I think that it shows that their bosses don't really understand real Internet discussion and don't know that people can identify trolls, regardless if they are state-sponsored or not.
I think that it shows that their bosses don't really understand real Internet discussion and don't know that people can identify trolls, regardless if they are state-sponsored or not.
You greatly underestimate people's gullibility.
You can identify the trolls quite easily, but they still overwhelm the discussion posts with sheer numbers.
There is a Finnish-language web publication called "MV-lehti" (short for "Mitä vittua?! -lehti" meaning "What the Fuck Magazine"). It is an anti-West, anti-immigrant, anti-establishment disinformation site whose content is rumors at best and knowingly fabricated at worst. And a sizeable portion of the Finnish anti-immigration population take it as gospel.
For example: When someone on HN said over the weekend "I don't see anything inherently wrong with colonialism. Remember that scene from Monty Python -- What have the Romans done for us? A lot of good has come out of colonialism", I was almost certain (almost) it was trolling. Once I saw others agreeing, I reconsidered. What you may consider trolling, may be the other idiot's actual views.
I bring this often on HN, and I will do so again: such trolls (and people who actually believe what they say) are really really threatening to the internet, and everything it has mostly stood up for. When every woman is threatened with rape and murder, and every person of minority is humiliated (often under the pretension of 1) irony, as in reddit, and 2) strictly unemotional data-based Vulcan objectivity (as is often the case here)) , the internet loses its most powerful component: the diverse group of people using it.
I absolutely believe <500 low-paid shills with medium-level English can bring down sites like the likes of reddit. Bringing down does not mean putting them out of business -- that's rather incidental -- it means creating fear and terror amongst a large part of the users to convince them that the majority of the internet is against them -- the internet is not the place for them. It is not just threatening women or minorities, obviously -- it could also be pretending to be an extremist feminist, and suggesting men should be hanged, burned etc, provoking the other group, and causing conflicts.
This is the issue why a lot of platforms have struggled with harassment and bullying issues, and it tickles me when the HN crowd --predominantly libertarian-- drones on about 'free speech at any cost' (suggesting that any removal of extremely offensive content is tantamount to utter censorship), not realizing that an absolute free-for-all arena is most likely to be used by the parties with the most available resource to shape the conversation easily. To put it differently, if Russian trolls can reshape (partly?) the conversation, so can the American government, and so can any agency, with enough resources. To reiterate, it is not necessary to completely change people's point of view -- just scare a targeted population away from a location, and identifying that is NOT as simple as 'calling out the trolls'.
I'll offload something tangential too here. When women say 'there are issues for women in technology', fellow HN users, the least correct response is to offer 'well maybe if they worked harder instead of wasting time complaining, they'd have less issues'. That actually happened in one of the last few discussions about women in tech.
It seems to me this statement is quite unfair. Does it mean that if I think you're trolling it also means I can label you as an idiot? It's not just that you disagree with them, you get to label them with whatever derogatory term you want as well?
>> such trolls (and people who actually believe what they say) are really really threatening to the internet
No, they don't. What's threatening the internet as a bastion of free speech are people who don't understand the consequences of free speech and believe everything that they see on the internet. Then they feel the need to tell other people what they may or may not say based on their misguided notions of what free speech is.
>> suggesting that any removal of extremely offensive content is tantamount to utter censorship
It is censorship. It's almost literally the definition of censorship. I'm not saying censorship doesn't have it's place, but you are being misleading by suggesting that removing a person's comment is not censorship.
As for coordinated trolls attempting to remove a site from discussion; you are absolutely correct. It is a problem. But I don't understand how the solution to that problem is to discuss removing people's rights of free expression. If a site wants to remove people's comments, so be it, but your type of rhetoric eventually leads to people demanding laws. Those laws almost always turn out bad for everyone, people are just too short-sighted to see it.
Also, who are you to define the "least correct response" to anything when hardly anyone knows the other people here? I disagree with that statement, but I don't feel I have the right to tell them they can't make it.
I think what was meant is that people saying idiotic things are not always trolls (who are just trying to stir up an argument), they may actually be idiots.
And yes, of course one may label others as idiots; it might be uncouth when said or written publicly, but that's each person's call.
>It seems to me this statement is quite unfair. Does it mean that if I think you're trolling it also means I can label you as an idiot?
That's not how I read it. I read it as "the /other/ idiot", i.e. emphasis on other. As in, he was referring to all online commenters as idiots. I thought it was a quite clever way to capture that we all are quick to judge in a faceless discussion.
Then again, I may have judged him too astute :)
Obviously there are numerous examples of groups of that sort of size which, whilst unpaid, have been extremely zealous in their attempts to "bring down" Reddit. It's questionable how successful they've been. There's been a singular failure to convert the masses into believing that "ethics in game journalism" is a pressing issue. There are still plenty of women, feminists and black people on Reddit, and most of the rest of the internet remains blissfully unaware of "debates" that have taken place there.
I stopped contributing to HN because of posts similar to yours. We do not need foreign army of trolls, to bring down discussion sites such as HN.
