to cheat in her favor is laughable) without being bombarded by trolls continuously putting forth that claim.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-...
This...
They literally changed the rules because people were so upset that the superdelegates went against the popular vote which was for Bernie.
Now they want to change them back because he has a chance of winning...
Clinton won the popular vote against Bernie (16,914,722 vs. 13,206,428) by a larger margin than she won the popular vote against Trump (65,853,514 vs. 62,984,828), despite fewer total votes due to Sanders dropping out from such a walloping. The fact that you thought otherwise is the kind of thing only a disinformation trolling campaign can achieve.
> We haven't ever seen a disinformation campaign that was this effective before
Maybe not in your lifetime. How would you know anyway? The search for WMDs in Iraq was a good one. Misinformation has been modus operandi for the political elite forever. Bill Clinton on The Jon Stewart show stating that the US had negative immigration, was as much a lie as any other Bush or Trump has claimed. Bill (and Hillary) are very careful about their misinformation, which was frustrating, admittedly.
You should be embarrassed by this comment. What metric are you using to say it's really effective. Please tell me what first hand analysis you have other than being told what you want to hear and using that to justify your position. It's almost like you are a victim of... wait for it....misinformation
It's funny watching people always accuse the other side of being uneducated.
I have no problem with you thinking I'm wrong. But I should be embarrassed? You seem to want to use emotional manipulation to silence those who disagree with you. That doesn't say anything good about your confidence that your opinion will prevail in an open debate.
If you've got an argument, give it. Save the emotional manipulation for children. (In fact, don't use it on children, either. Just lose the emotional manipulation altogether.)
Again you fail to contribute anything meaningful in your comment. Can you actually have a meaningful conversation? That's kind of the standard here. Drive-by putdowns are kind of frowned on here.
I made my point. I said you had no first hand knowledge, which you don't, you just repeat what you want to hear. I was not ambiguous. Then you say you could be wrong but then throw a temper tantrum about being accused of being wrong doing to me the very thing you say I shouldn't do.
And embarrassed is absolutely appropriate. You aren't arguing something trivial like is Casper is just a glorified drop ship operation. You decided to say the best country in the world had its course forever altered by Russian misinfornation. Do you have an uncle in the gru we don't know about?
Then you say we don't do put downs here while endlessly trying to put me down.
People like you should be called out for peddling the actual misinformation.
So, you said I had no first-hand information. I didn't reply to that at the time, because that was not the most egregious part of your post. But, pray tell, what actual first-hand information do you have? I suspect none. (I'm assuming that if you actually had some you would have supplied it.) So, you know... pot, meet kettle. Maybe you ought to be embarrassed, by your own standard.
Most of the rest of your post is too incoherent to bother trying to untangle.
Man, you had to have set some kind of record for personal attacks while virtue signaling about how bad personal attacks are. And now I have to prove something that didn't happen, didn't happen. I'm out, you win
The Russia hoax couldn't stick.
The dossier of Pres. Trump peeing on women couldn't stick.
Stormy Daniels couldn't stick.
Allegations against Supreme Court appointees couldn't stick.
Impeachment couldn't stick.
If we want to talk about disinformation campaigns -- let's start right here at home: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, our own politicians, lobbyists.
Regardless of our political affiliation -- to not look at the evidence and pledge a blind loyalty to a party and its narrative, is precisely part of the problem.
Don't worry so much about Russia. Worry more about your own bias and refusal to think for yourself.
Wait. There isn’t any dispute about Stormy Daniels is there? Everybody involved concedes that Donald Trump did sleep with a porn star while he was married, and he did pay her hush money. I thought the only point in question was whether he was going to get off of the possible campaign finance violations on a technicality?
Part of thinking for yourself is not to disregard the obvious disinformation campaigns Russia has been a part of, along the same lines of the Republican party as well.
Don't broadly accuse the media of disinformation when there's much more evidence to show certain actors have pushed disinformation/misinformation than to just lump them all into one, if you want to go after any media org how about Fox News aka the Rupert Murdoch scam.
I didn’t stop at broadly accusing the media; I listed specific media outlets. You didn’t address any of the failed disinformation campaigns that I mentioned. You simply countered by throwing in a couple terms: republic party, Fox News, and the Rupert Murdoch scam.
> The Russia hoax couldn't stick. The dossier of Pres. Trump peeing on women couldn't stick. Stormy Daniels couldn't stick. Allegations against Supreme Court appointees couldn't stick. Impeachment couldn't stick.
> If we want to talk about disinformation campaigns -- let's start right here at home: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, our own politicians, lobbyists.
Curiously left Fox News and OAN off this list.
> Worry more about your own bias and refusal to think for yourself.
The irony in your post is incredible. You are parroting Fox News and Russian propaganda talking points while directing people to think for themselves.
