Russian Influence Measured

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

They did hack the email already. They have tried, and succeeded in some cases, to get into voter registries.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

They did this via advertising that was targeted at specific areas and posting online.

Once again, paid advertising was actually only a comparatively small part of what they did and the reason they did it was to hype it. The primary method was to use organic tactics (an industry term that in this case means fake user accounts; i.e., real people pretending to be just like you).

If a company is trying to sell you something, you put your guard up and maybe won't buy it just out of spite because you hate the ad or the like, or just because you don't think you'd like the product or need it, etc. Iow, any number of different reasons all triggered by a paid advertisement. Millennials, in particular, hate and distrust any form of advertising unless it passes the nebulous "authentic" test.

If all of your friends are telling you how great something is, however, day after day after day, you will most likely buy it, or at least try it. Your defenses are short-circuited by peer pressure/peer review.

It's exactly the effect that a ratings system has on people. You choose restaurants/bars/hotels/goods/services based in large part on the reviews, which is why Yelp is so powerful and Amazon is so review centric (and why there were review farms that would sell positive reviews and black hat review farms that you could hire to dump thousands of negative reviews on your competitor, etc).

Just to be clear.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

But Koy is talking about talking to people with social media posts.

No, I am not, but thank you once again for the ad hominem confirmation.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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

Again, not the way it worked. Just imagine waking up tomorrow and finding out that three of your college friends were actually CIA agents planted in your life on purpose three years ago and that over those three years they have not just been talking about random shit, but have instead been engaged in a very subtle and long-term concentrated/coordinated whisper campaign to encourage you to post more on TalkFreeThought.

Not trying to get you to do something you aren't already involved in; just encouraging you to keep doing what you're already doing, but maybe you should talk about Russia more--and tell them about Pozner, because you're always talking about him, you know that video you showed us? post that--because you know it better than all those idiot Americans on that site, so get them to see that video.

So you do.

That's it. No one is assassinated; you haven't done anything radically outside of your own interests. They just got you to do something they wanted you to do without you knowing that's what they were doing. And it worked. You got one or two people posting here to watch that video. That's a success in their minds.

You're not aware, of course, that Pozner is actually a CIA agent himself that was planted in Russia forty years ago and that by getting you to post the video, you were actually exposing Pozner's views to more Russians that follow you here--that you didn't even really know about, but they did--because of your status as a regular member on this site. Or not.

The point being, you don't know why those three agents did what they did; you didn't even know they were agents, they just seemed like college kids; your friends!

You did what they wanted you to do because of the manner in which they did it.

It's not rocket science.

 

[scombrid]

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 does not matter if it was legal. It needs to be exposed to people that they are interacting not with fellow patriots but with foreign agents. People are grossly unaware of how their social media experience is warped by bad actors foreign and domeatic. People need to know where that video on Ruptly that has them marching through town square with their Walmart Torches originated. The number of links to RT and yournewswire on our little local surfing forum from 2013 to 2016 was mind boggling. There was even a bot account called ionn that spammed the board with everything Phil Rokstrah ever wrote against ObamaHillary. That account pretended to be a liberal upset with "the establishment". It was designed for vote suppression. Sad thing was that the conservatives on the forum interacted with it like it was a person and encouraged its message.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Of further note from the New Knowledge study in regard to how paid advertisements were used (emphasis mine):

Propagandists need an audience, and paid advertising helped the Internet Research Agency facilitate audience growth. 73 different IRA-affiliated Pages and Instagram accounts were part of an ads operation that consisted of 3519 ads (video as well as still images). Ads were used to drive users to Like Pages, follow Instagram accounts, join Events, and visit websites.

One ad appears to have linked to a music-related browser extension (also shared to Reddit) that may have captured access to browsing behavior and Facebook data. The Facebook and Instagram ads, which were run by both Right and Left-leaning pages, as well as Black community-targeted pages, reinforced themes and messages to clearly-defined audiences. There were 1,852 ads that used interest-based targeting; of those, 808 included geographical targeting. The data set included mentions of three custom audiences – named “tr”, “tesy”, and “newtestaudit” – used in 31 ads, as well as Lookalike audiences that were used to find people similar to audiences who liked United Muslims of America, Defend the 2nd, and Being Patriotic. Most of the interest-based targeting focused on African American communities and interests.

Geographical targeting split into two strategies: first, targeting communities for local events and rallies.

Again, recall the fact that face-to-face reinforcement was an integral part to the effectiveness of such influencing campaigns and now turn back to the New Yorker piece on Trump's mid-term rallies to note the following (emphasis mine):

Many of the statements are not only untrue but are repeated from event to event, despite the industry of real-time Trump fact-checking and truth-squadding that now exists. This summer, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker looked at all the statements in one rally and determined that seventy-six per cent of the ninety-eight factual assertions Trump made were untrue, misleading, or baseless. Since then, Trump seems not only undeterred but to be stepping up his pace. He claimed that Justice Kavanaugh was No. 1 in his class at Yale and Yale Law School in at least three of his events over the past week, despite Yale not even calculating class rankings. On Wednesday, Trump repeated several of his greatest-hits fallacies, such as asserting that fifty-two per cent of women supported him in 2016 (that number was forty-two per cent), that seven new U.S. Steel manufacturing plants are being opened (none are; two are being expanded), and that “clean, beautiful coal” is coming back (it isn’t).

Still, fact-checking is far too narrow a lens through which to view the rallies. Certainly, Trump pours out untruths and whoppers at these events; the more defensive he is, the more he seems to unleash them. But I found myself reeling most at the end of my rally-watching marathon not from the lying but from the bleak and threatening world view offered by a President who is claiming credit for making America great, strong, and respected again, while terrifying his fans with the grim spectre of the scary enemies he is fending off. Even more than they did in 2016, these threats come accompanied by an increasingly grandiose rewriting of history. What’s happened since his election, Trump said in Pennsylvania, “has been the greatest revolution ever to take place in our country,” or maybe even anywhere in the world. His victory “superseded even Andrew Jackson.” “America,” he said, “is winning like never before.”

The biggest difference between Trump and any other American President, however, is not the bragging. It’s the cult of personality he has built around himself and which he insists upon at his rallies.
...
Every single rally included multiple attacks on the media and “fake news.” In Mississippi, the press bashing began seconds into the speech; in Pennsylvania, it took seven minutes; in Minnesota, ten. Deadbeat allies, rapacious foreigners ripping us off, and murderous gang members from MS-13 also figured in every one of the speeches.

Touting his record, surprisingly, is not necessarily at the heart of Trump’s speeches, as it might be for a more conventional politician. “The biggest tax cut in history,” which Republican leaders once wanted to make the centerpiece of their 2018 campaigns, is generally mentioned close to the one-hour mark by Trump. He brags of blowing up nafta and replacing it with the “brand-new” U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, though experts say the agreement represents more of an update to the free-trade pact than a destruction of it. He invariably mentions withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. But other accomplishments are aspirational, as when he talks about proposing a new Space Force branch of the military or promises to start “building the wall” with Mexico. Given two full years of the Trump Administration and Republican control over all three branches of government, there is remarkably little policy wonkery here.

Some of Trump’s comments, while overheated, are standard-issue partisan rhetoric. There are ritual denunciations of socialist-leaning Democrats who want to raise taxes while Republicans crack down on crime and spend more money on defense. Every Republican President in my lifetime has uttered a version of those words during election season. Where Trump differs starkly is in his insistence—made at an increasingly high pitch as the week went on—that Democrats not only want to legislate their way to socialism but that they are an actual clear and present danger to Americans.

Again, the conventional explanation for this behavior (and by "conventional," I simply mean without the findings from these studies applied), has always been his ego and/or self-aggrandizement, but in light of the research presented here there is another possible, far more deliberate action in evidence. Reinforcing the ongoing onslaught of emotional contagions.

ETA: From the New Knowledge study:

Some ads incorporated job titles. For example, one ad set in late Sept - early October 2016 geotargeted several regions in Pennsylvania, then added additional interest targeting to reach 18 to 65-year-olds with the interest “Donald Trump for President, Job title: Coal Miner”. The goal was to galvanize support for then-candidate Trump and to hold a rally for miners. It secured 1225 impressions and 77 clicks with 876 RUB in spend.

Now, if the Russian attack was meant to just sow general discord, why this? Note too, that it is targeting a "strong-tie" group (in this case, coal miners in Pennsylvania that are out of work) specifically to get them to go to a rally (face-to-face reinforcement).

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here are New Knowledge's comments in regard to effectiveness based on the data provided:

When memetic warfare experts examine the success of a meme campaign, they look at its propagation, persistence, and impact. Propagation is how far it spreads – does the meme move into new communities? Does it spread to new channels, platforms, or forms? Persistence is how long the meme is part of community conversation – does the meme stick in the popular zeitgeist for a long period of time, or is it short-lived? And finally, impact – does the meme change hearts and minds?

When we talk about the “impact” of the Russian influence operation, most conversations focus on whether the IRA operation swayed voters and swung the Presidential Election in 2016. The answer is, we can’t tell from this data.

But in terms of whether or not the operation was a success: thousands of the memes propagated far and wide, and they continue to persist in the targeted communities to this day. The extent to which they changed, rather than merely reinforced, minds is difficult to answer. Facebook and Instagram have additional data that could help answer that question. They know how engaged the Page audiences were, what the comments said, and to what extent user behavior changed after engaging with the content.

Now recall the Facebook 2012 study that correlated precisely this kind of data that in turn led their researchers to conclude that emotional contagions do, in fact, effect users and this bit from the 61 million subject study specifically about political effects:

The magnitude of these contagion effects are small per friend, but it is important to remember that they result from a single message
...
We estimated the per-user effect (the per-friend effect multiplied by the average number of friends per user) and the total effect (the per-user effect multiplied by the total number of users) on the behaviour of everyone in the sample (see Supplementary Information). The results suggest that friends generated an additional 886,000 expressed votes (11.4%, null 95% CI 21.1% to 1.1%), and close friends generated a further 559,000 votes (10.9%, null 95% CI –0.3% to 0.3%). In the Supplementary Information we also show that close friends of close friends (2 degrees of separation) generated an additional 1 million expressed votes (11.7%, null 95% CI –0.8% to 0.9%). Thus, the treatment clearly had a significant impact on political self-expression and how it spread through the network, and even weak ties seem to be relevant to its spread.
...
Our results suggest that the Facebook social message increased turnout directly by about 60,000 voters and indirectly through social contagion by another 280,000 voters, for a total of 340,000 additional votes.
...
This means it is possible that more of the 0.60% growth in turnout between 2006 and 2010 might have been caused by a single message on Facebook.

A single message on Facebook accounted for an increase in voter turnout of 340,000 additional votes.

And, worth repeating:

The results of this study have many implications. First and foremost, online political mobilization works. It induces political self-expression, but it also induces information gathering and real, validated voter turnout....We also show that social mobilization in online networks is significantly more effective than informational mobilization alone. Showing familiar faces to users can dramatically improve the effectiveness of a mobilization message...Online mobilization works because it primarily spreads through strong-tie networks that probably exist offline but have an online representation.

"Strong-tie networks" that "exist offline but have an online representation." Exactly like rural white supremacist members of the "alt-right" and young black male "activists."

And if the studies show that a single Facebook message can result in an increase of 340,000 votes, just imagine what 10.4 million Tweets, 1100 YouTube videos, 116,000 Instagram posts, 61,500 unique Facebook posts resulting in 77 million engagements reaching 126 million users, 187 million engagements on Instagram reaching 20 million users, and 73 million engagements of original content on Twitter--all over at least a three year time-span--can do to decrease votes.

Btw, I had noted earlier that Clinton got 89% of the black vote, but that percentage was evidently based on exit polls. A more comprehensive study conducted by PEW on validated voters (i.e., actual votes cast, as opposed to exit poll analysis), Clinton actually received 91% of the black vote (so, only 2% off from Obama in 2012).

More alarming (and why this thread is still relevant, beyond the 2016 election), is this from Trump Has Gained Among Black Voters Since 2016 on CNN August of 2018 (emphasis mine):

The network exit polls had Trump winning only 8% among black voters in 2016. Hillary Clinton took 89% of their vote. That is, Clinton won black voters by an 81-percentage-point margin.