I checked out your comment history, and you don't seem to have have posted anything I would disagree with outright
Yeah but the idea isn't to sponsor enough trolls to trick everyone, but more like turn all internet discussions into one big version of 4chan. Sure you might be able to pick out a few trolls, but it doesn't matter anymore because nobody is going to waste their time trying to have a serious conversation there anymore.
Remember that Russia's masses (just like the masses of every country in the world) are almost by definition poor, uneducated and scared. The wealthy and educated are part of the system -- they don't believe the lies, but the lies work in their service so they don't have to.
Does she claim that the member of the Parliament is a paid Russian troll? Or that he believed some false information to be true? What was it? What are the "lies" he have "spread"? I only see something he wrote using his own name on the Facebook. And we actually don't know what's behind the claim that she "puts all Finnish journalists to shame."
And as a member of that Society elected to the Parliament? What's wrong with that? Democracy working, he being a representative of his voters and all that.
I'm still asking what the "lies" she claims that he "spreads" about her are. After that question, calling him a "captured pawn" is a distraction, not a contribution to the discussion.
No, not elected. A civil servant working at the Parliament.
I'm not saying he's Kim Philby, I'm just saying his position is not irrelevant.
I can't easily find what the false information is that Aro claims Saramo has been spreading about her.
She explicitly claims that he "spreads lies" about her. If the Facebook comment pictured is the statement that "she is a shame" then I don't understand that as "spreading" (when it's a Facebook comment) and "lies" (when it's an unfavorable opinion).
So he's alleging she's a paid NATO propagandist.
The specific quote ("Jessi[kk]a Aro is a shame to YLE and her profession. If the state's broadcaster is spreading things like this, Finland is not a Nordic country" -- my translation) is in response to this article: http://kioski.yle.fi/omat/this-is-what-pro-russia-internet-p... Since it's in English you can read it and judge yourself if you think the article means she's a shame to journalists and the state broadcaster YLE.
Saramo is in general smart enough not to say things that are quickly disproved when attached to a specific name. He's written some long pieces on rather partisan sites [1] attacking the "Infowar" book (Infosota) and essentially saying that these folks (Aro, Saara Jantunen) are themselves manipulators of opinion and that their work on trolls is a threat to freedom of expression and set on suppressing dissent in Finland. [1] http://vastavalkea.fi/2015/10/21/infosotarintamalta-ei-mitaa...
As I said, I don't know Finnish. Still, thanks for the link to her article.
The quote I like from that article is
"Torsti Sirén, an Adjunct Professor in the National Defence University of Finland:" says "it seems name-calling and slandering usually backfires on the name callers themselves. Finns are conscious and educated people and understand what is propaganda and what isn’t. So let them just go ahead and call other people names, says Sirén."
But that article itself really doesn't contain much real information, compared to the one zorf linked here, which is really interesting.
So you also can't specify any actual "lies" he "spread." I don't think it's wrong to consider that she in fact influences the public opinion, being a journalist. And that the article you link to doesn't give any fact apart of "setting the tone" against "those who don't think like we." It seems that the big part of her "worry" is that not all people on the Russian-speaking forum (!) think the way she would like to. Looks a lot like a longer variant of the post made by sharetea here.
I have to say I don't understand your comment. I was quite careful in my original comment to simply answer the grandparent factually, saying Saramo is too smart to say things that are easily debunked -- Finland has a different political discourse than the US. Instead, like you are doing in this comment, he casts doubt on the original reporting (as in the linked English-language tweet above). I provided some background and several articles that illustrate the conflict as it's being played out in the mainstream and social media, without taking either side, and you have implied a number of things about what you are sure I was trying to say.
Interesting.
I asked for any proof that this guy is "spreading lies" about her which are the words that journalist, Jessikka Aro, actually used in her article we all comment to. I see just somebody who disagrees with her own views.
I don't have "translate" button on Twitter, I guess I'd have to be logged in for that, and I don't have an account. The twit you link to is just "Read it. Strong claims, but where was the investigation?" and it's a comment to the article you previously linked to. Is that supposed to be a propaganda tweet?
The second link you gave is in Finish, and, now that you mention that you gave "more links," (I've read only one that was in English) I've tried Google translate on it, and the only thing I see is his own review of some book with the similar subject as the Jessikka Aro's article you linked to, and his claim is more or less also "Strong claims, but where's the support that it's anything more than the communication she quotes is anything else but opinion of real Finns?" Of course, I haven't read the book, but if it has similarity to the article, I understand his criticism.
So this is really getting boring, so much claims, so little of anything more than "he said she said." Sad.
No, she doesn't - first of all, Peter Saramo is not a member of the Parliament, he is a civil servant who is working at the Parliament (as the head of secretaries for Grand Committee, whose task is e.g. to prepare legislation for EU matters.)
Second, she doesn't claim that Saramo is a paid troll. He is clearly paid well enough by the taxpayer (that's me); his hobby is to be a fellow traveler of trolls.
As to the rest of what you ask, this is yet another typical example of methods in trolling - throwing about many unclear and therefore unrefutable implications. As a Finnish proverb says, "one fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer".
And I also have some proverbs for you but I'll refrain from writing them here (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling )