• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Russian Influence Measured

Here's something interesting I found while continuing this research from the Sydney Morning Herald:

How views are shaped online, and what can change them, are topics Russia has researched at least since 2012.

In that year, Moscow-based business journal Kommersant reported a trio of contracts, worth 30 million rubles (then the equivalent of $A900,000), tendered by intelligence service SVR for firms to develop “new methods of monitoring the blogosphere”.

The contracts aims were “the massive expansion of information sources on social media platforms with the goal of shaping popular opinion.”

The first project described in the Kommersant article, called "Dispute" would “monitor the blogosphere, undertaking ‘research into processes of the shaping of internet social groups that spread information on social media platforms’ and ‘delineation of factors that influence the popularity and spread of information".

That information would be analysed by another system called "Monitor-3" whose purpose was “the development of methods of organisation and control of virtual internet societies of designated experts”.

A third system, called "Sturm-12", was designed to be a complex “for the automated dissemination” of information and the development of “mechanisms to initiate scripted scenarios for mass audiences on social media platforms”.

The article said the SVR systems could be used for internal as well as external audiences, beginning in Eastern Europe.
...
While there is no confirmation the systems discussed in Kommersant are being used for “issue-targeting”, the report showed a Russian awareness of the concepts in the realm of social media.

And then there is this from MIT (emphasis mine):

“If you’re smart about putting bots in a network in particular places, you can pretty easily manipulate people’s opinions,” said Tauhid Zaman, associate professor of operations management at MIT Sloan. “And whether an election or something else, this can help you achieve the outcomes that you want.” In a new working paper coauthored with MIT Operations Research Center graduate student David Scott Hunter, Zaman outlines how to optimize shifts in ideology using bots in a social network.

They begin with the assumption that, though people update their opinions as they receive new information, this process dampens over time; opinions harden. “You’ll listen to me less and less if you already have a lot of information, and something new won’t likely change your opinion,” Zaman said.

Working from this foundation, Zaman and Hunter built a model of opinion dynamics in social networks and dropped in a handful of bots whose opinions were preset and immutable (so-called “stubborn agents”). They developed an algorithm to identify targets for the bots to influence. These were generally people who didn’t already have firm opinions on a particular issue and who could reach many other people. Once these targets were identified, the bots could go to work, pushing their message on the targets.

One way to measure the effectiveness of this process would be to observe how the average opinion in the network changed as a result of the bots. Overall, were people more inclined to align themselves with the bots after a set period? But for Zaman and Hunter, a more interesting consideration was the specific number of individuals whose opinions shifted over a set threshold. “This is an important measure because once you get over this threshold, maybe then you go and do something like buy a product, watch a movie, or join a protest,” Zaman said. “Or maybe you go vote.”

It turns out the structure of the underlying network has a big impact on how effective bots can be. Zaman found that on polarized networks, a few bots are able to shift a disproportionate number of people over a threshold. This is important because many modern social networks have such a polarized structure, with most people only maintaining friends with people of similar ideologies. This is even more relevant given the ongoing discussion of foreign meddling in U.S. elections, and the upcoming 2018 mid-term elections. Because of how polarized the U.S. has become in recent years, the democratic process is highly vulnerable to this type of cyberattack, Zaman said. “When it comes to bots in a polarized network, a little bit goes a long way.”

Iow, they came to the same conclusion in regard to "strong-tie" groups.
 
That's how a gullible minority begins to feel and look like a majority, drawing in less dogmatic, uncertain people as well as emboldening the dogmatic minority.

When we're talking about right wing authoritarian followers, we're talking about people who literally have nothing like the rest of us would call conscience. What they consider to be conscience is dictated by the authority figures and whatever appears to be their side of an us vs them framework. So when they see the authority figure as representing the majority and being uncontested or only opposed by those they perceive as a weak influence, there is no stopping them. There is literally nothing to give them pause regarding their actions and what they support their in-group doing.

