Live data from Hacker News

Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

bbc.com

331–340 of 371 posts

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#331
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theory behind SSM seems well thought out. And it's fun to extend in the obvious ways. For instance, what if a SSM (an 'essessum', as they are often referred to in the technical literature) is orchestrating a campaign to write comments insinuating astroturfery into HN threads? After all, taken as a group such comments look very much like the kind of commentary a nefarious corporate or state actor might promote, as…

As someone looking to learn more, can you suggest any specific technical literature on the topic that digs further into this?

I'm just being overly self-satisfied with the idea a shadowy army of shillologists and astoTERFs are diabolically manipulating HN by darkly warning about shilling and astroturfing for unknown but definitely nefarious ends.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#332
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except she was voted without cheating, never killed the opposition or controls all branches of government and media.

Voted by who? German chancellor is elected by Bundestag and not directly by the people. I guess in terms of USA that would be like Democrats and Republicans coming up with a president.

> I guess in terms of USA that would be like Democrats and Republicans coming up with a president.

That's totally normal, and happens in a lot of places. For instance, in Canada, you vote for your local representatives (MPs), the party that ends up with the most MPs (roughly speaking) gets their leader installed as Prime Minister. Then, of course, the Head of State is actually the Queen who's represented by the Governor General, who is in turn nominated by the Prime Minister.

None of that matters, of course, wrt: freedom.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#333
post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> countless hours looking at the data Will you provide that data for independent review? Edit: it's not that you shouldn't be trusted. The issue is the old “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” For example, what if a large segment of the user base, that regularly contributed extraordinarily positive engagements, existed solely for the opportunitie…

No, for the privacy reason pvg mentioned (edit: since deleted, but he made the simple point that it would violate users' privacy), and also for a different reason: it would convince no one. The only people with enough time and energy to bother looking at it would be people who already have strong views, and they would inevitably pull their preconceptions back out of the data and claim that they'd proven something. An…

It sounds like you’re saying you’re fine with users doing things like creating unlimited sock puppet accounts and engaging in vote manipulation (which is what the troll farms you’re describing as SSMs have been accused of doing)? I’m genuinely not trying to be snide here—I’m just reading “we won’t enforce the rules because someone’s probably smart enough to break them (i.e. ‘do whatever they want’) and get away with it”. Is it officially okay for HN users to engage in coordinated inauthentic behavior?

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having the "formula" for a chemical weapon in no way grants you the ability to manufacture it.

True. You need a facility equipped and capable of producing Novichok. Think of Porton Down, for example. Conveniently located just miles away from Salisbury.

Lol. The GRU agents who poisoned Skripal literally gave an interview where they claimed to be everyday Russian tourists before their IDs were blown.

Perhaps there's an innocent explanation why three GRU agents traveled to Salisbury multiple times, including the day that Skripal was poisoned but lied about their reason for being there, their identities, and their connection to the Russian military?

https://www.dw.com/en/second-skripal-poisoning-suspect-ident...

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#335
post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not referring to fake government-run polls. I am referring to polling agencies that are very west-leaning, and even they can't blatantly lie about it. His approval rating as of a month ago is 59-60% [1][2][3]. In fact his approval rating after the annexation of Crimea was at all time high of 85%. Check the sources. Again, these are not government-run polls. Lots of good data on it (thanks to google): https://www…

Polling in developed democracies has errors of a few percentage points, even with extensive work done to improve the accuracy of the results, correct for various sampling biases, etc. What do you think the error bars of a poll in an authoritarian country are, especially one that asks 'Do you like the authoritarian leader'. As to Crimea, plenty of Russians believe Crimea is Russian, including Navalny - the Russian opp…

So you guys don’t trust the polls results because polls in Russia are obviously inaccurate. You also don’t trust the Russians who said that from their experience, there’s still a huge number of people supporting the current president - because that’s only the Kremlin bots who would say that. Though for some reason you immediately believe a person who says that the majority of population is against Putin, not providing a single proof. Doesn’t that tell us that you actually speak with voices in your head and trust only what these voices say?

There’s a thing that you should understand about Russia.

Here it goes: Russia is a huge country and Moscow is only a part of it. A small and the richest part. Moscow is basically a country inside the country. It has almost nothing to do with Russia. And the overwhelming majority of the information you are getting is coming from Moscow only.

The polls, the internet blabbering, the protests happen in Moscow, mostly (do notice that I said “mostly” before calling me a liar. I’m well aware of the exceptions, believe me). All of the money is there as well - all the cash flow through the capital. All the money from regions flow through Moscow and only a small portion of it goes back.

People from Moscow mostly look down upon the people from the regions. Consciously or not. Some of them are outright aggressive towards the “country folks”. Many of them believe that Moscow is “feeding the regions”, and it should stop, because people there are lazy and not smart enough. I’ve had conversations like this with Muscovites during my life there, it was hilarious.

The rest of the country is concentrated on their own lives. The majority of them earn something around $300USD a month that barely allows them to live from pay check to pay check. Teachers, doctors, you name it. That’s the salary of low-skilled workers in Moscow.

These people realise that changing the president won’t help them, but in fact might make their lives miserable. And they are not wrong - I can only imagine what may start after the change of leadership and what consequences for the regions it might have.

This country has its roots in the USSR. The change in the headquarters won’t replace the people in charge in the regions - at least it won’t happen immediately. And if/when it does, the majority of the replacement would be just the same people from the same ruling party (or what’s left of it). That’s how things work in Russia, that’s how it’s always been, since 1917. That’s the system that we have. That’s us, Russians, who are the system, and the president is only a small part of the problem.

The majority of Russians either don’t use Internet or use it for social networking only.

The majority of Russians don’t have an international passport (the document that allows you to travel abroad). Why would they? They will never have the money to travel.

The majority of Russians that I know, people from outside Moscow, vote for Putin. Some of them do that because they support him and the ruling party, but the most of them (as per my personal experience) just believe that he’s a lesser evil. I can’t blame them for that.

There’s more to that. What I’m trying to say here is - Russia is far more complex and diverse than you guys might think. It’s not very obvious even for many Russians. So please, don’t downvote people who say things that are against your agenda simply because of that fact. Their reasoning might be more subtle than you think.

What you might want to do to better understand them is to ask them. They know better than you about the situation over there, the historical reasons and consequences. The only thing that you probably need to ask them first is where are they from. If they are from Moscow, chances are they are biased.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#336
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia’s economy is smaller than Canada’s and per capita it’s citizens are poorer than Poles. Russia is not a world power and hasn’t been for a while.

They still have nuclear weapons. And they have enough propaganda / hybrid war capability to get Trump elected. Maybe not a world superpower but dangerous nonetheless. I'm more interested in why Russia still tries to continue Cold War and fight the West. Contrary to what many Russians believe (or at least what they write online), West is not out to get them - other than to sell them shitty products made in China with…

As much as I abhor Putin, he sort of has a point, if you look at the geopolitical history since the breakup of the Soviet Union. At the time, the US and western Europe were quick to bring many of the former republics into their fold, then into NATO (despite promising not to do so), which Putin sees as an affront and a threat to Russia's sovereignty, which in turn is why he finally invaded Ukraine (twice!) as well as Georgia: He will not tolerate NATO at his doorstep.

As for why Putin still sees the West as the enemy, I don't think we can analyze Putin outside the context of the Soviet Union. He doesn't quite want to bring it back, but it's abundantly clear from his statements that he's never abandoned the idea that Russia has a claim to Eastern Europe (if not outright as its ruler, then certainly as a cultural protector), that he sees Western culture as encroaching on Russia's. From his perspective the West is out to get Russia. That's a legitimate geopolitical concern, of course; all states desire to protect their sovereignty and sphere of influence. What's unusual is that Russia has been able to wield so much military and cultural power relative to its small size, which is why we're even talking about it. I think it's incredibly scary just how much better Putin is at playing this game than the seemingly gullible Western powers.

Where it gets tricky is Putin's other side as a cold-hearted authoritarian gangster keeping a tenuous network of equally gangster oligarchs in place. If Russia ever becomes democratic and its judicial system restored, Putin would end up going the way of Saddam Hussein. (He's not going to get the Idi Amin treatment.) So you can't see Putin's political moves exclusively through the lens of statesmanship either; in choosing to be a ruthless kleptocrat, he's ruled out the possibility of a peaceful succession, and that's yet another complex factor driving the fate of Russia.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#337
post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, for the privacy reason pvg mentioned (edit: since deleted, but he made the simple point that it would violate users' privacy), and also for a different reason: it would convince no one. The only people with enough time and energy to bother looking at it would be people who already have strong views, and they would inevitably pull their preconceptions back out of the data and claim that they'd proven something. An…

It sounds like you’re saying you’re fine with users doing things like creating unlimited sock puppet accounts and engaging in vote manipulation (which is what the troll farms you’re describing as SSMs have been accused of doing)? I’m genuinely not trying to be snide here—I’m just reading “we won’t enforce the rules because someone’s probably smart enough to break them (i.e. ‘do whatever they want’) and get away with…

Absolutely not. We're not fine with those things and we ban people for astroturfing and other abuses. I believe that is the one thing that's in both the site guidelines and the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html. That's how important that is.

