Russian Influence Measured

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ah, damn it dude. You really need to turn it off and get outside. Nice out here.

I fourth this. Russians beaming thoughts and "emotional contagions" into your mind by merely talking is tin foil hat level thinking.

Great, another ad hominem affirmation from the usual suspects who don't actually read the things they desperately attempt to denigrate.

Always nice to see the blade hitting marrow.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So when a company tries to convince you to drink Coke instead of Pepsi, is that also psychological warfare?

In a sense, sure, but the difference is that it's overt. It tells you what it is, iow. Why do you think "product placement" in movies and on TV shows is such a lucrative innovation and why there was such a huge movement to first get characters to smoke in movies and then stop characters from smoking in movies (and now, apparently, get them to smoke again)? Because there is a measurable difference in direct, or overt influencing tactics as opposed to more indirect, or clandestine influencing tactics.

They both work (on small scales), but clandestine methods are more effective than overt methods online, precisely because your guard is down.

Again, this is why, by law, candidates must clearly indicate their commercials are in fact their commercials ("I approve this message"). Same with PACs.

Hell, US TV Networks voluntarily set standards to not show anyone actually drinking beer in beer commercials. You can hold one and look like you're about to drink it, but that's usually when the camera cuts away to some bimbo in a bikini.

These are essentially ads. If they managed to have a successful ad campaign, that’s fine so long as they do nothing beyond attempts to convince.

As I believe I have shown in abundance, the in-depth steps they took that went "beyond attempts to convince" should address that point sufficiently by now, but if not, remember that this is just beginning to come out and we STILL don't have all of the information; the full extent. Both the New Knowledge study and the Oxford University study reiterate that there is still more missing data not revealed yet from either government sources or the social media platforms themselves.

So even with incomplete data sets, they are still showing how effective these clandestine, organic tactics can be to influence your behavior without you knowing it.

Again, it's not turning anyone into Manchurian Candidates; it's not fundamentally changing you from a man into a woman or anything. It is very very gradually immersing highly targeted "strong-tie" groups, where its effect is the most prominent, but we're still only talking in very small percentages per impression. But on a large enough population, those small percentages can add up to a large enough percentage to impact a percentage-based system like our electoral college.

No EC and this wouldn't be an issue and they likely would not have bothered. Again, the weapon was crafted to the conditions of the battlefield and that point merely goes to intent and coordination. Someone on Trump's team, at the very least, had to know what the strategy was in order to make it as effective as it possibly could be and that's the key (if, in fact, Trump was just a useful idiot in all of this and truly had no idea how he was being manipulated, which is a possibility, but strains incredulity).

So that means Stone, Bannon or Manafort (or a combination of some kind) had to have known--or been given marching orders from someone who had to have known--what the strategy entailed and what needed to be done by Trump--the catalyst--to help ensure its success.

And, again, this isn't binary. Putin would have known from his own use of these tactics in Russia and the Ukraine that it could work, but that doesn't mean normal real-world dynamics aren't still a factor. For all anyone would have known back in 2013/2014/2015/2016 is that all of their efforts could have failed at any time.

That fact, however, never stops anyone from conspiring to try to effect such changes, so it's not a magical ball situation with 100% success and every single person on social media was turned into mindless zombies.

What the evidence I've presented so far shows is that the IRA targeted primarily younger "strong-tie" black males (ie., activists) and alt-right "strong-tie" rural whites (i.e., "deplorables"). The effects of this type of influence are very small (on the order of 1% or less) and impact not only the core target group, but also the secondary tier friends and family, but for that to be effective, it evidently requires more direct reinforcement by a catalyst (i.., Trump holding so many rallies, where he triggers the emotional contagions already planted).

What did we see in the outcome? A small, but significant decrease in black voter turnout (primarily among younger black males); a small percentage increase in rural whites voting along emotional lines; a less than 1% voting differential in select counties in just three key "blue" states.

Is this the exact cause? Don't know that (yet). The point being made here is that it could be the exact cause, meaning that the conditions are all established and evidenced.

Right, I'm not making any arguments against the effectiveness of it. I'm saying that it's fine to do it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Russians talking to Americans is ok. Yup. If it isn't, how do you intend to stop it?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Russians talking to Americans is ok. Yup. If it isn't, how do you intend to stop it?

Perhaps they're looking into some sort of wall.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Right, I'm not making any arguments against the effectiveness of it. I'm saying that it's fine to do it.

Well, whether or not you think it's fine to do it, according to US law, it's illegal for a foreign government to interfere in our elections and treasonous for a US citizen to aid or abet such activity. The legality of latter is complicated (and falls under "conspiracy" and other such esoterica).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Right, I'm not making any arguments against the effectiveness of it. I'm saying that it's fine to do it.