By accusing me of “parroting” and saying that the irony in my post is “incredible” might show how you feel, but does nothing to address my post. You provided a lot of emotion, zero facts — and nothing even remotely close to a substantive counter in your reply.
Saying that "The Russian hoax couldn't stick." is a personal interpretation, because it falls on the narrative that Alexander Downer (once leader of the Austrialian conservative party) is somehow part of an elaborate conspiracy. Which, that he's part of an elaborate conspiracy, has zero supporting evidence and is being spread by the conservative media.
Additionally, unless you want to believe that Mitt Romney is a "tool of the liberals" then "Impeachment couldn't stick." was entirely due to our system being broken and entirely based around party politics. Because, according to Mitt Romney, Trump absolutely abused his power and broke the law. We don't have people who actually care about the law and upholding it governing us so we have to deal with a broken system. That's a condemnation of both parties, they are both awful.
>But I know how these debates go; they're a waste of oxygen...
And I guess you don't actually debate. I speak with friends on both sides of the political spectrum, specifically conservatives who have read the Mueller report and they don't write it off the way you are. Were there problems discovered? Yes. Was the FISA court lied to in some cases? Yes. But from what I'm seeing, you have the same all-or-nothing approach to these topics that a lot of others do. This is why I hate talking to most people on both the left and the right about politics.
>... still haven't address the example-facts I initially provided.
>Trump was just acquitted baby!!! Whooo hooo. Much on that knighttofmars :)))))))))
Surprise! I actually don't care that Trump was acquitted! Feel free to go taunt someone on a message board on MSNBC or WaPo where outraged liberals prefer to stalk.
Take a step back and realize that you're commenting at someone you don't know and that you expected that comment to elicit emotions of a specific nature. You've achieved the broadcast of your own personal biases and lack of awareness. Congratulations?
Honestly, I feel stupid right now. I shouldn't have said what I said. This is what I hate about debating online. It's so easy to devolve into exactly what I don't want to be: a hateful, inflammatory person. I want to sincerely apologize to you for being a disrespectful idiot - and I mean every word of that. I sincerely hope this is the last time I ever stoop this low and disrespect someone. Again, I'm sincerely sorry for my words man.
Having been exactly where you are now, I completely accept your apology. I'll say this though, don't write off online debate completely. Yes, it can devolve sometimes but I've genuinely had some great online conversations with people that had totally different worldviews than myself. For me, it took learning to recognize and turn off my own emotional biases (which I still screw up and make an idiot of myself occasionally) that caused me to say things that I really regretted later (some of which I'm sure still exist on comment boards elsewhere). Best of luck in life and don't beat yourself up too much, we're all just humans trying to do our best.
Thanks brother. When one slips, it's a great thing for that slip to be met with a gracious, merciful, and caring response. This is definitely a moment that I won't waste, and will use to grow.
I appreciate your humanity, Knight. And I appreciate your realness and transparency in using yourself as an example. You didn't have to do that, but you did because you don't feel better than anyone else.
What do you mean by 'did not stick'. If you mean that trump supporters didn't turn on him for cheating on his wife with pornstars and paying them to be quiet, then that could be reasonable, but the fact that it happened is not even in dispute.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Edit: There's no new information here. Anyone who has been paying even a tiny bit of attention would already know this. "Hacker" "news" wouldn't know an on-topic story if it hit them in the face.
Disinformation campaigns never stopped since...
-the 80's when they passed legislation no longer requiring news -to present both sides of the argument
-the Cold War
-the massive propaganda campaigns via news, radio, social clubs, and film and advertising of WW2
-the father of public relations Edward Bernays wrote the book in 1921
-the guy he stole most of his stuff from Walter Lippmann worked for the US on an unprecedented campaign for WWI
-Ivy Lee, the "first publicist" was hired by the John D. Rockefeller, to improve his public image
-traders in Amsterdam used various methods to deceive other investors regarding tulip values
-Roman Emperors waged disinformation campaigns against the citizens to make sure they knew that their military campaigns were always the most valiant righteous and most of all triumphant possible
-Themistocles launched a disinformation campaign luring the Persians into a naval battle they were ill prepared for at the battle of Salamis
Basically disinformation campaigns have been running since the beginning of time...and the most effective ones are the ones you still never realized.
People realized there's no advantage to letting both sides speak. The majority benefits from stifling the minority and inherently has the power to do so by virtue of being the majority. This gets justified with arguments against normalization usually. Why it's so hard for the 'right' side to present their side persuasively isn't examined too closely.
45 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 118 ms ] threadWe haven't ever seen a disinformation campaign that was this effective before. At least, we haven't seen one that was this effective against countries with free media and an educated population. (Though the effectiveness of this attack might lead one to question both the freedom of the media and the educatedness of the population...)