It's just that we need to have some evidence, something objective to go on, before we ban people. Absent that (absent that), what one is encountering on the internet is a gigantic Rohrschach diagram, in which people routinely see the opposite of what they like or identify with. This internet experience is like being surrounded by demons of one's own creation: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

Sock puppet accounts and vote manipulation are not what I understood BrianOnHN to be talking about upthread. Maybe one could adapt the point to those cases though. Imagine someone who was coordinating inauthentic behavior so cleverly that we couldn't detect it at all. Fortunately I don't think we're there yet—but of course we wouldn't know it if we were. Either way, just imagine for a moment that this is the case. What are our options? The way I see it, we have two:

1. Go after each other based on subjective interpretations of whatever deviousness we imagine we see;

2. Have a functioning community with a healthy immune system based on clear thinking and responding to bad arguments with better arguments.

Surely we all choose #2, at least in our better moments. The key insight here is that #2 doesn't depend on what manipulators, even the cleverest manipulators, do. It depends on us. I'm not saying that it's the only defense we have against manipulation; I'm saying that if the day ever comes when it is the only defense we have, well, it's what we ought to be doing anyway, so we should work at getting good at it now.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#338
post #335
post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polling in developed democracies has errors of a few percentage points, even with extensive work done to improve the accuracy of the results, correct for various sampling biases, etc. What do you think the error bars of a poll in an authoritarian country are, especially one that asks 'Do you like the authoritarian leader'. As to Crimea, plenty of Russians believe Crimea is Russian, including Navalny - the Russian opp…

So you guys don’t trust the polls results because polls in Russia are obviously inaccurate. You also don’t trust the Russians who said that from their experience, there’s still a huge number of people supporting the current president - because that’s only the Kremlin bots who would say that. Though for some reason you immediately believe a person who says that the majority of population is against Putin, not providin…

Well, thanks for explaining Russia to me (I'm one person though, not guys) but nothing you've written suggests we have accurate data on the support Putin enjoys. In fact, 'support' of the sort we typically think of, expressed in a poll for a democratically elected leader subject to periodic free and fair elections, is not really a commensurable quantity with 'support' for an authoritarian leader who's clung to power for a couple of decades.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#339
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment breaks the site guidelines: " Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Sinister insinuation about astroturfing is the internet's favorite pastime. The overwhelming…

This is such a cop out. So there is no consistent astroturfing but there is a significant contingent of Pro-Putin posters who support assassinations with Nerve Agents who largely work in the tech-sphere? I find that hard to believe... Where are the results of your so called hours of analysis? What qualifies you to even do that analysis? You really think you are sophisticated enough to sniff out GRU operatives?

I don't think that wording is very accurate, but certainly there is a wide range of geopolitical opinion among real, legitimate HN users. There's no question about it—anyone who wants to pore over just the public history of commenters here can easily establish this. Besides that, it would be bizarre if it weren't the case. Why should the disagreements and conflicts that pervade the world somehow be absent here?

That's my point, in fact. The spectrum of legitimate opinion is much wider than people imagine it is. When they encounter views which don't belong on their much-smaller imaginary spectrum, they don't go "wow, I wonder what your background is that you would see this so differently than I do!", they go "Shill! Manipulator spy! Putin poison puppet! GRU agent!" and similar variations.

Here's another version of this comment from a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23867707. That was in the different context of China not Russia, but the internet dynamics in all these cases are exactly the same—which, btw, is strong evidence that they're not really about what people say they are.

I didn't say there was "no consistent astroturfing", but rather that (a) we've found no evidence of it (on geopolitical topics—corporate propaganda is a different issue) and (b) there needs to be evidence of it before taking action against it. I've been posting this for years—alas it's not clear that it has any effect. This is starting to feel a tad Sisyphean.

Are we the best at finding evidence, or even particularly qualified? How would I know? I'd never claim we were. But surely you're not arguing that we should take action without finding evidence, and the argument, "get better at finding evidence until you find the evidence that I'm sure must be there" is pretty questionable too. This way of thinking leads into the wilderness of mirrors. There are much simpler explanations for everything we see in the comments on China, Russia, unions (that one came up today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24344699) and whatever else people are battling about in HN threads.

Re: Russia opposition leader poisoned with Novichok

#340
post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't really make any wild assumptions. Your explanation on the other hand is basically "it's Russia, because I don't like Russia" (without really acknowledging that there is no single "Russia" that kills ex-spies and invades Danish waters: there are multiple different people and agencies, with different intentions and modes of operation) which is exactly what would anybody trying to set up "Russia" (or anybody) w…

And your explanation on the other hand is basically "it's not Russia, because I like Putin". There were dozens of illogical things Russian government did for decades, and killing opponents (or just innocent people) is among them.

At first I was almost outraged at how you blatantly attribute to me something that is absolutely impossible to actually extract from what I was saying, but then I read comment history of this throwaway account of yours and understood that it is pointless to try to explain you anything: you are either completely brainwashed, or trying to do some brainwashing. So, whatever.
Post reply on HN