Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

theprint.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 309 posts

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#211

Post by jstarfish »

mc32 wrote: post #161
joecot wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans have been so indoctrinated to the idea that every issue must have two sides who should be equally considered, that when we have issues where one side is the obvious aggressor completely in the wrong, they don't know how to comprehend it. Our media has made everything a debate game because it gets viewers, and it's rotting people's ability to actually figure out what the right side of an issue is. There is n…

This is wrong. You are saying, this is so established that entertaining any alternative is wrongheaded. No. That's not how it works. We need dissent even in the middle of battle. We need to re-asses and continuously examine what we hold true to ensure it is still true. People are not gods. We can be in the wrong. This echoes GWBushe's you're either with us, or you're against us. It's a made up dichotomy.

> We need dissent even in the middle of battle. We need to re-asses and continuously examine what we hold true to ensure it is still true.

Tacticians act on Intelligence. Dissent is not Intelligence.

Dissent is so toxic it is literally weaponized to cripple an adversary with indecision and domestic unrest. It is the militarization of gaslighting.

It's not something you want arising mid-campaign, especially when (as in this case) its proponents are entirely fictional.

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#212

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

dontlaugh wrote: post #73
bergenty wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate Putin and his regime in Russia right now but Ukraine (atleast from the pictures I’m seeing) seems to be overrun with explicitly neo nazi groups. In my ideal scenario they both take each out without effecting the actual EU.

The problem with them taking each other out is the millions of innocents they’d kill along the way. The only good outcome is a peace agreement.

Unfortunately that was tried post Crimea and didn't work.

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#213

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

viridian wrote: post #208
Xeoncross wrote: post #51

Recently, I've realized I'm talking with a more bots here on HN. I'll read a weird reply to someones comment shaming them and praising China/Russia/etc..., look at the poster, and realize their account was just created and often gets flagged and taken down. HN is an ideal place to hit the minds of very influential people. Reddit is the place to hit very influenceable people.

> HN is an ideal place to hit the minds of very influential people This level of self importance seems unwarranted, IMO. The readership almost certainly wields a teeny, tiny fraction of influence of say, the Economist or the WSJ.

Indeed. There's far more attention paid to the FT et al than here (which is great, tbh).

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#214

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #94

It is not a surprise. Ukraine propaganda is spectacular in terms of reach and effectiveness. Frankly, both US, Russia and China are likely taking notes. Even mild indication of pro-Russia stance ( say, spelling Kiev the wrong way ) might result in heavy pile on depending on the forum. I don't like it and I am not fond of Russia. However, I have learned to accept we now share public spaces with various interests that…

I mean, it's an easy sell too. Smaller country gets invaded and resists heroically is a pretty good story, regardless of anything else.

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#215

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

kaba0 wrote: post #195
throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The west probably could have avoided (or maybe just delayed) this war if they had taken steps X" is some the nuance you could add to your statements. Simple example of X would be stating Ukraine was never going to be part of NATO. More complicated example would be if Europe prioritized energy independence from Russia putting in a weaker position. An example that loops in nuclear power debate, one which likely could…

I still see zero reason for Russia to start a war against a sovereign country with a democratically elected leader. It’s like saying that the other classmates didn’t let the bully copy their homework so he is right in beating the everliving shit out of a completely different kid.

> It’s like saying that the other classmates didn’t let the bully copy their homework so he is right in beating the everliving shit out of a completely different kid.

Is this the only way that situation gets resolve or are there any alternatives? Why is the kid a bully? Why does he feel the need to copy homework? Maybe the classmates should group together and seriously injury the bully first, would they be in the right if they did so? How do you know the bully will actually harm the kid and doesn't just want to scare him?

You can make any situation a simple good-evil answer by drawing arbitrary boundaries around the situation. The propaganda this thread is mentioning enforces those boundaries and potentially prevents people from discussing the real underlying problems. Doesn't mean the outcome or conclusion is any different.

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#216

Post by Xeoncross »

poisonborz wrote: post #189
Xeoncross wrote: post #51

Recently, I've realized I'm talking with a more bots here on HN. I'll read a weird reply to someones comment shaming them and praising China/Russia/etc..., look at the poster, and realize their account was just created and often gets flagged and taken down. HN is an ideal place to hit the minds of very influential people. Reddit is the place to hit very influenceable people.

The HN crowd is just too small to be worth the manipulation. This is still really the thing that shields this space. In the grand scheme of things, why would be the crowd of engineers and middle managers more important than any other demographic.

I think you might be downplaying who actually reads hacker news. I cannot think of a company who's primary makers are not represented here. Everything I've used from vector programs to database engines have a lead developer or business person here. There are a lot of people making outsized impacts commenting on HN.

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#218

Post by thriftwy »

viro wrote: post #191
thriftwy wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are genuine graves with genuine dead people inside and genuine crosses above them, often trying to describe the contents, such as "17 Ukrainian soldiers".

BUCHA? do these look like soldiers to you? https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/8b286707d5df49... edit: source = https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-2c77447fda4...

I don't think I'm qualified to comment about their actual contents, but it seems that these (soldiers and victims of the war) graveyards were described in Russian telegram war channels in spring already.

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#219

Post by wyager »

igorkraw wrote: post #164
wyager wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one side is the obvious aggressor completely in the wrong If your model of any political situation resembles a moralizing children's cartoon, 99% chance you are a mark, incapable of identifying propaganda. > it's rotting people's ability to actually figure out what the right side of an issue is 99.9% of issues in the population of issues we ever think about do not have a clear right answer, because if they did we w…

Okay, so what is your take on the issues GP identified? Or is the only conclusion you can arrive at "it's complicated"? GP made the very salient point that some things are clearly bad . Blind clinging to the idea that everything has two sides is just as simplistic as thinking everything can be viewed from a perspective which is just as moral as every other. Except maybe even more so, because at least the moral simpli…

> so what is your take on the issues GP identified

I refuse to discuss it here, because much of the site's userbase seems incapable of having an even slightly nuanced political discussion, and I will possibly get a nasty comment from moderation accusing me of flame-baiting or something.

The best I can do it argue for epistemic humility, because at least people generally find that abstractly palatable.

> "Putin and other authoritarian strong men are worse than democratically elected politician ... the industrial output of Russia"

If your benchmark of how good a political system is is just its industrial output, China's anti-democratic system is better than Western systems. I can't even disagree with your argument, because it's not internally consistent.

Re: 60-80% of Tweeters posting on Russia-Ukraine war are bots, 90% pro Ukraine

#220

Post by wyager »

sangnoir wrote: post #201
throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The west probably could have avoided (or maybe just delayed) this war if they had taken steps X" is some the nuance you could add to your statements. Simple example of X would be stating Ukraine was never going to be part of NATO. More complicated example would be if Europe prioritized energy independence from Russia putting in a weaker position. An example that loops in nuclear power debate, one which likely could…

> Simple example of X would be stating Ukraine was never going to be part of NATO What makes you certain that this was going to prevent the invasion? Russia gave a number of pretexts for the invasion, some unrelated to NATO: De-nazification of Ukraine, protecting Russian-speakers within Ukraine, among many others. > Russian being the bad guy doesn't make conflict inevitable. Oh, so you prefer the Chamberlain-style "P…

> Russia gave a number of pretexts for the invasion

Why would you pay attention to these, except as an exercise in PR strategy analysis?

Post reply on HN