This is a fundamental problem of God-belief. There is no fucking God, and God-believers know this because they, like the rest of us, do not actually experience a God. So the ideology and the group identity make up the real god they follow, which is fully human and made up of human social and psychological influences.

In relatively peaceful times when the wider culture holds strong democratic values, that wider society provides the actual accountability that the in-group cannot deny and must go along with for both social and legal reasons, no matter how much they pretend it's God making them behave.

Now that wider society appears to the conscienceless mass that we call conservatism in the U.S. as non-existent, there is literally nothing there to serve as a stronger group that will hold right wing nut bags accountable. When your God doesn't exist and there is no one left that you think can humble you or hold you accountable, there is no bottom or limit to what you'll allow from your authority figures. There is no conscience there.

The U.S. continues to spiral downward into right wing authoritarianism, and the right wing collective Manchurian candidate thinks they will not be affected by it. They believe the promise of only harming the people they've been trained to hate and fear, and will not be prepared for sharing in the suffering, as they certainly will.

Unless people of actual principles, humane principles, stand up en masse and hold power accountable as well as their conscienceless supporters, the U.S. is no longer a democracy or a society of decency or principle. Putin may be just doing his usual trolling by saying that the U.S. seems to be unstable and needs other countries to step in and take control, but we are arguably in much better conditions for that to actually happen in the not too distant future.
 
The U.S. continues to spiral downward into right wing authoritarianism, and the right wing collective Manchurian candidate thinks they will not be affected by it. They believe the promise of only harming the people they've been trained to hate and fear, and will not be prepared for sharing in the suffering, as they certainly will.

Unless people of actual principles, humane principles, stand up en masse and hold power accountable as well as their conscienceless supporters, the U.S. is no longer a democracy or a society of decency or principle. Putin may be just doing his usual trolling by saying that the U.S. seems to be unstable and needs other countries to step in and take control, but we are arguably in much better conditions for that to actually happen in the not too distant future.

Well, the good news about all of this is that it proves how desperate is the alt-white authoritarians and for good reason. They're dying:

Most strikingly, one-third of 2012 Romney voters who were under 40 in 2016 did not vote for Mr. Trump, but rather stayed home, voted for Mrs. Clinton or voted for a third-party candidate. Among the under-40 Romney voters who supported Mr. Trump in 2016, 16 percent appear to have defected from the party to vote for a Democratic House candidate in 2018. Of course, we don’t know how they will vote in 2020, but what this means is that in the past two elections Republicans may have lost more than 40 percent of Romney voters born after 1976.

Republican House candidates performed worse among 18- to 39-year-olds than they have in decades. The voters Mr. Trump and his party lost in 2016 and 2018 represent the future of American politics. If the Republican Party becomes the party of the past — that is, of aging white men with less education — it could make winning elections increasingly difficult.

This is precisely why the Russian influence campaign is still ongoing and why it switched primarily to Instagram after the election; to target younger voters, but as we saw in the midterms, the small, but significant effects were no match for the large, more significant effects of overwhelming turnout (in no small part due to....young black males).
 
Thank goodness I didn't do that.
You did I think.
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.
Yes.
 
You did I think.

Well, your thoughts are generally considered pretty well flawed by your pro-Russian biases around here so I'll take this much >< consideration of your thought.

There was no collusion, deal with it.

There very clearly was “collusion.” That, however, has never been a legal term. The legal standards are much higher and require something along the lines of a confession or wire-taps between Putin and Trump, or the like. Or whistleblowing, like Cohen has so far and Stone seems likely to do, particularly with the arrest and likely extradition of Assange.
 
There was no collusion, deal with it.

There very clearly was “collusion.” That, however, has never been a legal term. The legal standards are much higher and require something along the lines of a confession or wire-taps between Putin and Trump, or the like. Or whistleblowing, like Cohen has so far and Stone seems likely to do, particularly with the arrest and likely extradition of Assange.

The question of obstruction of justice is still open and looks like a very probable charge. The problem is that the obstruction could have actually worked. The reason they may not be able to prove conspiracy or "collusion", if you will, is because the obstruction worked.
 
There was no collusion, deal with it.

There very clearly was “collusion.” That, however, has never been a legal term. The legal standards are much higher and require something along the lines of a confession or wire-taps between Putin and Trump, or the like. Or whistleblowing, like Cohen has so far and Stone seems likely to do, particularly with the arrest and likely extradition of Assange.

The question of obstruction of justice is still open and looks like a very probable charge. The problem is that the obstruction could have actually worked. The reason they may not be able to prove conspiracy or "collusion", if you will, is because the obstruction worked.

Excellent point.
 
There was no collusion, deal with it.

There very clearly was “collusion.” That, however, has never been a legal term. The legal standards are much higher and require something along the lines of a confession or wire-taps between Putin and Trump, or the like. Or whistleblowing, like Cohen has so far and Stone seems likely to do, particularly with the arrest and likely extradition of Assange.

The question of obstruction of justice is still open and looks like a very probable charge. The problem is that the obstruction could have actually worked. The reason they may not be able to prove conspiracy or "collusion", if you will, is because the obstruction worked.

How convenient. For 2 years Clintonistas were bitching about how Mueller would find collusion and when he did not it's all of a sudden "But obstruction!!!" Yes, there was and still is obstruction on the part of Trump and his administration but it did not affect Mueller.
 
Wow! Barbos has the report.

Stop holding out on us, Barbie. You really should learn to share.
 
The question of obstruction of justice is still open and looks like a very probable charge. The problem is that the obstruction could have actually worked. The reason they may not be able to prove conspiracy or "collusion", if you will, is because the obstruction worked.

Excellent point.

This is exactly how conspiracy theories work. All facts are evidence and all missing facts is evidence of a cover up.
 
The question of obstruction of justice is still open and looks like a very probable charge. The problem is that the obstruction could have actually worked. The reason they may not be able to prove conspiracy or "collusion", if you will, is because the obstruction worked.

Excellent point.

This is exactly how conspiracy theories work. All facts are evidence and all missing facts is evidence of a cover up.

No, that is how crackpot theories work and while we all know you want to paint this as a crackpot theory, we have the conclusion of the Special Prosecutor stating he can not exonerate the President on obstruction, which means the President did, in fact, obstruct justice, it's just that the standard of evidence necessary for an indictment and/or to compel the SP to break DOJ guidelines of not indicting a sitting President could not be met.

And this was the best that Barr could cherry-pick, no less, and it did nothing to exonerate the President in spite of him braying like a jackass that it did.

Plus, it's a perfectly logical question to ask, if it were all just some hoax concocted by non-existent Hillary Clinton sycophants in the "deep state" (speaking of crackpot conspiracy theories), then how is it possible Mueller could not exonerate and/or establish that no coordination occurred setting aside completely the dozens of lies about meeting with Russians? Why wasn't the Barr summation one word: HOAX?

Instead, Barr went to pained lengths to very carefully craft a summation that actually did not exonerate Trump on either obstruction or conspiracy. That's not something we are making up.
 
The question of obstruction of justice is still open and looks like a very probable charge. The problem is that the obstruction could have actually worked. The reason they may not be able to prove conspiracy or "collusion", if you will, is because the obstruction worked.

Excellent point.

This is exactly how conspiracy theories work. All facts are evidence and all missing facts is evidence of a cover up.
Yes. But to be fair Trump is prone to fueling these theories with his stupid twitting.
 
