Comment by losvedir | Hacker News Reader

Comment by losvedir | Hacker News Reader

I've been thinking about this a lot as news articles like this one[1] come up in my feed.

This whole anti-tech Russian backlash has me so down trodden. Like who cares if Russia bought ads? Who cares if Russia uses those sites and tweets or shares a photo or whatever. I learned long ago to tune out ads and not trust anything I read on the internet, or at least read with a hefty helping of salt.

I wish the outcome of all these revelations about how Russia (and I'm sure other countries or random people or corporations with various interests) was using facebook, twitter, instagram, etc, was for people to go, "oh, that's good to know. I guess I should believe whatever random posts I come across less." Not, "Uh oh! These services and ads are only for our certain, pre-approved uses, and we need to make laws enforcing that."

We could have used these as a nice ol' inoculation in the meme war and improved ordinary people's understanding of just how the internet works (and doesn't work).

[1] https://twitter.com/raju/status/965023245459214336?utm_sourc...

That would be great, but you’re basically wishing for smarter people. The urge for tribalism will always be greater than the the urge for reasoning, and since that’s the case we have to do what we can to stop tribalism from being inflamed by propaganda.

But in the end it boils down to "wishing for smarter people" or "wishing for more censorship", right? I know which wish I'd be wishing.

And I know which you'll be getting...

Comparing the removal of obviously fake news to censorship is a false equivalence. One does not lead to the other.

This isn’t all that hard, at least conceptually.

Clear, conspicuous presentation of the provenance of ad spend is what we need. Political ad spend should additionally be tied to positively identified individuals or to organizations with clear, conspicuous ties to positively identified individuals.

And we need this in legislative form. No letting the Facebooks of the world do it on their own out of some PR-spun notion of corporate responsibility.

Is nobody responsible for the content of ads? If nytimes.com started displaying NSFW ads for porn sites, or (hypothetically) grisly death videos chosen by a high bidder that just wants to watch the world burn, they would likely be penalized for running afoul of FCC regulations.

Or, let's say a domestic buyer purchases ads that engage in libelous allegations. There are legal channels with which to pursue retractions and damages from the buyer.

The difference now is that a foreign party is the party that would otherwise be held responsible. Not very effective to sue the ad buyer in this case. So shouldn't the media platform be responsible for either the content, or at least for knowing their customer?

I'm doing a dissertation on Russian propaganda, among other propagandas, so disclaimer for bias.

I don't understand not caring about it, even were I not working on it. I was having discussions with friends in 2015/early 2016 where we were looking at stuff and it was obvious what was going on. The day after the election, Zuckerberg was saying it is "crazy" that Russians could have been involved.

We've got something systematically wrong if the biggest tech companies in the world with all the data and resources either were oblivious to it (seems likely based on their reactions) or were aware of it but kept doing it because it made them money. By all accounts their ad tools actually made this especially easy.

No country, much less one that considers itself a superpower should be willingly letting a foreign nation spread propaganda. That big moat called the Atlantic and all those resources don't matter if you you're gonna let them in the back door. This kind of naivety/ignorance is too common in the power centers of the US. Consider Obama getting outwitted by Putin and Clinton getting beat by an idiot like Trump. Maybe they aren't so clever after all.

That Russia is doing that is annoying, what's offensive is that our leaders allowed it to happen, and what's disturbing is people either acting like it hasn't happened (evidence says otherwise) or just want to shrug it off. It's hard to say how much of the recent domestic unrest is being fueled by it.

>No country, much less one that considers itself a superpower should be willingly letting a foreign nation spread propaganda.

Is this a rule you apply equally or is it OK when we do it, like the ex-CIA director says [0]? Should the NED, VoA, Radio Free Asia, etc. all be shut down then?

[0] http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/374372-ex-c...

I've got a general rule of not supporting propaganda. If I lived somewhere else I wouldn't want propaganda there either, but I don't, so...

I'd rather it not be in my own country, especially because we've built the tools that have allowed it and have the power to stop it.

Fair enough. I see a lot of two-facedness on this.

The problem is, who says what is real news and what is fake news? Do you really want a Ministry of Truth? The history of such things is pretty bad.

I'll take foreign propaganda over losing free speech rights.

Who is calling for restricting free speech?

I'd be happy with people acknowledging it is happening instead of saying it's "nothing" or "McCarthyism" (see this thread). It does no good to lie to yourself.

Some acknowledgement instead of denial is the first step towards...something.

Well, let me explain to you not caring about it: Israel and Saudi Arabia regularly run information warfare campaigns in the US, and actually influence election outcomes in obvious ways.

For that matter the US has boasted of fixing the Russian elections in 1996, overtly committed a coup in Ukraine in 2014, and has attempted to do similar things since the fall of the soviet union for example by supporting evil murderous clowns like Khodorkovsky. So, if Russia took out a few ads or posted from twitter accounts; big deal. And that's assuming Russia (rather than Russian people acting on their own) did something -thus far 100% of the "evidence" for this sort of thing has turned out to be a big nothing burger.

