71–80 of 111 posts
$100k is too small to seriously influence something, but to measure flamebait level of various topics via CTR etc, it should be enough.
Also explains why they didn't hide.
Seems right out of Foundations of Geopolitics [1]. > Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – ex…
Somewhat tangential, but does anyone know why Russia likes the word "geopolitics" so much? Does it mirror a Russian word with a similar meaning? In my experience, it's used so much by Russian propaganda sources and so rarely elsewhere that it serves as a good fingerprint of the Kremlin's influence. If someone uses it, I know there's a good chance that either they're Russian (and read Russian news) or that they read/w…
Main questions and comments that strike me when I see the $100,000 amount is: With Clinton spending $141.7 million and Trump spending $58.8 million on advertising, does that miniscule amount even matter? What was even the CTR with those advertisements? Is there even anything wrong with any country or person(s) doing that or trying to do that since we already have Super PACs and lobbyists? I have more thoughts that ar…
I believe the number of voters in key districts needed to swing the electoral college to Clinton was in the tens of thousands. If it was targeted perfectly (which of course is impossible), that's almost two dollars a person that needed to be influenced. How many Facebook ads impressions does that buy per person? While I think it's unlikely that anyone could have accurately targeted to that degree, it does put into pe…
So far, everyone I've asked has told me that they didn't. I can't find one person who admits they were influenced by memes or the click bait articles.
I'm sure a few people did have their views changed by them, but I suspect the number was vanishingly small. It's nice to find an easy reason and shuffle the blame elsewhere, but I think the election results can be squarely blamed on America.
Really, ask around. I've tried all sorts of variations on the question, and wasn't usually as blunt as I was when I asked you. It's not even really gerrymandering, at least for POTUS. Those are pretty straight districts.
No, we are pretty much entirely responsible for our election results. A good portion of the country still feels this is a good thing. If it helps, I did not vote for the winning candidate.
Sounds like a surprisingly detailed scenario they've been able to reconstruct based on just $100k of ad spend. It's funny the Russians didn't funnel the money through US based organizations to cover their tracks, it's almost like whoever did this wanted to be discovered. But gosh, why would that be?
I wonder if the United States under the Obama admin (with Secretary Clinton) tried to influence Russian elections. Maybe this is some personal score settling between HRC and Putin. That said, I support better relations with Russia.
This started as "Russia hacked the election" and now we are talking about Russia taking out ads in support of BLM claiming its a psyop? At what point do people just accept the fact that Trump won a democratic election, racists voting or not. The actual campaigns took out billions of $ in ads and campaign ads are never honest, accurate or logical. Who cares about $100k in Russian ads?
>This started as "Russia hacked the election" and now we are talking about I guess you missed the news about their attempted and successful intrusions into state election databases?
I did miss the news where Russians successfully manipulated results in those databases. Can you provide me some links, please?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you hold the same view when the PM of Canada urged Americans to vote for Obama and went on TV to endorse him?
How is that even remotely similar to a covert psyops campaign by an enemy nation? Totally ridiculous to make the comparison.
This started as "Russia hacked the election" and now we are talking about Russia taking out ads in support of BLM claiming its a psyop? At what point do people just accept the fact that Trump won a democratic election, racists voting or not. The actual campaigns took out billions of $ in ads and campaign ads are never honest, accurate or logical. Who cares about $100k in Russian ads?
I don't see that as the issue here.
If there's a plane crash in the US, there is an exhaustive effort to identify the failures and improve policies and technology so it doesn't get repeated. Trump sees any audit or investigation into the election as a personal attack on him. I see any feet-dragging as a personal attack on US sovereignty, which is what he was elected to protect.
I get that lots of the 5/6 of America who didn't vote for Trump want some way to nullify the vote. I don't think it's healthy for the country (just like Gore in 2000 decided not to file additional lawsuits to extend the inevitable) to pretend like there is a viable path to overturning the election results.
I want and audit (of the election systems, election financing, and election-season media buys) and accountability for the failures of our overfunded and underperforming intelligence community + military cyber command. And I want some recommendations for policy changes and ideas about how to make sure the plebs are more media literate in the future.
We are slightly amused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're American (USA)? How often do you get outraged about your country's government interfering with OTHER country's elections?
...all the time? This line of questioning comes up a lot as the ultimate gotcha, but the people upset about Russian meddling today are also the ones most likely to be upset about American meddling in the past.
So what would a world in which countries don't influence each other look like? When people have common interests, it's natural for them to try to push each other one way or the other. So there would have to be strict trade restrictions between countries to isolate their interests. We would probably have to get rid of the UN or any other global entity like the World Bank. We would have to severely restrict immigration so people didn't come to a country and try to influence its politics from the outside. Also we would probably have to end the whole idea of a multinational corporation and ensure that every business inside a country was local. Basically reverse the entire process of globalization that has led to this point.
But most of the people upset about Russian influence are also pro-globalization, so I don't quite get it. They're not complaining about the lack of disclosure but rather the whole idea of foreign influence on politics. How can you move forward with globalization and also stop every country from influencing another's politics?