• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Vela

Alt Account
Banned
Apr 16, 2018
1,818
Far from being a sophisticated propaganda campaign, it was small, amateurish, and mostly unrelated to the 2016 election.
[...]
Based on all of this data, we can draw this picture of Russian social-media activity: It was mostly unrelated to the 2016 election; microscopic in reach, engagement, and spending; and juvenile or absurd in its content. This leads to the inescapable conclusion, as the New Knowledge study acknowledges, that "the operation's focus on elections was merely a small subset" of its activity. They qualify that "accurate" narrative by saying it "misses nuance and deserves more contextualization." Alternatively, perhaps it deserves some minimal reflection that a juvenile social-media operation with such a small focus on elections is being widely portrayed as a seismic threat that may well have decided the 2016 contest.

Doing so leads us to conclusions that have nothing to do with Russian social-media activity, nor with the voters supposedly influenced by it.

• 2016 Election Content: The most glaring data point is how minimally Russian social-media activity pertained to the 2016 campaign. The New Knowledge report acknowledges that evaluating IRA content "purely based on whether it definitively swung the election is too narrow a focus," as the "explicitly political content was a small percentage." To be exact, just "11% of the total content" attributed to the IRA and 33 percent of user engagement with it "was related to the election." The IRA's posts "were minimally about the candidates," with "roughly 6% of tweets, 18% of Instagram posts, and 7% of Facebook posts" having "mentioned Trump or Clinton by name."

• Scale: The researchers claim that "the scale of [the Russian] operation was unprecedented," but they base that conclusion on dubious figures. They repeat the widespread claim that Russian posts "reached 126 million people on Facebook," which is in fact a spin on Facebook's own guess. "Our best estimate," Facebook's Colin Stretch testified to Congress in October 2017, "is that approximately 126 million people may have been served one of these [IRA] stories at some time during the two year period" between 2015 and 2017. According to Stretch, posts generated by suspected Russian accounts showing up in Facebook's News Feed amounted to "approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content."

• Spending: Also hurting the case that the Russians reached a large number of Americans is that they spent such a microscopic amount of money to do it. Oxford puts the IRA's Facebook spending between 2015 and 2017 at just $73,711. As was previously known, about $46,000 was spent on Russian-linked Facebook ads before the 2016 election. That amounts to about 0.05 percent of the $81 million spent on Facebook ads by the Clinton and Trump campaigns combined. A recent disclosure by Google that Russian-linked accounts spent $4,700 on platforms in 2016 only underscores how minuscule that spending was. The researchers also claim that the IRA's "manipulation of American political discourse had a budget that exceeded $25 million USD." But that number is based on a widely repeated error that mistakes the IRA's spending on US-related activities for its parent project's overall global budget, including domestic social-media activity in Russia.

• Sophistication: Another reason to question the operation's sophistication can be found by simply looking at its offerings. The IRA's most shared pre-election Facebook post was a cartoon of a gun-wielding Yosemite Sam. Over on Instagram, the best-received image urged users to give it a "Like" if they believe in Jesus. The top IRA post on Facebook before the election to mention Hillary Clinton was a conspiratorial screed about voter fraud. It's telling that those who are so certain Russian social-media posts affected the 2016 election never cite the posts that they think actually helped achieve that end. The actual content of those posts might explain why.

• Covert or Clickbait Operation? Far from exposing a sophisticated propaganda campaign, the reports provide more evidence that the Russians were actually engaging in clickbait capitalism: targeting unique demographics like African Americans or evangelicals in a bid to attract large audiences for commercial purposes. Reporters who have profiled the IRA have commonly described it as "a social media marketing campaign." Mueller's indictment of the IRA disclosed that it sold "promotions and advertisements" on its pages that generally sold in the $25-$50 range. "This strategy," Oxford observes, "is not an invention for politics and foreign intrigue, it is consistent with techniques used in digital marketing." New Knowledge notes that the IRA even sold merchandise that "perhaps provided the IRA with a source of revenue," hawking goods such as T-shirts, "LGBT-positive sex toys and many variants of triptych and 5-panel artwork featuring traditionally conservative, patriotic themes."

• "Asset Development": Lest one wonder how promoting sex toys might factor into a sophisticated influence campaign, the New Knowledge report claims that exploiting "sexual behavior" was a key component of the IRA's "expansive" "human asset recruitment strategy" in the United States. "Recruiting an asset by exploiting a personal vulnerability," the report explains, "is a timeless espionage practice." The first example of this timeless espionage practice is of an ad featuring Jesus consoling a dejected young man by telling him: "Struggling with the addiction to masturbation? Reach out to me and we will beat it together." It is unknown if this particular tactic brought any assets into the fold. But New Knowledge reports that there was "some success with several of these human-activation attempts." That is correct: The IRA's online trolls apparently succeeded in sparking protests in 2016, like several in Florida where "it's unclear if anyone attended"; "no people showed up to at least one," and "ragtag groups" showed up at others, including one where video footage captured a crowd of eight people. The most successful effort appears to have been in Houston, where Russian trolls allegedly organized dueling rallies pitting a dozen white supremacists against several dozen counter-protesters outside an Islamic center.

https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-elections-interference/

See also:
 

Powdered Egg

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
17,070
I really don't care for the Russia stuff at this point. I give them props for serving a mere appetizer of what the US dishes out regularly. That Wall Street tweet has a huge point and the pro-Israel politicians and states taking a dump on the 1st Amendment is my bigger concern.
 

Zornack

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,134
Tweet is nonsensical. Who points to their facebook campaign over the release of hacked emails as Russia's main influence in the election?
 

RoninChaos

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,332
Guess they forgot the whole hacking of emails and decided to focus on Facebook. That's some dumbass shit. Seems like astroturfing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,686
From a super quick google: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-nation/

'The Nation endorsed Bernie Sanders for President in 2016. They also have been criticized for being a Pro-Russia publication by both conservatives and liberals. Here is a quote from the right leaning Washington Free Beacon: "The Nation's modern day Russia coverage has been criticized as too pro-Putin.'


I don't know how unbiased mediabiasfactcheck is, but I am a little skeptical of The Nation in regard to Russia.
 

Dullahan

Always bets on black
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,410
From a super quick google: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-nation/

"The Nation endorsed Bernie Sanders for President in 2016. They also have been criticized for being a Pro-Russia publication by both conservatives and liberals. Here is a quote from the right leaning Washington Free Beacon: "The Nation's modern day Russia coverage has been criticized as too pro-Putin."


I don't know how unbiased mediabiasfactcheck is, but I am a little skeptical of The Nation in regard to Russia.
We done here.
 

Mivey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,814
That 100K figure ignores the efforts Russia is putting in hacking everything in the West, and I doubt that is limited to a mere 100K. Should easily be millions.
 

shnurgleton

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,864
Boston
It just means that Russia got way more bang for their buck

Not to mention the untold Russian millions that have likely moved thru Trump properties
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,319
Article comes out downplaying Russia efforts to guide the election not too shortly before the Mueller report is supposed to drop
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,686
Also even from the article itself, a more accurate title seems to be "The Nation writer disagrees with the conclusions other people have drawn of two studies".

The Nation is not fishy, but they are rather hard left. Take that into account.
I understand they seem to be progressive / leftist, but my concern is more that they've been criticized for being pro-Russia in particular.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
23,807
From a super quick google: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-nation/

'The Nation endorsed Bernie Sanders for President in 2016. They also have been criticized for being a Pro-Russia publication by both conservatives and liberals. Here is a quote from the right leaning Washington Free Beacon: "The Nation's modern day Russia coverage has been criticized as too pro-Putin.'


I don't know how unbiased mediabiasfactcheck is, but I am a little skeptical of The Nation in regard to Russia.
operasnapshot_2019-01feedi.png
 
Nov 20, 2017
793
We would all be better served by accepting that Russia is spending nearly all of its energy and resources in destabilising NATO democracies. Pretending it's a minor thing is enabling it. It is not minor, it is working and it boils my piss when I see people writing it off as a conspiracy or a joke. They're trying harder at this than we are at anything.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,079
Arkansas, USA
I guess they're ignoring the millions of dollars that Russia funneled to the NRA as well as Trump himself in all likelihood.

I mean hell the Russian bagman in charge of paying their agents lived in North Carolina and pocketed $150 million for his troubles. You're either lying or being willfully ignorant if you think that the only thing Russia was doing was Facebook disinformation.
 
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
Isn't there video evidence from the Danes of Cozy Bear doing their stupid shit, and reports from workers of the troll factories?
 

evilromero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,370
Wow. The Nation huh? Did people here already forget the publications clear bias? Surprised this even got posted by the OP without any response to the known leanings of said pub.
 

Finale Fireworker

Love each other or die trying.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,710
United States
This thread seems to be going nowhere fast and the nature of the editorial doesn't seem particularly conducive to good discussion, so this thread is closed to further replies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.