Well, whether or not you think it's fine to do it, according to US law, it's illegal for a foreign government to interfere in our elections and treasonous for a US citizen to aid or abet such activity. The legality of latter is complicated (and falls under "conspiracy" and other such esoterica).

I'd challenge the idea that taking out some ads counts as "interfering". There's nothing wrong with using free speech to try and convince people of something. Hacking voting machines, restricting access to polling booths, etc, those would be interference.

 

[ZiprHead]

Ah, damn it dude. You really need to turn it off and get outside. Nice out here.

I fourth this. Russians beaming thoughts and "emotional contagions" into your mind by merely talking is tin foil hat level thinking.

Your straw-manning the subject by saying "merely talking" is really getting annoying. I know you're not stupid enough to believe that yet you still keep playing the stupid card.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So when a company tries to convince you to drink Coke instead of Pepsi, is that also psychological warfare?

Well, actually yes, but advertising isn't the thing we are talking about here. When Coke advertises, they are advertising their product or insinuating that people that drink Pepsi will never have sex again. Coke is the speaker in the commercials. That isn't what the Russians were doing, as they were using sock puppets, not speaking straight up. It isn't like when President Obama urged the British to vote against Brexit. That was straight up, not via shadowy back channel, manipulative advertising on social media.

The fair analogy would be the Pentagon publishing biased news stories, and getting news corporations to air them as independent journalism.

Yes, the issue, in part, is that America is like an overweight person complaining that Keebler makes cookies. The trouble, however, is even that analogy doesn't quite fit as this is over social media, allowing people to be exposed to it, without even seeking it, which can be problematic when one realizes that certain population groups were targeted with this advertising (possibly via metrics shared by the Trump campaign with Russian oligarchs).

Yes, people should be able to think for themselves and question stuff, but that boat sailed a long time ago thanks to intelligent design.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So when a company tries to convince you to drink Coke instead of Pepsi, is that also psychological warfare?

Well, actually yes, but advertising isn't the thing we are talking about here. When Coke advertises, they are advertising their product or insinuating that people that drink Pepsi will never have sex again. Coke is the speaker in the commercials. That isn't what the Russians were doing, as they were using sock puppets, not speaking straight up. It isn't like when President Obama urged the British to vote against Brexit. That was straight up, not via shadowy back channel, manipulative advertising on social media.

The fair analogy would be the Pentagon publishing biased news stories, and getting news corporations to air them as independent journalism.

No, that wouldn't be an analogy at all. An analogy would be the Pentagon putting an ad on Facebook trying to recruit people by talking about honour, patriotism and the skills they will get through military service and not once mentioning that they could be asked to murder defenceless third world civilians in order to help maximize the quarterly revenues of oil companies. There are those who would find the omission of the latter to make the entire ad deliberately dishonest. Even if those people were right, there would be nothing illegal about what the Pentagon did since they are able to exercise their free speech to make their case in whatever manner they feel will be most effective.

You're correct that Obama did nothing wrong. If he had changed his strategy, though, and tried to convince the British people to vote against Brexit because of the giant bug invasion that would happen without the EU protecting them, then that would be legal too. He didn't need to be honest and straightforward with them while making his case. It's nicer that he did, of course, but there would be no legal obligation against him doing something different.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So when a company tries to convince you to drink Coke instead of Pepsi, is that also psychological warfare?

Well, actually yes, but advertising isn't the thing we are talking about here. When Coke advertises, they are advertising their product or insinuating that people that drink Pepsi will never have sex again. Coke is the speaker in the commercials. That isn't what the Russians were doing, as they were using sock puppets, not speaking straight up. It isn't like when President Obama urged the British to vote against Brexit. That was straight up, not via shadowy back channel, manipulative advertising on social media.

The fair analogy would be the Pentagon publishing biased news stories, and getting news corporations to air them as independent journalism.

No, that wouldn't be an analogy at all. An analogy would be the Pentagon putting an ad on Facebook trying to recruit people by talking about honour, patriotism and the skills they will get through military service and not once mentioning that they could be asked to murder defenceless third world civilians in order to help maximize the quarterly revenues of oil companies. There are those who would find the omission of the latter to make the entire ad deliberately dishonest. Even if those people were right, there would be nothing illegal about what the Pentagon did since they are able to exercise their free speech to make their case in whatever manner they feel will be most effective.

No... because the issue is who is telling the story. Is the Pentagon talking about national security or posting as a third-party about how we need to get into Yemen?

Russia wasn't talking on social media. They were posting under the guise of other Americans. That is a notable difference and why advertising isn't an accurate analogy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Russia wasn't talking on social media. They were posting under the guise of other Americans. That is a notable difference and why advertising isn't an accurate analogy.

Well, that's like saying liquor companies who hire hot women to go into bars and clubs and try to get customers to buy them their brand of vodka are engaging in fraud. It's a sneaky sales tactic, sure, but a legal one. If they're not pressuring anyone and just saying things, they're on the right side of the law.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Russia wasn't talking on social media. They were posting under the guise of other Americans. That is a notable difference and why advertising isn't an accurate analogy.

Well, that's like saying liquor companies who hire hot women to go into bars and clubs and try to get customers to buy them their brand of vodka are engaging in fraud.

I hate arguments via analogies.

What the Russians did was like the Russians posing as Americans on social media, with the intent of inciting anger among the populace. They did this via advertising that was targeted at specific areas and posting online. This is America, and almost nothing is illegal for individuals it seems. So regardless of their actions being potentially legal, they are unethical as all heck and are in no way parallel to advertising. The intent is to increase polarization in the US in order to weaken it.

 

[barbos]

Problem is, Americans don't listen to foreigners so this was the only way to make them listen

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Russia wasn't talking on social media. They were posting under the guise of other Americans. That is a notable difference and why advertising isn't an accurate analogy.

Well, that's like saying liquor companies who hire hot women to go into bars and clubs and try to get customers to buy them their brand of vodka are engaging in fraud.

I hate arguments via analogies.

What the Russians did was like the Russians posing as Americans on social media, with the intent of inciting anger among the populace. They did this via advertising that was targeted at specific areas and posting online. This is America, and almost nothing is illegal for individuals it seems. So regardless of their actions being potentially legal, they are unethical as all heck and are in no way parallel to advertising. The intent is to increase polarization in the US in order to weaken it.

Yes, it was unethical of them. I'm not contesting that. The question is whether they did something illegal, though, not whether they did something unethical. I'm not seeing how it crosses into the line of illegality.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Your straw-manning the subject by saying "merely talking" is really getting annoying.

Well, sucks to be you then, because I'll keep on asking and saying that.

If they are doing more than merely talking, then I'd be more concerned. Hacking voting machines, purging voter registration lists, if you can show they have actually bought Trump. Then it would make sense to be upset about. But Koy is talking about talking to people with social media posts. Whoopidydoo.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The intent is to increase polarization in the US in order to weaken it.

Its hilarious that anyone would blame Russia for that. That's like blaming your neighbour's sprinkler for getting your pond wet. Oh dear me, another analogy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I hate arguments via analogies.

What the Russians did was like the Russians posing as Americans on social media, with the intent of inciting anger among the populace. They did this via advertising that was targeted at specific areas and posting online. This is America, and almost nothing is illegal for individuals it seems. So regardless of their actions being potentially legal, they are unethical as all heck and are in no way parallel to advertising. The intent is to increase polarization in the US in order to weaken it.

Yes, it was unethical of them. I'm not contesting that. The question is whether they did something illegal, though, not whether they did something unethical. I'm not seeing how it crosses into the line of illegality.

It probably doesn't cross that line. The hacking of emails would, but inciting anger isn't illegal, otherwise trolling online would be prosecuted. Coordinating with Trump campaign about who to target... might be illegal.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I hate arguments via analogies.

What the Russians did was like the Russians posing as Americans on social media, with the intent of inciting anger among the populace. They did this via advertising that was targeted at specific areas and posting online. This is America, and almost nothing is illegal for individuals it seems. So regardless of their actions being potentially legal, they are unethical as all heck and are in no way parallel to advertising. The intent is to increase polarization in the US in order to weaken it.

Yes, it was unethical of them. I'm not contesting that. The question is whether they did something illegal, though, not whether they did something unethical. I'm not seeing how it crosses into the line of illegality.

It probably doesn't cross that line. The hacking of emails would, but inciting anger isn't illegal, otherwise trolling online would be prosecuted. Coordinating with Trump campaign about who to target... might be illegal.

Yes, all that would be illegal. I'm arguing against the claim that the social media activity itself is illegal activity.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No Collusion! [/Trump]

 

[ZiprHead]

Your straw-manning the subject by saying "merely talking" is really getting annoying.

Well, sucks to be you then, because I'll keep on asking and saying that.

If they are doing more than merely talking, then I'd be more concerned. Hacking voting machines, purging voter registration lists, if you can show they have actually bought Trump. Then it would make sense to be upset about. But Koy is talking about talking to people with social media posts. Whoopidydoo.

And there's the stupid card again.

You've said before you don't support Trump. I don't believe you.