The media obsession with finding a Russian under every bed is absolute insanity; McCarthyism pales in comparison to this hysterical nonsense -communism was a real threat back then. It's also obviously organized: basically the same idiots telling us Putin is behind everything they don't like are the same idiots who sold us on the Syrian war, Iraq and so on. I mean, we have Rob Reiner, aka meathead telling us anyone who doubts the former heads of the CIA is a traitor. This is NUTS.

I don't want to be too rude, but you are being willfully ignorant if you believe it's not happening.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/16/us/politics/r...

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/now-available-more...

You're free to debunk these and a hundred other sources, but there's something there. Do you really belive an ex KGB officer doesn't use some KGB tactics? That a nation with major economic disadvantages isn't going to rely on alternative methods of attack?

Not looking to get into a whataboutist argument. The US has done shady stuff, plenty of it. Propaganda is in no way limited to the Russians.

Go look up the term "Gish Gallop" -that's the substance of the "Russia is responsible for everything I don't like" conspiracy theory you're writing your dissertation on.

I agree there is something there: just like there was "something there" when these same clowns were selling us the Iraq war. The "something" isn't actual evidence which exists in the corporeal world: it's manufactured nonsense.

I mean, the very absurdity of the accusations on display here: OMG RUSSIANS DID THINGS ON TWITTER AND SOCIAL MEDIA. FWIIW same story with the "all of our intelligence agencies agree" dossier; basically, Russia Today exists. Russia Today, now listed under FARA laws. Somehow the WSJ and WaPo Saudi/Israeli amen chorus manages to escape FARA -wonder how they managed to do this?

"Gish gallop" is a term for a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.

That's not Gish Gallop. That's two sources that you didn't bother responding to. My conspiracy involves data, yours is blanket denial. Don't understand your motivations.

Can we not be realists about how countries behave? I see nothing incompatible with Russia's actions in the recent past (annexing Crimea with unmarked soldiers) and the use of propaganda. But again, the difference is, I'm willing to test this. Do you just assume it's false without testing?

Noticed in your other post that you called Khodorkovsky a "murderous clown". To my knowledge, his sin was being an oligarch who got on the wrong side of putin, went to jail for it, and now is a critic of him. Who did he murder? Why do you call him that? Do you believe putin (whom there is evidence that has killed political opponents) is guilty of this, too? Just trying to understand your motivations.

Khodorkovsky is a murderer, and anyone who denies this either doesn't know what he's talking about, or works for the same people that tout him in the media.

All the "everything I don't like about the world is Russia's fault" gorp is gish gallop. The two things you linked are literally a clownish witch hunter indicting Russian nationals for ... trolling people on twitter. I do not take this seriously. The fact that anyone is physiologically capable of meeting this with other than hysterical laughter at the bald faced absurdity of it will probably remain beyond my ken.

I believe his point was that even IF some ads were purchased, it’s not that big of a deal, since the potential negative impact isn’t that great and is done regularly by other countries that we curiously don’t seem to be outraged about, like KSA and Israel, which is a valid point and honestly in that context, pointing at the Russians seems a tad xenophobic, just because Russia isn’t under our sphere of influence.

I also feel like it’s important to point out that this has nothing to do with defending Putin, but whether you’re willing to let your fear of the Ruskies deprive people of free speech rights, because by proxy of private companies being required to censor ie RT, it’s also having a chilling effect on independent creators on YouTube and elsewhere, so if you support all this because of fear of the Russians wanting to destroy Western democracy, in a way you’re letting them win.

The US, Israelis, and Saudis, among plenty of others, have engaged in campaigns to influence foreign elections, no doubt. I think lumping them all in as information warfare campaigns with the most recent Russian activity is misleading, though - information warfare is more about seeking advantage and spreading disinformation. I doubt the Israelis are both lobbying for their interests with US policy as well as simultaneously running campaigns advocating for Palestinian or Iranian support. Likewise with the Saudis. America has no doubt influenced foreign elections- I've read an autobiography of a CIA case officer describing in detail such activity in the Philippines prior to Marcos' ascendence. Again, though, we were not also simultaneously running campaigns stoking advocacy for Philippine communist groups.

The Russian campaign here is as much about increasing chaos and discord in our civic sphere as it is about trying to push specific positions that favor Russia. Their goal appears less at getting our government to take specific pro-Russian stances as it is to weaken our society as a whole so that we are less able to act as foils to whatever Putin wants to do.

Yes, I'm aware of this theory.

How would you distinguish between such a "sowing chaos" campaign and random Russian people/groups who have different interests in the US?

I'd also wonder why an intelligent person might think this is worse than, say, Saudis and Israelis formenting US wars in the middle east, which we know they have actually done in the corporeal world, rather than the fever dreams of conspiracy theorists.

> How would you distinguish between such a "sowing chaos" campaign and random Russian people/groups who have different interests in the US?

