Live data from Hacker News

Coverage of a Disinformation Operation Against 2019 EU Parliamentary Elections

labsblog.f-secure.com

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: Coverage of a Disinformation Operation Against 2019 EU Parliamentary Elections

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's very clever, and I'm sure the ~42 people who get to see the entire stream of tweets will be very persuaded by it. And since most of those people work in media, it may even lead to an article which might be read by a few thousand people. Don't get me wrong: I think online "propaganda" can be effective - just not on Twitter, because of its scale and primary audience. But because Twitter is more transparent it ge…

You mention 42, then a thousand, and then we're talking real effects. Twitter gets analyzed by professional analysts. It also gets digested without any analysis by its users.

Kind of a fun “internet troll butterfly effect” thought experiment. However, using the same logic any small “flutter” in the other direction would be enough to cancel out the “real effects” and make them moot.

Re: Coverage of a Disinformation Operation Against 2019 EU Parliamentary Elections

#42

To answer the question at the end of the post: probably none. As others have said, it's incredibly unlikely that a tweet is going to change your mind about anything. Having worked both in and out of the journalism industry, I know that journalists get a lot more worked up about what people say online than everyone else does. They think it matters a lot more than it does (probably why they got into the job of saying t…

I disagree.

You are right that normal people don't read Twitter.

But Twitter users read Twitter. And there are many of them. And they amplify what each other says, conspiracy theories, telephone game, and intentional disinformation alike.

And… eventually some of that disinformation reaches critical mass and graduates from the disinformation Petri dish of twitter.com and releases spores into the mindspace of journalists, "journalists", and normal people who happen to be on Twitter sometimes.

And then, having evolved into a truth-resistant strain, that disinformation spreads through Facebook, InfoWars, well-meaning television news outlets, and television news outlets owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, into memorable one-liners that reinforce one's own beliefs just enough to avoid application of even the hint of rational thought, which get tucked away in that special space of the mind used to store those juicy "gotchas" you're saving up for next Thanksgiving.

And come Thanksgiving, you use them – take that, Hillary-loving millennial nephew! And, you find out they're wrong, because of course they're wrong, they're ridiculous – why would Hillary Clinton be performing satanic rituals underneath a pizza place? – but it doesn't matter. You've spent the past year reinforcing your beliefs because you half-remembered that you heard somewhere a vague description that Hillary did this awful thing, and you told your friends and it reinforced their beliefs, because even if it made no sense to you, it was vague enough to make sense to them, and, well, she probably did something else terrible anyway, and in fact, your just buddy told you about how Wall Street is paying her to get rid of US borders. Sounds about right!

Re: Coverage of a Disinformation Operation Against 2019 EU Parliamentary Elections

#43
post #35
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't the FBI and the Mueller report pretty thoroughly lay out the massive scope of Russian social media influence on the 2016 election and beyond? I thought this was a decided issue but maybe I'm wrong.

The report is publicly available here. [1] This is mostly covered on pages ~22-26. Quite a short read since it's redacted like crazy. The 'massive influence' seems to have been a company that setup some fake accounts on Facebook with a total advertising spend of $100k, and one that also had a few thousand spam bots on Twitter that 1.4 million people had "been in contact with" - a phrase which was left undefined. [1]…

Thanks for the link, but it mostly disproves your dismissive attitude: according to the report, posts generated by accounts controller by the Russian company reached 29 million people on Facebook alone (and " may have reached an estimated 126 million people."), with hundreds of thousands of direct followers for several individual accounts. That is not nothing.

Re: Coverage of a Disinformation Operation Against 2019 EU Parliamentary Elections

#44
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing, I don't think everyone needs to view the entire stream of tweets from this "person" for this to be effective. You just need one person to latch on to it and start retweeting it. Then this person's friends see it and don't need much convincing...

I’m skeptical that has any material impact on the elections. Why do I think so? Because you can ask someone who holds different opinion than you about those subjects and you’ll know exactly why they vote the way to they do. You may not agree with it, but I really don’t think you’ll cling to the idea that they’ve been hypnotized by internet trolls.

Doesn't it depend on how close the election was to begin with? If it's very close, you may not need to move the needle very far to change the outcome.

Re: Coverage of a Disinformation Operation Against 2019 EU Parliamentary Elections

#45
post #8
post #3

That's interesting to analyze and everything, but it's surely inconsequential compared to what real people say and all their misinformation, rhetoric and general bias. What's the difference between a popular influencer with a public persona spreading politically biased stories and an faceless account doing the same thing? It sounds like they're looking for someone to blame for right wing candidates' success in the sa…

Didn't the FBI and the Mueller report pretty thoroughly lay out the massive scope of Russian social media influence on the 2016 election and beyond? I thought this was a decided issue but maybe I'm wrong.

Wasn't that thorough. ODNI report from 2017 was broader in scope (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf). The 2019 Mueller report looks restricted to areas where there was possible collusion (just some of the social media stuff that was retweeted by Trump campaign people/stuff related to the DNC hacks/etc.).

Re: Coverage of a Disinformation Operation Against 2019 EU Parliamentary Elections

#46
post #45
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't the FBI and the Mueller report pretty thoroughly lay out the massive scope of Russian social media influence on the 2016 election and beyond? I thought this was a decided issue but maybe I'm wrong.

Wasn't that thorough. ODNI report from 2017 was broader in scope ( https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf ). The 2019 Mueller report looks restricted to areas where there was possible collusion (just some of the social media stuff that was retweeted by Trump campaign people/stuff related to the DNC hacks/etc.).

This report might be interesting as well.

https://disinformationreport.blob.core.windows.net/disinform...

The two biggest caveats about it in my mind are that 1) all the data was provided voluntarily by the tech companies, with no indication of how they determined what was a Russian account, and 2) they don't really have any way to measure what actual impact it had on the election, or how effective the disinformation campaigns were

Re: Coverage of a Disinformation Operation Against 2019 EU Parliamentary Elections

#47
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report is publicly available here. [1] This is mostly covered on pages ~22-26. Quite a short read since it's redacted like crazy. The 'massive influence' seems to have been a company that setup some fake accounts on Facebook with a total advertising spend of $100k, and one that also had a few thousand spam bots on Twitter that 1.4 million people had "been in contact with" - a phrase which was left undefined. [1]…

Thanks for the link, but it mostly disproves your dismissive attitude: according to the report, posts generated by accounts controller by the Russian company reached 29 million people on Facebook alone (and " may have reached an estimated 126 million people."), with hundreds of thousands of direct followers for several individual accounts. That is not nothing.

It's not nothing, but it's interesting to note that the amount they spent is dwarfed by the amounts currently being spent by top democrats (and Trump's re-election campaign), several of which are in the low millions of dollars.

> According to Facebook, the IRA purchased over 3,500 advertisements, and the expenditures totaled (sic) approximately $100,000

I think everyone would like to know how much actual influence it had in the election but I'm not sure we will ever know definitively.

Re: Coverage of a Disinformation Operation Against 2019 EU Parliamentary Elections

#48

To answer the question at the end of the post: probably none. As others have said, it's incredibly unlikely that a tweet is going to change your mind about anything. Having worked both in and out of the journalism industry, I know that journalists get a lot more worked up about what people say online than everyone else does. They think it matters a lot more than it does (probably why they got into the job of saying t…

I disagree. You are right that normal people don't read Twitter. But Twitter users read Twitter. And there are many of them. And they amplify what each other says, conspiracy theories, telephone game, and intentional disinformation alike. And… eventually some of that disinformation reaches critical mass and graduates from the disinformation Petri dish of twitter.com and releases spores into the mindspace of journalis…

I don't entirely understand this 'butterfly' effect people like to claim in regards to things like this. Take for instance the most recent US election. Nearly 100% of the mainstream media was against the person who ended up being elected. This included nonstop negative coverage as well as polls, which we can now see were quite severely flawed, including one prominent source claiming he had less than a 1% chance of being elected [1] - something that could discourage voters. This seems to have had no effect, or even a paradoxically positive effect (for the person they were attempting to discredit).

In terms of scope, scale, and reach you're talking about the difference between a butterfly flapping its wings, and a nuclear weapon. And the butterfly is supposed to come out on top? I think many people simply lack the empathy to understand that people can see things in very different ways without in any way being misinformed, and so they look for explanations for why the other person 'must be wrong.'

For instance two things are both true: migration can help improve the economy and overall wealth of a nation; migration can hurt workers in affected fields within a nation. Instead people who are partisan focus exclusively on one side and simply pretend the other does not exist. This leads to an inability for people to grasp with why people would see things differently. It's because they intentionally avoid seeing the negative sides of their own views, or the positive sides of views they disagree with. So it leads to people mutually arguing that the other side only believes what they do because they're being lied to and manipulated, or alternatively - that they're idiots.

[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-p...

Re: Coverage of a Disinformation Operation Against 2019 EU Parliamentary Elections

#49
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report is publicly available here. [1] This is mostly covered on pages ~22-26. Quite a short read since it's redacted like crazy. The 'massive influence' seems to have been a company that setup some fake accounts on Facebook with a total advertising spend of $100k, and one that also had a few thousand spam bots on Twitter that 1.4 million people had "been in contact with" - a phrase which was left undefined. [1]…

Thanks for the link, but it mostly disproves your dismissive attitude: according to the report, posts generated by accounts controller by the Russian company reached 29 million people on Facebook alone (and " may have reached an estimated 126 million people."), with hundreds of thousands of direct followers for several individual accounts. That is not nothing.

You need to put things in context. Facebook sells advertising or "reach." Countless groups, and obviously the campaigns themselves, were spending millions on similar ads. $100k is going to provide a proportional level of influence, which is to say not much. The same thing is true on Twitter where you can buy followers from a wide array of third party sources. The main reason this is an issue is because of politics. It's Benghazi, 2016 version. That comparison is particularly apt as it's not to say nothing untoward happened - it obviously did. But the issue itself is/was amplified tremendously for partisan political purposes.

Re: Coverage of a Disinformation Operation Against 2019 EU Parliamentary Elections

#50

To answer the question at the end of the post: probably none. As others have said, it's incredibly unlikely that a tweet is going to change your mind about anything. Having worked both in and out of the journalism industry, I know that journalists get a lot more worked up about what people say online than everyone else does. They think it matters a lot more than it does (probably why they got into the job of saying t…

You should probably relay this information to those spending huge amounts in advertising.

I have a good friend who spends millions of dollars in advertising every year, and who is convinced that almost none of that has much impact on customer behaviour.

There are exceptions, of course, and advertising can be effective, but there is a lot of wasted money spent trying to persuade people of things.

Post reply on HN