Trump's average net approval rating (approval rating minus disapproval rating) with blacks right now is -72 points. In other words, he's shrunk his deficit by 9 points.

I would argue, though, that the President has made an even bigger improvement. To make an apples-to-apples comparison, we can look at a post-election Pew Research Center study with verified voters. Pew found that Clinton had an even larger margin 85-point margin with black voters, of 91% to 6%. If this study were correct, it would mean that Trump had doubled his black support since the election. (Note: Trump's approval rating with blacks in a Pew poll in June, not included in our average, was 14%. Again, this suggests he has gained since the election.)

Even with averaging, the African-American subsample in these polls is small enough that our current estimate of Trump's approval rating comes with a fairly wide margin of error. That's why I decided to look at the President's average approval rating since April in Gallup's tracking poll. Doing so gives us a total sample of about 2,500 black respondents, a fairly robust sample size.

In this Gallup data since April, Trump's approval rating has averaged 13%. His disapproval rating has averaged 84%. Both of which are slightly better for Trump than our average since July.

What's interesting is that when you compare Trump's approval rating in Gallup polling with the percentage of the vote he got against Clinton in every other ethnic or racial group, Trump is doing worse now than he did back in 2016.
...
It just seems that for whatever reason the President has picked up a small, but statistically significant, amount of support among African-Americans. The fact that he has done so while losing support among all other racial groups makes it that much more impressive.

Or....

To turn once again to the New Yorker piece about Trump's midterm rallies (emphasis mine):

Watching hours of Trump at his rallies, it’s easy to sympathize with the desire to ignore them. John Dean tweeted a picture of the crowd waiting in line for the Erie rally and derided it as a “meaningless show.” For supporters, it’s hyperbole, just rhetoric, entertainment, part of the unvarnished appeal; for opponents, it’s old news painful to watch, maybe, but inconsequential, narrow-casting to his base. One of the reasons we tune out is because views of Trump are so fixed. Look at the Presidential approval ratings, and “you would think it’s been a pretty boring couple years,” as Amy Walter, the Cook Political Report editor, likes to put it. Trump’s ratings have barely budged, no matter the day’s outrage or the nutty things he tells his followers: the same range of thirty-eight to forty-three per cent of Americans approve of him, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average, and the same majority of fifty to fifty-three per cent disapprove of him, as has been the case since the early weeks of his Administration.

Much of the coverage of these events tends to be theatre criticism, or news stories about a single inflammatory line or two, rating Trump’s performance or puzzling over the appeal to his followers. But what the President of the United States is actually saying is extraordinary, regardless of whether the television cameras are carrying it live. It’s not just the whoppers or the particular outrage riffs that do get covered, either. It’s the hate, and the sense of actual menace that the President is trying to convey to his supporters. Democrats aren’t just wrong in the manner of traditional partisan differences; they are scary, bad, evil, radical, dangerous. Trump and Trump alone stands between his audiences and disaster.

When you put ALL of this together--the results of past and current studies on social media influence; the findings in regard to online emotional contagions being particularly effective among "strong-tie" groups (that exist offline, but with an online presence); etc--a far more deliberate and ongoing problem is evident that has been dismissed/obfuscated by the "useful idiot" argument from incredulity.

It LOOKS like he's just rambling incoherently in order to drive his ego, but in fact it all has a much deeper purpose that can be tied directly to both the studies and the strategy of the IRA/Russian influencing.

 

[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.

And there's the stupid card again.

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

And there's the stupid card again. Telling me what you think I think instead of addressing what I actually write.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

They did hack the email already. They have tried, and succeeded in some cases, to get into voter registries.

These are much bigger deals and these should be the focus of any "Russia interfering" drum beat. Not... talking to Americans.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But Koy is talking about talking to people with social media posts.

No, I am not, but thank you once again for the ad hominem confirmation.

Thank you, person who likes to call others stupid, for demonstrating your superior intellect, in not knowing what an ad hominem is. If anything it would be a straw man, and only if it was not true, but it is true. You've been whining about people talking to people, and not about doing anything else, and we all see that by scrolling up. Are you now going to join with Mr. Higgins and point to actual evidence of actual instances of actual Russian interference? Why not show us the evidence of hacking voter registration rolls if that exists. You'd get way more traction with it.