In the latter, superficially opposing strands of propaganda wouldn't trace back to the same actors.

> I'd also wonder why an intelligent person might think this is worse than, say, Saudis and Israelis formenting US wars in the middle east,

Because it's worse—for Americans—to have foreign powers trying to manipulate America into tearing itself apart than to have them trying to manipulate America to use its power on behalf of those foreign powers.

>> How would you distinguish between such a "sowing chaos" campaign and random Russian people/groups who have different interests in the US?

>In the latter, superficially opposing strands of propaganda wouldn't trace back to the same actors.

You mean like "propornot," a cia affiliated group of "Ukrainian nationalists" who published enemy lists of American media sources as being Russian agents of influence ... via establishment mouthpiece Washington Post? BTW does this foreign interference in the US political process, possibly with CIA aid concern you at all?

> Because it's worse—for Americans—to have foreign powers trying to manipulate America into tearing itself apart ...

Citations needed. When in the history of the human race has anything like this ever been effective? Let alone something like this which seems to have more or less completely taken place ... on twitter.

Meanwhile, the Saudis and Israelis have fomented actual wars, where people, including American people, actually die, interfering with the US electoral process, and limiting the Overton window of acceptable discourse to basically be "some wars" or "more wars." They continue to do so. Seems more dangerous to me than some silly conspiracy theory about "sowing chaos." The only chaos sown is that people like me are off the reservation.

Your leaders cant stop it from happening and any attempt to stop it would make free speech situation much worst then attempts to punish hate speech everyone complains about.

Because Russian trolls boil down to speech - speech and could and should have been countered by local speech (which is much better funded anyway). Speech that is not much unlike America paying various political parties around the world (also for sides I liked and agreed with). Yes, purposeful conflict creating is annoying and problem, but it does not seem like Russians caused those divisions in the first place.

It mostly all seem to be an attempt to blame Russia for internal problems.

> It mostly all seem to be an attempt to blame Russia for internal problems.

Agreed. The vast majority of the time I see Russia brought up it's being used by mainstream Democrats to dismiss criticism from both the right and the left. Basically anyone that's not a staunch neoliberal gets accused of being a Russian or a Russian puppet.

They're using it as a scapegoat and it seems to be working.

So much is hiding behind the word "allow" in your last paragraph. On balance I think it's a good thing that elite purveyors of propaganda are losing their ability to brand their product as something other than what it is.

Propaganda is a fact of life. It occurs at every level in every field. It is up to the individual to look at what is being said and determine for themselves what is relevant.

So what if a foreign government or foreign company or foreign group takes out advertisements or reveals "information" during any election or other event. Considering the "facts" that are "revealed" by opposing political sides during the pre-election period or during pre-legislative processes, there is no functional or ethical difference.

As one of your respondents pointed out with the question regarding "good for the goose, good for the gander", any group including governments cannot point the finger, if they themselves are actively involved in what they are decrying of others.

You appear to forget that national elections have effects that are extra-territorial, so those extra-territorial affected entities are going to act on their own behalf. The US regularly spreads propaganda during the elections of other sovereign nations, so if you don't want the reverse to happen it is up to you to stand up and fight against your own nation doing it to others.

Having the ability to allow new ideas to emerge and having a government filter to prevent the wrong ideas, are fundamentally in opposition. I look forward to ignoring your paper until The Ministry of Truth approves it's not secrete propaganda, since you did use term "Russian".

Never suggested that.

That you can't suggest that there might be a legit propaganda problem without people assuming you are calling for restrictions on free speech is absurd. I'm very emphatically not about that.

There's so many tangents not even responding to my post that I'm sorry to have said anything at all.

Never suggested that.

You did. Now you want to argue about the phrasing.

> That you can't suggest that there might be a legit propaganda problem

What problem? That free speech has an unintended consequences that those in power would not want? That it might result in a society that isn't insularly protected from outside signal? Color me shocked.

Russia has been doing information warfare very effectively since the Czars, and this seems like one more place where they've outmaneuvered us. I've found it frustrating how little discussion and coverage of Russian activity addresses that they weren't just pushing Trump as a candidate or pro-Trump agenda issues, they were pushing issues that they knew were polarizing Americans, simultaneously "Clinton is Satan's Candidate" and "Black Lives Matter" (setting aside the difference in the stridency between simply organizing a fake Black Lives Matter protest vs. the more paranoid baiting of right-wingers, which in itself would be an interesting conversation). The narrative continues to be "Putin tried to help Trump get elected" (which isn't completely false) rather than "Putin shrewdly exploited America's polarized political atmosphere of closed identity affiliations to weaken our core institutions".

>one more place where they've outmaneuvered us.

Not implying that the West can't successfully withstand Russia's disinformation efforts, but it's worth saying that when you have fewer moral restrictions it becomes significantly easier to "outmaneuver" your high-ethics peers.

Is it a difference in ethics or a difference in competence?

Not in competence, but in political systems. Western countries have more societal control over government which leaves less room for low-ethics decisions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com