Hacker News Reader

Comment by montyf | Hacker News Reader

The presidential election showed conclusively who the real propagandists in America are, and it’s not Russia. I’ll admit that I didn’t read the article, and this comment may not even be relevant, but I can’t take the Russian propaganda meme at all seriously, either in this lifetime or the next or the one after that. This meme is just more deflection and misdirection by the American media.

Feel free to downvote/remove this comment.

View on HN

>This meme is just more deflection and misdirection by the American media.

Oh sure, totally fake news:

>A leak of internal data from the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency discovered by The Daily Beast serves as the first confirmation that the Russian troll farm deployed its online agitators on Reddit as part of its campaign to interfere in American politics.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-used-reddit-and-tumbl...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/27/trump-rus...

I downvoted because this comment is cryptic and adds nothing to the conversation. Saying something controversial / conspiratorial is not automatically bad, as long as you provide some logic and evidence. But this is just devoid of value.

Growing up in Russia I’ve seen the propaganda spread within the country, I have no doubt they use the same tactics abroad as it has become so easy/cheap to reach unwitting users on social platforms.

I don’t think Russia had/has a specific goal I mind other than disruption. I don’t believe they necessarily wanted Trump because of some evil plan/agreement. The evil plan is to take advantage of gullible Americans and create instability. Of course it takes more than just a Facebook campaign and it helps that the US is already pretty devided as it stands and there seems to be a perfect political storm to take advantage of.

If you see how they talk on Russian TV about the “decline of the West” and how bad every politician is, pretty much 24/7 you’ll probably better understand where it’s coming from.

Here is a 37 page federal indictment of employees of the Internet Research Agency who were deeply involved in Russian-produced propaganda in the 2016 election. This is neither a "meme" nor is it a creation of any "media" source. Worth a read:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

The question that is critical though -> was it with the knowledge and support of Trump or was the agistation designed simply to sow discord by taking out the front runner (Clinton.)

My problem with this Russian thing is that they have failed to actually connect Trump to it in any convincing way but certain media outlets keep making the case that Trump is for the Russians, So, some are under the impression that Trump colluded with the Russians while the real story appears to be that Russia wasn’t colluding with Trump but simply trying to create chaos over the election process. There is evidence to this because some of this Russian stuff dates back to 2014 — long before Trump was even thinking about running and far before anyone took him to be a contender. There will be the argument that Trump’s campaign met with Russian officials during the campaign. However, if that’s suspicious, then we must question the Hillary campaign meeting with Chinese officials during the campaign as well (among many other countries.)

This Russia thing is real; that Trump was part of it is not. Honestly, Trump wasn't sophisticated enough to run a multinational spy/propaganda operation with the Russians. If he were, then that would necessarily discredit arguments that he isn’t smart or sophisticated enough to be president.

> My problem with this Russian thing is that they have failed to actually connect Trump to it in any convincing way but certain media outlets keep making the case that Trump is for the Russians

That doesn't matter. The Russian government interfered, that's a fact. Also a fact, the president is illegally refusing to enact sanctions against Russia passed overwhelmingly by congress in retaliation for this interference. You should be extremely concerned that the president is actively breaking the law every day by refusing to defend the country against a foreign enemy.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/high-ranking-gop-congressma...

> However, if that’s suspicious, then we must question the Hillary campaign meeting with Chinese officials during the campaign as well (among many other countries.)

it is not illegal to speak to foreign governments during a political campaign. You should read up on the difference between accepting stolen materials from foreign governments, allowing foreign governments to spend money on a US poltiical campaign, vs. merely speaking to foreign governments.

Not to mention that the House Intelligence Committee would be all over a Clinton scandal in the election if they could find one. They tried to fabricate the notion that the Russians were actually working for Clinton. That was a better stream of inquiry, they felt, than whatever this "meeting with Chinese officials" that some right wing blog has told you is important (I can't even find any google results for it).

Mueller directly states the he doesn't believe any of this affected the election.

I have read that IRA spent about $500 each in ad buys in the 3 borderline blue/red 'purple' states that went to Trump in the Nov 2016 election.

Even if we assume the 100k they spent on ad buys went directly to the 3 purple states, and generated a million CPM... ads paid for by the RNC and DNC and the PACs generated several trillion impressions.

