Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but they do so selectively for what's against their interest. The net, filtered result is what's in their interest. That leaves "mutual assured dialogue destruction" as the only option, IMO.
> Yes, but they do so selectively for what's against their interest. Generating division is sufficient. There were Russian attempts to hack both campaigns in the last US election.[1] [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-sancti...
These factions are more likely to be beholden to their "troll benefactors" afterwards. But even if they turn out to be ungrateful, the extremism itself is worth pursuing. As you said, confusion and division are useful in their own right.
Add other rogue countries to the mix, and you end up with a nasty filter. We should turn it into white noise, or at least drop its SNR.