Can people talking to people encourage those people to do X or Y, and for a hidden agenda not mentioned? Sure. But so what? People have agency.

 

[ZiprHead]

But Koy is talking about talking to people with social media posts.

No, I am not, but thank you once again for the ad hominem confirmation.

Thank you, person who likes to call others stupid, for demonstrating your superior intellect, in not knowing what an ad hominem is. If anything it would be a straw man, and only if it was not true, but it is true. You've been whining about people talking to people, and not about doing anything else, and we all see that by scrolling up. Are you now going to join with Mr. Higgins and point to actual evidence of actual instances of actual Russian interference? Why not show us the evidence of hacking voter registration rolls if that exists. You'd get way more traction with it.

Can people talking to people encourage those people to do X or Y, and for a hidden agenda not mentioned? Sure. But so what? People have agency.

You do realize you are defending con men, don't you?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

But Koy is talking about talking to people with social media posts.

No, I am not, but thank you once again for the ad hominem confirmation.

Thank you, person who likes to call others stupid

No, not calling; just pointing out the obvious.

for demonstrating your superior intellect

You're welcome.

in not knowing what an ad hominem is.

You were attempting to denigrate me--as if all I were doing is "talking about talking to people"--instead of addressing any of my arguments.

If anything it would be a straw man

It's that too. And false equivalence. The alt-right trifecta, so congrats.

Are you now going to join with Mr. Higgins and point to actual evidence of actual instances of actual Russian interference?

I have presented it in abundance. You have done nothing to counter it, other than attempted to falsely equate it with "talking to people."

Can people talking to people encourage those people to do X or Y, and for a hidden agenda not mentioned? Sure.

Even when you try to denigrate it, you confirm its effectiveness at influencing people.

But so what? People have agency.

Not when they don't know it's happening as, once again, the studies I've presented prove. Hell, often not even when they do know it's happening, such as with the barrage of overt advertising. That's why companies spend billions of dollars on it; because it effects you in many different ways without you knowing that it does.

 

[barbos]

Thank you, person who likes to call others stupid, for demonstrating your superior intellect, in not knowing what an ad hominem is. If anything it would be a straw man, and only if it was not true, but it is true. You've been whining about people talking to people, and not about doing anything else, and we all see that by scrolling up. Are you now going to join with Mr. Higgins and point to actual evidence of actual instances of actual Russian interference? Why not show us the evidence of hacking voter registration rolls if that exists. You'd get way more traction with it.

Can people talking to people encourage those people to do X or Y, and for a hidden agenda not mentioned? Sure. But so what? People have agency.

You do realize you are defending con men, don't you?

Do you realize that your are diminishing your point when you use weak arguments?
there is plenty of material when it comes to Trump, why do you feel you have to use literally everything?
As far as I am concerned Trump should never have been able to even run president because he had been imprisoned.

 

[ZiprHead]

Thank you, person who likes to call others stupid, for demonstrating your superior intellect, in not knowing what an ad hominem is. If anything it would be a straw man, and only if it was not true, but it is true. You've been whining about people talking to people, and not about doing anything else, and we all see that by scrolling up. Are you now going to join with Mr. Higgins and point to actual evidence of actual instances of actual Russian interference? Why not show us the evidence of hacking voter registration rolls if that exists. You'd get way more traction with it.

Can people talking to people encourage those people to do X or Y, and for a hidden agenda not mentioned? Sure. But so what? People have agency.

You do realize you are defending con men, don't you?

Do you realize that your are diminishing your point when you use weak arguments?
there is plenty of material when it comes to Trump, why do you feel you have to use literally everything?
As far as I am concerned Trump should never have been able to even run president because he had been imprisoned.

No, I didn't realize that. Explain.

Personally, I think you're just defending your fellow Russians who happen to be con men.

 

[barbos]

Do you realize that your are diminishing your point when you use weak arguments?
there is plenty of material when it comes to Trump, why do you feel you have to use literally everything?
As far as I am concerned Trump should never have been able to even run president because he had been imprisoned.

No, I didn't realize that. Explain.

People tend to lose credibility when they push BS.

Personally, I think you're just defending your fellow Russians who happen to be con men.