> Mueller directly states the he doesn't believe any of this affected the election.

please cite this because that sounds like an extraordinary claim.

You know what, I'm Fake News. I was not reading Mueller's remarks. I was reading Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice Rod Rosenstein's prepared remarks about the indictment.

Rosenstein said there was no proof anything covered by the indictment affected the Nov 2016 election.

Here is C-SPAN video of Rosenstein announcing the indicment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoAf_I3ULwE

at 5m 28s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoAf_I3ULwE&t=5m28s

Rosenstein, reading from his prepared remarks, says:

"There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."

I loathe linking to "real clear politics" but they put up a transcript:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/16/watch_liv...

yes, he did say that, but also that does not say "he does not believe this affected the outcome". It was widely noted that his wording in this statement was extremely careful, and merely stated a true fact: "there is no allegation in the indictment". Which of course there isn't because it is impossible to legally prove the outcome of the election being affected by nearly anything. Having documents like this indictment that are 100% on solid ground is very helpful, as in this discussion it is pointing out how many people here seem unconcerned about foreign interference in an election due to reasons like "people want it to be true" and "you can't prove it changed the outcome". Those aren't good reasons to just let the Russians come in every election and go nuts.

I agree we shouldn't let the Russians just do whatever they want in America.

I have carefully read the indictment. I also notice the indictment is mostly stuff from sources like the RBC IRA report. None of this is deep state deep secret stuff.

I just want proof the Russians affected the election! I'm willing to believe.

I can point to many documented cases of various US intelligence agency and non intelligence agency campaigns to affect elections in other countries. It's all there, in black and white, very clear.

The recent Mueller indictment doesn't convince me. Maybe there will be future indictments. I just don't think the IRA spending a few hundred dollars on targeted ads in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania got Trump elected. I think it was the billions of dollars spent by various conservative entities over the last 25 years, who have been plotting to take down the Clintons since the early 90s.

"There is no allegation in the indictment" has nothing to do with what anyone believes and even less to do with what is actually true. Further, anyone definitively claiming that the outcome of the election was or wasn't affected by Russian interference is peddling partisanship and not facts because it is impossible to know.

> Further, anyone definitively claiming that the outcome of the election was or wasn't affected by Russian interference is peddling partisanship and not facts because it is impossible to know.

I realize this isn't math, but I've studied the ads that IRA paid for, I am pretty familiar with what the employees of IRA did, I've read about how much money was spent on Facebook ads (100k, and almost half of that was spent after the Nov 2016 election ), I've read about how many CPMs were generated vs how many ads American facebook viewers saw ( a few million vs 16 trillion), I'm pretty sure I know!

Actually agree. Instead of blaming the Russians the US parties should watch their own campaign ads and realize that they have trained their people to believe any nonsense as long as it helps the interests of "their" party. Of course it's much easier to blame the bad Russians instead of bringing civility and rational thought into their own political system.

You're not supposed to reveal you haven't read the article at all before commenting.

montyf is likely trying to imply that the article isn't worth reading, because it's so obvious and self evident that the entire premise is "just more deflection and misdirection by the American media."

Note that they even asked for downvotes, in order to include Hacker News in the narrative of global propaganda and censorship, by way of appearing a martyr to the cause.

I'm surprised they didn't throw a reference to "sour grapes" or mention the DNC while they were at it.

Agreed. The Russia meddling controversy is the Democrat's "birther" movement, ameliorated only by the fact that there appears to be some truth to it, albeit with grossly overstated effects. It's a bogeyman that represents one half of the US population's inability to face the reality of who won the election and how they did it. Trump's supporters have been around and hateful since long before 2016.

again, here is a 37 page indictment of Russian citizens with deep detail over their illegal propaganda activities within the 2016 election:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

please illustrate the federal indictments that were produced to provide in depth evidence that Obama was in fact "born in Kenya".

Allegedly from their home country, they purchased $100k of ads (google it) and spent most of it after the election was over.

Compared to amount of direct foreign investment into the left wing party. That spent the $1.2B of donations.

And all of this would have precisely zero effect if Democrats managed to put up a candidate who isn't terrible enough to lose to Trump. US elections isn't the only ones they were trying to influence. In France, they went all in on Marine Le Pen, even the domestic media in Russia was singing her praises and vilifying Macron almost constantly. Guess what, she lost terribly in the end. No propaganda in the world would have lead her to win, just because the other guy was a much better candidate.

You are focusing on the crimes and not on the effects. The documents you link would detail the same crime if 100 or 100 million people were influenced. No one cared about Russian influence before Trump got elected, and now it's a post hoc explanation of how he was able to pull off a victory due to the inability of one half of the population to believe something about the other half.

you compared it to the "birther" movement. now you are moving the goalposts.

Everyone cared about Russian influence before Trump was elected but the New York Times put out a huge story effectively killing the debate in October of 2016, additionally Mitch McConnell refused to bless president Obama's wish to alert the public that Russian interference was ongoing.

The Obama birther movement was borne out of an inability for Republicans to reconcile that Obama had won the election legitimately, and sought to disqualify him with anything they could find. Is the parallel more clear now? The Russia election meddling controversy, especially its effects on the election, are borne out of an inability for Democrats to reconcile that Trump legitimately won the election and are seeking to disqualify him with anything they can find.

> The Obama birther movement was borne out of an inability for Republicans to reconcile that Obama had won the election legitimately, and sought to disqualify him with anything they could find. Is the parallel more clear now?

not at all. birtherism is made up and borne of racism. Russian interference in the election is not and is borne of facts. While you are setting up a situation where these two things look the same, that only goes as far as them both being fantasies made up out of desire for them to be true. But that is not the nature of Russian election interference. There is no "parallel" between nonsense and reality. Democrats did not invent Russian election interference, it was observed in inconclusive, small ways before the election and tamped down by media reports, but then after the election it was shown to have been true and the government and media reversed its public-facing course. There would not be a federal prosecutor, the FBI, and multiple congressional committees involved over a period of months/years if this were a made up thing and you would not see Democrats talking about it. Democrats (Democrats, not fringe left-wing parties) do not engage in the type of made-up nonsense that was birtherism. The GOP should not either.

> are seeking to disqualify him with anything they can find.

The president cannot be "disqualified" from the election results, which are established history. Only impeached for his extreme conflicts of interest, ethical transgressions, conduct and unfitness for office, or preferably, removed of his partisan congressional protection in 2018 and voted out in 2020. Democrats are not calling for any kind of re-do of the election, feel free to provide a source for this of actual Democrats (not fringe left-wing parties) calling for this.

edited for tone

Mueller is a life-long republican, why would he exit retirement to make up stories about Trump?

> No one cared about Russian influence before Trump got elected

That's not true at all and you know it. Russian influence had been a point of discussion well before Trump's election. Heck, Hillary implied that Trump was a Russian puppet during the debates.

I love how you’re comparing it to something widely disparaged precisely because it was a (racist) lie, then continue to admit as much.

No, it is nothing like the “birther” idiocy. Nobody knows if it was enough to move the needle in this election. But there are simply some people who don’t want another trial to find out.

Yes, the HN moderate anything supportive of right. HN is a left wing echo chamber (period).

I have been down voted many times with different names, and had my posts removed.

And yet this article was flagged off the front page within 20 minutes of reaching it. Meanwhile we’re on our fourth “Google discriminated against white guys” identipost on the fp in 24 hours. That doesn’t exactly reek of “Left Wing echo chamber” now does it?

> HN is a left wing echo chamber (period).

Strange, I would argue it's the complete opposite. The commenters here are profoundly neo-liberal (not left wing at all).

I don't know what a neo-liberal is, but sounds left. From right POV, the more left you go, the more enlarged the gov. The more right you go, the more personal freedom. Most know what the TEA party stands for: it is in the name. So you'd agree that neo-liberal is to the left of the TEA party on that scale.

Leftists will naturally assume you should enact policies that encourage equality for all, but also believe that much of society's problems derive from income disparity. They will push for policies that shift the tax burden from the poor end of the spectrum to the richer end of the spectrum.

I would argue that neo-liberals believe in equality for all, but aren't willing to push for the income redistribution policies that leftists believe in. They believe that the standard economic policies of most governments on earth, to take a hands off approach to banks, labor and trade, is fine. Sometimes this is labeled as "classically liberal".

But your party are left of the TEA party you'd agree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com