Them doing it to us may be "turnabout is fair play", but that doesn't mean that we have to like it, approve of it, or accept it.
'Without counting PACs, the top campaigns spent 1,760X more on election ads than one group of Russian meddlers puts the situation into context.'
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/
'We haven't ever seen a disinformation campaign that was this effective before.'
I think you're right on that one, but not in the way you think; the most effective disinformation campaign in history was waged by the DNC to blame the Russians for everything when they were a.) caught out in throwing the Democratic nomination to Hillary and b.) being so inept at electioneering that they left the door open for Trump to win.
Maybe not in your lifetime. How would you know anyway? The search for WMDs in Iraq was a good one. Misinformation has been modus operandi for the political elite forever. Bill Clinton on The Jon Stewart show stating that the US had negative immigration, was as much a lie as any other Bush or Trump has claimed. Bill (and Hillary) are very careful about their misinformation, which was frustrating, admittedly.
Are you talking about something else?
It's funny watching people always accuse the other side of being uneducated.
If you've got an argument, give it. Save the emotional manipulation for children. (In fact, don't use it on children, either. Just lose the emotional manipulation altogether.)
And embarrassed is absolutely appropriate. You aren't arguing something trivial like is Casper is just a glorified drop ship operation. You decided to say the best country in the world had its course forever altered by Russian misinfornation. Do you have an uncle in the gru we don't know about?
Then you say we don't do put downs here while endlessly trying to put me down.
People like you should be called out for peddling the actual misinformation.
Have a good weekend, don't be so sensitive
Most of the rest of your post is too incoherent to bother trying to untangle.
But yes, have a nice weekend.
If we want to talk about disinformation campaigns -- let's start right here at home: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, our own politicians, lobbyists.
Regardless of our political affiliation -- to not look at the evidence and pledge a blind loyalty to a party and its narrative, is precisely part of the problem.
Don't worry so much about Russia. Worry more about your own bias and refusal to think for yourself.
Don't broadly accuse the media of disinformation when there's much more evidence to show certain actors have pushed disinformation/misinformation than to just lump them all into one, if you want to go after any media org how about Fox News aka the Rupert Murdoch scam.
I would recommend you read the HN guidelines.
Good day!
> If we want to talk about disinformation campaigns -- let's start right here at home: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, our own politicians, lobbyists.
Curiously left Fox News and OAN off this list.
> Worry more about your own bias and refusal to think for yourself.
The irony in your post is incredible. You are parroting Fox News and Russian propaganda talking points while directing people to think for themselves.
By accusing me of “parroting” and saying that the irony in my post is “incredible” might show how you feel, but does nothing to address my post. You provided a lot of emotion, zero facts — and nothing even remotely close to a substantive counter in your reply.
And for that reason, I’m out.
This could be said about your original post.
Saying that "The Russian hoax couldn't stick." is a personal interpretation, because it falls on the narrative that Alexander Downer (once leader of the Austrialian conservative party) is somehow part of an elaborate conspiracy. Which, that he's part of an elaborate conspiracy, has zero supporting evidence and is being spread by the conservative media.
Additionally, unless you want to believe that Mitt Romney is a "tool of the liberals" then "Impeachment couldn't stick." was entirely due to our system being broken and entirely based around party politics. Because, according to Mitt Romney, Trump absolutely abused his power and broke the law. We don't have people who actually care about the law and upholding it governing us so we have to deal with a broken system. That's a condemnation of both parties, they are both awful.
And I guess you don't actually debate. I speak with friends on both sides of the political spectrum, specifically conservatives who have read the Mueller report and they don't write it off the way you are. Were there problems discovered? Yes. Was the FISA court lied to in some cases? Yes. But from what I'm seeing, you have the same all-or-nothing approach to these topics that a lot of others do. This is why I hate talking to most people on both the left and the right about politics.
>... still haven't address the example-facts I initially provided.
Hi, let me help you.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/example
>Trump was just acquitted baby!!! Whooo hooo. Much on that knighttofmars :)))))))))
Surprise! I actually don't care that Trump was acquitted! Feel free to go taunt someone on a message board on MSNBC or WaPo where outraged liberals prefer to stalk.
Take a step back and realize that you're commenting at someone you don't know and that you expected that comment to elicit emotions of a specific nature. You've achieved the broadcast of your own personal biases and lack of awareness. Congratulations?
I appreciate your humanity, Knight. And I appreciate your realness and transparency in using yourself as an example. You didn't have to do that, but you did because you don't feel better than anyone else.
Again, thank you, and hope to see you around HN.
Again with the irony. You're an expert at it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: There's no new information here. Anyone who has been paying even a tiny bit of attention would already know this. "Hacker" "news" wouldn't know an on-topic story if it hit them in the face.
Basically disinformation campaigns have been running since the beginning of time...and the most effective ones are the ones you still never realized.