Why would I do that? I don't really care about them. In fact, what US does have an opposite effect, Putin and his gang became more popular and was able to shift attention away from internal affairs where they suck.
And I think, neocons actually prefer Putin to stay, he fits their plan perfectly.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here are some relevant observations from a Rand Corporation study on Russian propaganda tactics. Note how closely they mirror the Trump campaign strategy as well as his continued approach while in the WH:

Since its 2008 incursion into Georgia (if not before), there has been a remarkable evolution in Russia’s approach to propaganda. This new approach was on full display during the country’s 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It continues to be demonstrated in support of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Syria and in pursuit of nefarious and long-term goals in Russia’s “near abroad” and against NATO allies.

In some ways, the current Russian approach to propaganda builds on Soviet Cold War–era techniques, with an emphasis on obfuscation and on getting targets to act in the interests of the propagandist without realizing that they have done so.
...
Interestingly, several of these features run directly counter to the conventional wisdom on effective influence and communication from government or defense sources, which traditionally emphasize the importance of truth, credibility, and the avoidance of contradiction.3 Despite ignoring these traditional principles, Russia seems to have enjoyed some success under its contemporary propaganda model, either through more direct persuasion and influence or by engaging in obfuscation, confusion, and the disruption or diminution of truthful reporting and messaging.
...
In addition to manufacturing information, Russian propagandists often manufacture sources. Russian news channels, such as RT and Sputnik News, are more like a blend of infotainment and disinformation than fact-checked journalism, though their formats intentionally take the appearance of proper news programs. Russian news channels and other forms of media also misquote credible sources or cite a more credible source as the origin of a selected falsehood. For example, RT stated that blogger Brown Moses (a staunch critic of Syria’s Assad regime whose real name is Eliot Higgins) had provided analysis of footage suggesting that chemical weapon attacks on August 21, 2013, had been perpetrated by Syrian rebels. In fact, Higgins’s analysis concluded that the Syrian government was responsible for the attacks and that the footage had been faked to shift the blame.18 Similarly, several scholars and journalists, including Edward Lucas, Luke Harding, and Don Jensen, have reported that books that they did not write—and containing views clearly contrary to their own—had been published in Russian under their names. “The Kremlin’s spin machine wants to portray Russia as a besieged fortress surrounded by malevolent outsiders,” said Lucas of his misattributed volume, How the West Lost to Putin. 19

Why might this disinformation be effective? First, people are often cognitively lazy. Due to information overload (especially on the Internet), they use a number of different heuristics and shortcuts to determine whether new information is trustworthy.20 Second, people are often poor at discriminating true information from false information—or remembering that they have done so previously. The following are a few examples from the literature:

• In a phenomenon known as the “sleeper effect,” low credibility sources manifest greater persuasive impact with the passage of time. While people make initial assessments of the credibility of a source, in remembering, information is often dissociated from its source. Thus, information from a questionable source may be remembered as true, with the source forgotten.
• Information that is initially assumed valid but is later retracted or proven false can continue to shape people’s memory and influence their reasoning.
• Even when people are aware that some sources (such as political campaign rhetoric) have the potential to contain misinformation, they still show a poor ability to discriminate between information that is false and information that is correct.21 Familiar themes or messages can be appealing even if these themes and messages are false.​

Information that connects with group identities or familiar narratives—or that arouses emotion—can be particularly persuasive. The literature describes the effects of this approach:

• Someone is more likely to accept information when it is consistent with other messages that the person believes to be true.
• People suffer from “confirmation bias”: They view news and opinions that confirm existing beliefs as more credible than other news and opinions, regardless of the quality of the arguments.
• Someone who is already misinformed (that is, believes something that is not true) is less likely to accept evidence that goes against those misinformed beliefs.
• People whose peer group is affected by an event are much more likely to accept conspiracy theories about that event.
• Stories or accounts that create emotional arousal in the recipient (e.g., disgust, fear, happiness) are much more likely to be passed on, whether they are true or not.
• Angry messages are more persuasive to angry audiences.22 False statements are more likely to be accepted if backed by evidence, even if that evidence is false:
• The presence of evidence can override the effects of source credibility on perceived veracity of statements.
• In courtroom simulations, witnesses who provide more details—even trivial details—are judged to be more credible.23​

Finally, source credibility is often assessed based on “peripheral cues,” which may or may not conform to the reality of the situation.24 A broadcast that looks like a news broadcast, even if it is actually a propaganda broadcast, may be accorded the same degree of credibility as an actual news broadcast.25 Findings from the field of psychology show how peripheral cues can increase the credibility of propaganda:

• Peripheral cues, such as the appearance of expertise or the format of information, lead people to accept—with little reflection—that the information comes from a credible source.
• Expertise and trustworthiness are the two primary dimensions of credibility, and these qualities may be evaluated based on visual cues, such as format, appearance, or simple claims of expertise.
• Online news sites are perceived as more credible than other online formats, regardless of the veracity of the content.26​

Note too, in the following from the same study, how Trump is mimicking Putin in various ways:

Russian Propaganda Is Not Committed to Consistency

The final distinctive characteristic of Russian propaganda is that it is not committed to consistency. First, different propaganda media do not necessarily broadcast the exact same themes or messages. Second, different channels do not necessarily broadcast the same account of contested events. Third, different channels or representatives show no fear of “changing their tune.” If one falsehood or misrepresentation is exposed or is not well received, the propagandists will discard it and move on to a new (though not necessarily more plausible) explanation.

One example of such behavior is the string of accounts offered for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Russian sources have offered numerous theories about how the aircraft came to be shot down and by whom, very few of which are plausible.27 Lack of commitment to consistency is also apparent in statements from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

For example, he first denied that the “little green men” in Crimea were Russian soldiers but later admitted that they were. Similarly, he at first denied any desire to see Crimea join Russia, but then he admitted that that had been his plan all along.28

Again, this flies in the face of the conventional wisdom on influence and persuasion. If sources are not consistent, how can they be credible? If they are not credible, how can they be influential? Research suggests that inconsistency can have deleterious effects on persuasion—for example, when recipients make an effort to scrutinize inconsistent messages from the same source.29 However, the literature in experimental psychology also shows that audiences can overlook contradictions under certain circumstances:

• Contradictions can prompt a desire to understand why a shift in opinion or messages occurred. When a seemingly strong argument for a shift is provided or assumed (e.g., more thought is given or more information is obtained), the new message can have a greater persuasive impact.
• When a source appears to have considered different perspectives, consumer attitudinal confidence is greater. A source who changes his or her opinion or message may be perceived as having given greater consideration to the topic, thereby influencing recipient confidence in the newest message.30​

How Does Propaganda Undercut Perceptions of Reality?

• People are poor judges of true versus false information—and they do not necessarily remember that particular information was false.
• Information overload leads people to take shortcuts in determining the trustworthiness of messages.
• Familiar themes or messages can be appealing even if they are false.
• Statements are more likely to be accepted if backed by evidence, even if that evidence is false.
• Peripheral cues—such as an appearance of objectivity—can increase the credibility of propaganda.​

Potential losses in credibility due to inconsistency are potentially offset by synergies with other characteristics of contemporary propaganda. As noted earlier in the discussion of multiple channels, the presentation of multiple arguments by multiple sources is more persuasive than either the presentation of multiple arguments by one source or the presentation of one argument by multiple sources.31 These losses can also be offset by peripheral cues that enforce perceptions of credibility, trustworthiness, or legitimacy.32 Even if a channel or individual propagandist changes accounts of events from one day to the next, viewers are likely to evaluate the credibility of the new account without giving too much weight to the prior, “mistaken” account, provided that there are peripheral cues suggesting the source is credible.

While the psychology literature suggests that the Russian propaganda enterprise suffers little when channels are inconsistent with each other, or when a single channel is internally inconsistent, it is unclear how inconsistency accumulates for a single prominent figure. While inconsistent accounts by different propagandist on RT, for example, might be excused as the views of different journalists or changes due to updated information, the fabrications of Vladimir Putin have been unambiguously attributed to him, which cannot be good for his personal credibility. Of course, perhaps many people have a low baseline expectation of the veracity of statements by politicians and world leaders.33 To the extent that this is the case, Putin’s fabrications, though more egregious than the routine, might be perceived as just more of what is expected from politicians in general and might not constrain his future influence potential.