Here are some observations regarding the New Knowledge study in particular that certainly applies to everything Trump has done from day one:

Russian propaganda is cacophonous. This is its single most important distinguishing feature, and it is the one that never fails to confound Americans. Americans assume that propaganda serves a clear, actionable objective: campaign propaganda is intended to make you vote a certain way, and war propaganda is intended to make you hate the enemy and support the troops. The same assumptions, Americans think, hold for totalitarian propaganda: it is probably intended to make everyone support the regime. In fact, the purpose of totalitarian propaganda is to take away your ability to perceive reality. To their credit, the writers of the New Knowledge report understand this. The Internet Research Agency’s effort, they state,

was absolutely intended to reinforce tribalism, to polarize and divide, and to normalize points of view strategically advantageous to the Russian government on everything from social issues to political candidates. It was designed to exploit societal fractures, blur the lines between reality and fiction, erode our trust in media entities and the information environment, in government, in each other, and in democracy itself.​

Totalitarian propaganda is overwhelming and inconsistent. It bombards you with mutually contradictory claims, which often come packaged in doublethink pairs. The Russian dissident singer-songwriter Alexander Galich sang about one such pair: “We stand for the cause of peace and we are preparing for war.” In a talk I gave with the historian Timothy Snyder, he cited more recent examples: “There is no such thing as a Ukrainian language” goes with “Ukrainian authorities are forcing everyone to speak Ukrainian.” Russian propaganda is a direct descendant of totalitarian Soviet propaganda. Far from promoting a single guiding ideology, this kind of propaganda robs you of your bearings. The regime gains a monopoly on reality, and can make any claim whatsoever. Hannah Arendt famously described the totalitarian ruler’s ascendance this way: “In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. . . . Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow.”

After a while, the audience and the propagandists are no longer distinct. The propagandist also holds every statement to be a lie—not just every statement he makes but every possible statement. Values are fictions. Facts do not exist. Mutual understanding is always an illusion.

The Russian trolls brought this world view to their work in American politics. The New Knowledge report uses a beautiful phrase to describe the virtual universe of connections and reflections that the Russian trolls created: “media mirage.” But contemporary Russians generally think that all media is a mirage—in a world in which there is no possibility of a stable shared reality, it would have to be.

The task of the New Knowledge report was clearly difficult: to make sense of a thing that at its core had no meaning; to identify the objectives of activities that assumed that nothing is the function of anything else. Both the New Knowledge report and the other, prepared by Oxford University researchers, observe that troll efforts targeted specific groups, including African-Americans, right-wing conservatives, and L.G.B.T. people. Their messaging to likely Democratic voters seemed aimed at discouraging voting altogether; messaging to conservatives was purely incendiary and trafficked primarily in the fear of immigrants. They also observe that the trolls amplified messages that were already circulating among these audiences. Indeed, the trolls’ messaging solidified before Trump emerged as the front-runner, and their activities intensified after the election. A lot of what the trolls did seemed to have no political import at all—it was noise, from which the authors of the reports isolate certain comprehensible messages. But, to a large extent, pure noise was the point.

In a book called “How Propaganda Works,” from 2015, the Yale philosopher Jason Stanley identifies and debunks two common assumptions about propaganda: that “a propagandistic claim must be false” and that “a propagandistic claim must be made insincerely.” As the New Knowledge report notes, some of the trolls’ claims weren’t false, and some, on the face of them, were unproblematic. It can also be said that the trolls’ memes and posts weren’t proffered insincerely—in a world where nothing is sincere, nothing is insincere, either. Everything is noise.

It would be a remarkable coincidence indeed if Trump just happened to employ the exact same strategy as the Russian intelligence operation that he claims never existed and was just a hoax (only to then contradict himself and claim the opposite).
 
The question of obstruction of justice is still open and looks like a very probable charge. The problem is that the obstruction could have actually worked. The reason they may not be able to prove conspiracy or "collusion", if you will, is because the obstruction worked.

Excellent point.

This is exactly how conspiracy theories work. All facts are evidence and all missing facts is evidence of a cover up.

You do know what obstruction of justice is, don't you? It's engaging in activities to hide that there have been crimes or other wrongdoing hidden from the law. Are you saying such obstruction could not be successful, especially when the ring leader has the power to pardon those guilty of the obstruction?
 
D4Snk12XoAIR4xQ.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom