Propaganda on Tumblr | Hacker News Reader

Propaganda on Tumblr

eatingcroutons.tumblr.com

227 pointsapsec112103 comments

Since there is already unsourced commentary here, in the spirit of fact-checking, I'll add a solid source for those of you wondering who the state actor is:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/24/tumblr-sa...

More directly,

https://tumblr.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002280214

---

Vet before you fret.

... I was wondering which state. Thanks.

There is also vast amount of astroturfing by the USA & NATO Spy agencies, although I suspect it's a bit more risky for tumblr to report on those.

> There is also vast amount of astroturfing by the USA & NATO Spy agencies

Source? Not saying you're wrong, just suggesting it flies in the face of this thread to make any assertion without a properly sourced citation.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/us-cuban-twitt...

Did you even read those articles? They do not show "vast amount of astroturfing by the USA & NATO Spy agencies", which was the claim upthread.

What exactly do you think that the propaganda divisions of the various national spy agencies are doing ?

I think his source is plain whataboutism.

> People are called out on their "whataboutery" when they point out hypocrisy. For example, if a father tells his child not to smoke, and the child says "what about you? You smoke several packs a day!" The argument is that one shouldn't smoke, not that the one making the argument is exempt from that rule. So a "what about you" response does not address the argument, thus, is fallacious. However, it is a valid question that does warrant a response. Perhaps the father would respond "I am an idiot with no self-control." But if the father simply responded "that's 'whataboutery,'" it would be akin to the fallacy fallacy, where the implication is that because the response is a fallacy, then it must be incorrect, unreasonable, or undeserving of a response. This is a deflection and an argumentative cop out. Feel free to point out the whataboutery, but respond to the accusation and don't stop dialog because you have your opponent on a technicality.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFalla...

In order to respond to accusation, I'd like to see any sources that support the accusation. But none were provided.

You mean the regular movie and TV programming?

1). Attack conservatives as 'Russian agents' and remove their online platforms.

2). Attack liberals as 'Russian agents' and remove their online platforms.

3). Only let corporate friendly publications have online platforms since you can't trust anyone else.

You'd think people would have realized this would happen since it's what always happens when you start silencing opinions you don't agree with.

Unfortunately these days we're forced to consider the possibility that even your post is part of a professional manipulation campaign. Or mine. Or every other post out here.

We just don't know.

That's the crux of the problem for me. Nowadays, I'm so jaded that I trust no one.

It's sad. I've lost trust, and I don't think I can get it back.

Does trust mean automatically taking for granted the truth of anonymous statements you read online?

If so that trust never should have existed in the first place, and it should be gone forever.

Not taken as truth, but taken as in good faith by default. The amount of manipulative and dishonest content has gone up quite a bit.

Has it gone up, or have you only been made aware of it now?

That's exactly what was written on 4chan's /b/ for years. Despite having a ridiculous reputation, this place was always excellent at helping it's users develop the right attitude toward internet in general: don't trust anyone, don't let your emotions take control, and don't be so damn serious.

I've found this is usually more the paper-thin justification /b/ users employ to avoid noticing that a culture based entirely around judging others for being too hysterical quickly drives them hysterical.

The last descriptor I would use for 4chan is "cold calm rational".

You clearly haven't spent enough time on it - that's exactly the qualities that it trains within you, although the method it uses is kinda harsh.

It is a place where people go to with their uncontrolled emotional outbursts. Which is their thing when those outbursts don't have impact on rest of the world and really not fine when it leaks outside.

Yes, swear words lost all their meaning for many on 4chan. That does not make people using them any more rational.

It's not about sharpening your wits thorough osmosis, it's about seeing nonsense laid bare at your feet. Leveraging that to see through the pretense of "smarter" conversation to understand it's the exact same stuff: shit-flinging, misleading but plausible half-lies, active propaganda, underinformed dummies thinking they're having a deep conversation, etc...

The zen that parent poster describes comes when you recognize that your favorite political commentator, or the thing your best friend just said over coffee are not inherently smarter or dumber than 4chan.

edit: w/r/t "leaking outside.": The problem isn't that Trump was meme-ed into the whitehouse. The problem is that paternalistic control of messaging will never equip the populace to evaluate something as nonsense when the parents aren't around to stop the message from propagating.

By leaking outside I meant a.) coordinated harassment b.) people being shocked that the rest of world does not share 4chan habits and culture - including channers being honestly shocked that people react negatively to unrelated Hitler meme used as argument and not taking author as some king of genius for that. Because channer using hitler and nazi symbolism did not even realized what those things means or were (except general understanding that it was something edgy).

I don't really think Trump got to white house bc 4chan, I believe his voters voted him because he represents them as he is.

Love your summary of the 4chan spirit. On point! It taught us that we shouldn't judge a message based on its communicator but only on the message itself.

Not even the message. Even the message is likely manipulative, or an outright falsehood, or, most likely, both.

This is the right way to view any single-source information you are reading on the internet.

Personally, I can use Google to double check claims fairly easily. I actually have given up a lot of urban-myth beliefs that were wide-spread in even the 90s.

I regularly check and flag false or dubious claims friend's posts on Facebook (where I'd say Facebook gets a bum-rap in some ways because friends can point out fake stuff).

As far as not knowing where a given post comes from, that's OK if you are careful in your double checking.

But the opposite pole is people who don't care whether what they post is true. Usually I and those people go separate ways. So the ultimate thing is naturally the bifurcation of online communities, with some portion becoming highly partisan and willing to repeat fake info simply to serve a given pole of opinion (not necessarily "extreme").

Careful of fact checking with Google, it can easily validate something as truth that isn't. The best option is to usually include the keyword "study" and actively look for only that data.

Perhaps I made a mistake in supposing that someone would take "using Google" as "search until I found several studies or good discussions on a given topic, compare the data, the arguments, the point of view and so-forth of each study then come to a conclusion" rather than, say, using Google's auto-generated answers to a few topic.

>Unfortunately these days we're forced to consider the possibility that even your post is part of a professional manipulation campaign. Or mine. Or every other post out here.

The only way to beat this is to have an end goal that is objectively good regardless of who says it.

Bringing the first amendment into the 21st century and forcing corporations with open access discussion systems to be treated like government entities is a win for everyone.

After all the first amendment in it's original form only stopped the federal government from imprisoning you before you said something, not after, and had nothing at all to say about what states governments could or couldn't do.

The First Amendment doesn't beat professional manipulation campaigns, it facilitates them.

I've realized recently that the goood thing about the First Amendment is that it leads to an electorate that is as jaded as myself. One that views every Facebook, or HN, or internet post as potentially part of a state sponsored manipulation campaign.

So the 1st is bad because it makes you have to think?

It's probably a good thing, at least on the Internet.

You never should have relied on trust in the first place. Claims stand or fall on their rational consistency and correlation with reality. Nothing else.

Is there a way to combat this phenomenon (generally: bad faith posting) with technical means?

This is such a lazy/defeatist statement. I'm hoping you still know that, in the midst of all this noise, facts and truths continue to exist -- so do well-informed opinions that can be fact-checked. Also, accepting this holier than thou persona from televised/printed "professional" media is being ignorant to their adoption of sensationalism and immediacy.

I've seen a lot of #1, but not a whole lot of #2, and #3 seems to be pushing #2's agenda.

Just curious on what "liberals" have had their online platforms removed.

From my general experience with the internet since my youth, it seems that online discussion in unmoderated communities seems to be fairly "conservative" in that they are brutally honest and unwilling to accommodate others special interests.

There has been an attempt by establishment Democrats and their sycophantic media outlets to discredit anybody left of Clinton as a Russian shill for some time now. See troll farm operators like David Brock, Peter Daou, and their wine mom loyalists.

I realize that is not the same thing as de-platforming somebody, but it's a deliberate sowing of FUD to bolster a reactionary agenda.

With the exception of Jill Stein, who has been targeted? As far as I'm aware, the accusations against the Green party's candidate were credible. She also, frankly, is not really left of Clinton and has a number of ideas that are more "fringe nutters" and less politics.

Calling anyone on the left with reservations/questions about Clinton a Bernie Bro doesn’t ring a bell?

> There has been an attempt by establishment Democrats and their sycophantic media outlets to discredit anybody left of Clinton as a Russian shill for some time now.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/russians-used-bernie-bros-a...

> Supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) reported earlier this month that during the 2016 election, their social media feeds and pro-Sanders Facebook groups were inundated with what they now believe were Russian bots spewing anti-Hillary memes including fake news stories about Clinton using a body double and murdering her ideological opponents. Over time the anti-Clinton online faction became known by the nickname “Bernie Bros.”

That was a Russian propaganda tactic which the Democrats/Media then amplified that on the assumption those were really Bernie supporters.

So...once again...its something credible being blown out of proportion, at worst.

* Violent Bernie Bro.

Jimmy Dore is the only one I'm familiar with.

Fair but a sample size I can count on one hand where none of them being a standard bearer for the Left doesn't really fill me with concern.

OP probably meant "progressive" instead of liberal. Here's one example: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/02/pers-a02.html

Leftist journalists are routinely denied access to mainstream media platforms and are then accused of being "useful idiots" or "Russian trolls" when the only media platforms they're allowed on are places like RT or Telesur.

Then I suggest you go into any liberal leaning online space and talk about liberal issues like income inequality. You will be banned for being a something-apologist. That the liberal online spaces have effectively self censored much more effectively than the conservative ones doesn't change the fact a majority of people can no longer participate.

TFA is an example of #2. But I agree that on the whole #1 seems a lot more common.

TFA didn't have a platform removed, the post is on tumblr on their own account, after all.

Sometimes I wonder if Donald Trump is a plant, because people are practically begging the government for disarmament and censorship.

My pet theory is that his role is to keep the disaffected inside the tent long enough to not matter.

Honestly... I will Paypal you $50 to delete this comment.

What's troubling to me (as a non-American and non-Russian) is the mere "As part of our commitment to transparency we will be maintaining this list of usernames that we have determined were engaged in state-sponsored disinformation and propaganda campaigns.".

Where's the relevant information about that? I see a "blacklist" of sorts, that should be taken at face value, because some "state agent" (or, worse, social media site) says so.

For what it's worth, the information you're looking for must be out there, because the author's central premise is that he gained access to the list and remembered one of the accounts. (Of course, that assumes both that the author of the article is not a professional message manipulator, AND that the author is telling the truth. Reasonable people can be forgiven for being skeptical about every post that is even remotely political these days.)

What's disappointing is how jaded I've become due to all the new information out there about what professional manipulation has done to the internet's forums and web sites. Even HN is not immune to it.

Unfortunately, I have an almost automatic skepticism towards every semi political post I read now.

I'm not even sure this problem can be solved while the internet persists in its current form. It's sad.

The list you mention was included in a mass-mail that Tumblr sent out yesterday to users that had interacted with any of those accounts (I know because like the author of the particle post we are commenting on, I too received the email; unlike the original poster, I cannot remember which of these ’blacklisted’ accounts I had interacted with).

I find it intriguing that people are still surprised that there are attempts to polarize and amplify both sides from foreign actors. Hell, it happens just as intentionally from within our borders. I literally gave a talk on automating it before the 2016 election. I even used the data to project the winner of the election. People laughed. Then November rolled around.

Do you have a link to your talk? It sounds interesting

https://youtu.be/iIIemMC4hrk

Admittedly, I was aiming for humor at some points, but that was to help offset the gravity of the experiment.

Is there a version of that with remotely audible audio?

Boondock clip where Ann Coulter is BFF with Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1seThIG34R8

I find it ironic that the moral of the story is "Fact-check everything" but pretty much everyone in the USA has picked one side or the other of a massive conspiracy theory solely supported by unnamed sources, circumstantial evidence, and innuendo.

c'est la vie

So Russsia is partially behind the current left vs right / Black vs white tension going on in the USA?

Mostly via amplification.

The issue is that Russia is taking natural tension and then using AI, bot farms, propaganda and shills to wind the volume up to 11.

Most people are not even aware that they are under attack let alone have the tools to resist this level of hostile action.

I strongly suspect that a LOT of the Bernie/Hilary discord was mostly Russian in origin. When I actually queried people as to why they disliked a candidate vs why they liked a candidate you got VERY discordant viewpoints--totally off-scale divergence.

This is new in politics--at least to me--and I had to be careful not to fall into the trap myself.

It has never appeared to me as though the people who take part in that needed any help. On Twitter especially, it looks like the non-Russians get bored hourly and go looking for trouble.

They're certainly inflaming it.

Trying to inflame it. I haven't seen any evidence it was effective. It's not as if there was a shortage of outrage on Facebook or Tumblr.

Although you're going to get down-voted, that's an actual problem. We don't know the full state of discourse before interference, during interference, or currently so it's a bit hard for anyone to say 'this is specifically what they changed'.

It's a bit analogous to having a server that lots of people access. Then you notice that a bunch of people have been accessing it with write permissions that weren't supposed to write to it, but the data's totally disorganized, you don't have a backup to compare it to, and reconstructing the changes they made is a pain.

That being said, there's been quite a bit of individual changes identified at this time by going back and looking which are evidence that changes were made, but as far as how any of the changes add up to significant functional differences, we don't know.

Are you shitting me? It was a critical hit.

Surely you can point me to some sort of evidence of its effectiveness then?

The exact outrage you mentioned noticing. The outrage didn't stop it, the outrage IS it. Russia doesn't care if we know they're meddling, it works just fine at generating instability anyways. It might even work better that way. Look at us, here we are still talking Russia. It's going to continue to work for as long as people let it so easily outrage them.

It was already a gasoline-soaked pile of wood scraps and leaves, piled up higher and higher for decades (if not centuries). The social network meddling is the lit cigarette flicked into it.

It was always burning Since the world's been turning

Russia allegedly organized a BLM anti-Trump rally in July of 2016.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russians-organized-pro-anti-t...

I'm a little suspicious when people call it black vs white.

What’s the correct way to phrase it? I just mean there seems to be more racial friction now than say a decade ago. Not sure if there is more but it seems that way in the media.

It would be interesting to see a social media platform emerge where instead of a real name policy there was a metadata policy where each post contains the IP/User-Agent/etc... for utmost transparency and validation by parties viewing the site. It would be a DDOS/security nightmare but for a relevant example check out congress-edits https://twitter.com/congressedits

Problem with this kind of identity system is that bad actors will keep anonymous and then conduct attacks on the people who dare to speak their minds.

This kind of platform would remote bots/trolls to some extent, but it would also put everyone who disagrees with the status quo at risk. Which in turn would stifle free speech and people would either not dare to speak against issues or keep that speech elsewhere.

It worked for congressmen because they’re more or less honest, they don’t know much about computers, and because the’re using work PCs and networks managed by people who know a lot about computers.

Propagandists like IRA will use Tor/VPN/clouds/botnets to spoof IPs, virtualization/modified web browsers to spoof user agents, etc…

> if you see a post about an issue that makes you angry...

Dial down your use of the internet.

Define "hidden."

I hate to say this but 90% of what I know about NASA comes from that movie and the one with Tom Hanks.

> Yeah, I got one of Tumblr’s you-may-have-unwittingly-interacted-with-propaganda-blogs emails too

I don't have a tumblr account -- what emails is he talking about?

Yesterday Tumblur emailed this:

As part of our commitment to transparency, we want you to know that we uncovered and terminated 84 accounts linked to Internet Research Agency or IRA (a group closely tied to the the Russian government) posing as members of the Tumblr community. The IRA engages in electronic disinformation and propaganda campaigns around the world using phony social media accounts. When we uncovered these accounts, we notified law enforcement, terminated the accounts, and deleted their original posts. While investigating their activity on Tumblr, we discovered that you either followed one of these accounts linked to the IRA, or liked or reblogged one of their posts: 1-800-gloup bellaxiao previously known as: blogmadworldlove bellygangstaboo cartnsncreal previously known as: feelmydragonballs destinyrush previously known as: delightfullyghostlysong fedupwithlying previously known as: badgyalforyou gentlexnoise previously known as: slakerglitch, superblydopepatrol gogomrbrown previously known as: go-mrbrown, infectedv0ice, todd-la-death honestlyyoungpersona hustleinatrap previously known as: thenaturecanpost, tumblercube jenningsmiracle lagonegirl massmedear previously known as: massblog021 mooseblogtimes morningwoodz previously known as: 5cubes, bangbangempire, empireofweird, gifemprireohh, innerpicsempire, picsempire nevaehtyler previously known as: laserenita postingwhileblack previously known as: ghettablasta, heygeraldmartinjohanssen, honestinjun, nativewolveshere rebellloudwiththecrowd previously known as: massivelystrangetyrant sassydreamlandcloud shoutoutworldwide previously known as: blackprideworldwide, krispymentalitycowboy skullofjustice previously known as: naughtykermit, ryanbutlersstuff, usnationaldebt sumchckn previously known as: blondeinpolitics, blvckcommunity, classylgbthomie, hwuudoin, politixblondie swagintherain previously known as: blacklivesmatterusa, carzwithgirlz the-real-eye-to-see thetrippytrip previously known as: matrixpath, themostpost thingstolovefor previously known as: the-inner-mirror this-truly-brutal-world previously known as: awesomewhitepearl, free-mind-and-soul You aren’t in trouble, and don’t need to take any action if you don’t want to. We deleted the accounts but decided to leave up any reblog chains so that you can curate your own Tumblr to reflect your own personal views and perspectives. Democracy requires transparency and an informed electorate and we take our disclosure responsibility very seriously. We’ll be aggressively watching for disinformation campaigns in the future, take the appropriate action, and make sure you know about it. — Tumblr

In the span of about 3 sentences this article goes from giving a perfect example the dangers of social justice to then saying how important it is.

" The issue was perfectly tailored to resonate with Tumblr’s culture of social justice, and it worked. The vast majority of reblogs of the original post do not include any correction or further information.

Again, don’t get me wrong: anger is important. It’s a necessary part of social justice. "

It does not highlight the dangers of social justice. It highlights the danger of reblogging without fact-checking. You seem to equate "reblogging/sharing without fact checking" with "social-justice".

Maybe the internet was a bad idea.

At this point it seems an almost impossible effort to vet the information from anyone more than 1 connection from you, while putting fake information up is almost effortless.

I don't know if anyone can trust anyone outside of their close family/friends anymore, and even that's not garunteed

How is this any different from TV, radio, newspapers or books? You have to trust the author to speak truth and the median to not censor.

Unless you are the ones writing a news story you have no idea who made it or what influenced it.

It's a little different as Internet makes it far easier to target a user compared to classic means of propaganda especially excaberating the issue of identifying real news vs "fake" news. With TV and Newspaper there are less "anonymous" outlets for content and a system of oversight could be applied in theory. A WhatsApp forward or an FB post spreads like a virus with no clear source. It's trivial to spread lies and for a user to consume it.

I find this interesting. I'm curious though, who is the state sponsor?

Russia. IRA = Internet Research Agency = Russian trolls.

I was confused because the first thing that came to mind was the Irish Republican Army, but this makes a lot more sense.

I was similarly confused when I got an email from Tumblr about interacting with Irish terrorist propaganda. I was puzzled because I wasn't aware that the IRA was still a thing, and I didn't know there's another initialism like that until this very moment.

Long gone are the days where the IRA let people know a target and property damage was done (towards the end of "the troubles"). But much history to explore on both sides of that long time conflict.

Think before you speak, call before you dig.

ITT Russians w/ a plan.

Whataboutism? There are bad posts on both sides?

Did he claim otherwise?

He clearly said that they attempt to inflame both sides to grow the conflict.

Maybe the Russian propaganda narrative is Russian propaganda.

If you wanted to destabilize the west, just gently implying hat the sitting US president is secretly maybe a Russia spy would be a pretty good way of doing it.

They really did a good job with the mountain of evidence, too.

I can't take anything seriously from a person, who says

> "Now, don’t get me wrong here: I am one hundred percent aware that history regularly erases the contributions of women, and especially women of colour"

Why not?

I think it's a little shortaided to focus on the issue of fake news, or misinformation in general. WikiLeaks, the DNC emails, etc show that Truth can be just as powerful a weapon.

The only real defense against this is to come together as a nation, rather than turning everything into a partisan squabble, but this seems unlikely in the near future.

Everyone wants to blame tech or Russia for the situation, but this problem is much larger.

> The only real defense against this is to come together as a nation

Isn't the other defense effective education, so people know how to spot suspect things and do their own research?

(I imagine this has high correlation with "coming together as a nation")

> Isn't the other defense effective education, so people know how to spot suspect things and do their own research?

I think its distinctly different, since it is not about about discerning fact from fiction. There is a lot of truth and opinion that is just as divisive as lies. The lies are just the cherry on the cake.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com