Essentially, the strategy is to destroy any semblance of trust--"fake news"--through both overt and covert means, playing one side against the other. This, in turn, forces people to rely more and more on their friends and family--aka, "strong-tie" connections--which in turn makes the influencing strategy far more effective.

 

[Angry Floof]

This thread has gone three pages with no mention of Sarah Kendzior?

She has worked hard to get here. Whether it’s because she’s a woman, a freelancer working outside the coastal media echo chamber, an academic who sometimes pushes the boundaries between editorializing and straight reporting, or a doomsayer (whose prognostications have just happened to come true), it sometimes seems to her and some of her colleagues that her actual credentials are being overlooked by the mainstream. “What more authority [on despotism] can you possess than she has?” says New York–based freelance journalist Sydette Harry, who has never met Kendzior but considers her an online ally. “There is something wrong with the system if someone with Sarah’s credentials is being ignored. She has all the credentials and experience and until it got very, very real for people last year, they were still dismissing her.”
https://www.cjr.org/the_profile/sarah-kendzior.php

About

I am a writer who lives in St Louis, Missouri. I am best known for my best-selling essay collection The View From Flyover Country, my reporting on political and economic problems in the US, my prescient coverage of the 2016 election and the Trump administration, and my academic research on authoritarian states in Central Asia.

I am also the co-host of Gaslit Nation, a weekly podcast which covers corruption in the Trump administration and the rise of authoritarianism around the world.

Since 2017, I’ve been covering the transformation of the US under the Trump administration, writing on authoritarian tactics, kleptocracy, racism and xenophobia, media, voting rights, technology, the environment, and the Russian interference case, among other topics. I am an op-ed columnist for the Globe and Mail, where I focus primarily on US politics. I am also a frequent contributor to Fast Company, NBC News, and other national outlets. From 2012-2014 I was an op-ed columnist for Al Jazeera English."

https://sarahkendzior.com/

She's been talking about Russian influence on US elections since before 2016.

Here's a podcast she was on in 2017 on this topic.
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/rewire-news/the-breach/e/49719444?autoplay=true

 

[ZiprHead]

People tend to lose credibility when they push BS.

Thank goodness I didn't do that.

Personally, I think you're just defending your fellow Russians who happen to be con men.

Why would I do that? I don't really care about them. In fact, what US does have an opposite effect, Putin and his gang became more popular and was able to shift attention away from internal affairs where they suck.
And I think, neocons actually prefer Putin to stay, he fits their plan perfectly.

Trumpers are not neocons. They are a thing to themselves.

 

[Angry Floof]

Thank goodness I didn't do that.

Why would I do that? I don't really care about them. In fact, what US does have an opposite effect, Putin and his gang became more popular and was able to shift attention away from internal affairs where they suck.
And I think, neocons actually prefer Putin to stay, he fits their plan perfectly.

Trumpers are not neocons. They are a thing to themselves.

They're right wing authoritarian followers, which is a very real, well studied social and psychological phenomenon. (See the link to The Authoritarians in my sig.)

In a nutshell, certain cognitive tendencies and weaknesses are exploited and reinforced by authoritarian ideologues of influence. Fox News, the GOP, right wing talk radio, and then finally, Trump, have all hammered on those tendencies and weaknesses in the heads of millions to the point where they became a collective Manchurian candidate, no longer able to reason or defend themselves from manipulation.

If you:
- worship authority
- demand conformity
- punish/demonize outgroups
- scapegoat the easy targets
- excuse any action of the authority figures

you might be a right wing authoritarian follower.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This thread has gone three pages with no mention of Sarah Kendzior?

I've been focusing on the studies and trying to quantify the actual effect of such influence. But, by all means, the more the merrier.

 

[Angry Floof]

This thread has gone three pages with no mention of Sarah Kendzior?

I've been focusing on the studies and trying to quantify the actual effect of such influence. But, by all means, the more the merrier.

I didn't mean it as a criticism, just surprise. She's about the most knowledgeable and experienced person you'll find on authoritarian states with a focus on Russia and in a unique position to observe and comment on current events as an American in the Trump era.