What did the Russians actually do in 2016? (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

I’ve seen the Russian influence on the 2016 election being dismissed and downplayed by our Conservatives on this board. Then I saw this today. It’s a really good look at the types of things they were doing and how they affected voting patterns.

After Russian trolls target black Americans, one city fights back — The Christian Science Monitor

Black activists point to a long history of people interfering with African Americans’ right to vote. In 2016, that meddling came from overseas.

apple.news

Relevant quote:


“About two-thirds of Russian activity on Facebook and other social media platforms seeking to influence the 2016 election was aimed at black Americans, according to a new Senate Intelligence Committee report. And at least one of the Moscow-linked trolls was focusing on Charlotte.

The internet campaign appeared designed to convince African Americans, who traditionally favor Democrat candidates, that it was not worth voting – at least not for Hillary Clinton. It was built on false messages such as “HILLARY RECEIVED $20,000 DONATION FROM KKK FOR HER CAMPAIGN.”

It is impossible to gauge the campaign’s precise impact. But in 2016, African American voter turnout was 7% lower than in 2012, the largest such drop on record. It was even steeper in North Carolina, one of the six swing states in which President Donald Trump eked out narrow victories en route to winning the Electoral College.”

I think it’s important for everyone to realize what was done in 2016 and not speak dismissively about it. In 2016 the Russians may have enabled Trump to win, but they could decide tomorrow that a Sanders victory or a Warren victory would better suit their goals of dividing the country and causing turmoil. And the lack of due diligence from the current Administration will have been largely responsible.

I wish our elected representatives, particularly in the Senate, would quit being afraid of offending Trump’s ego and get serious about what the Russians did. It’s hard to imagine them doing that, however, when they are following Trump’s lead and parroting Russian intelligence disinformation.

 

[not2rich]

Well, the joke's on Putin then because we are smarter than that.

Are we?

 

[not2rich]

We should absolutely be countering Russia, but they are not the real source of our problems IMO.

Our problems are larger than Russia, for sure, but can you tell me what we are doing to counter Russia? Because as far as I can tell, we're doing next to nothing.

 

[Beach Friends]

Are we?

Two at once.

 

[not2rich]

Two at once.

Meaning? I'm not as smart as you are, so spell it out for me.

 

[Beach Friends]

Meaning? I'm not as smart as you are, so spell it out for me.

Hah, just admiring your avatar.

 

[SaintForLife]

I’ve seen the Russian influence on the 2016 election being dismissed and downplayed by our Conservatives on this board. Then I saw this today. It’s a really good look at the types of things they were doing and how they affected voting patterns.

After Russian trolls target black Americans, one city fights back — The Christian Science Monitor

Black activists point to a long history of people interfering with African Americans’ right to vote. In 2016, that meddling came from overseas.

apple.news

Relevant quote:


“About two-thirds of Russian activity on Facebook and other social media platforms seeking to influence the 2016 election was aimed at black Americans, according to a new Senate Intelligence Committee report. And at least one of the Moscow-linked trolls was focusing on Charlotte.

The internet campaign appeared designed to convince African Americans, who traditionally favor Democrat candidates, that it was not worth voting – at least not for Hillary Clinton. It was built on false messages such as “HILLARY RECEIVED $20,000 DONATION FROM KKK FOR HER CAMPAIGN.”

It is impossible to gauge the campaign’s precise impact. But in 2016, African American voter turnout was 7% lower than in 2012, the largest such drop on record. It was even steeper in North Carolina, one of the six swing states in which President Donald Trump eked out narrow victories en route to winning the Electoral College.”

I think it’s important for everyone to realize what was done in 2016 and not speak dismissively about it. In 2016 the Russians may have enabled Trump to win, but they could decide tomorrow that a Sanders victory or a Warren victory would better suit their goals of dividing the country and causing turmoil. And the lack of due diligence from the current Administration will have been largely responsible.

I wish our elected representatives, particularly in the Senate, would quit being afraid of offending Trump’s ego and get serious about what the Russians did. It’s hard to imagine them doing that, however, when they are following Trump’s lead and parroting Russian intelligence disinformation.

It's interesting that the name New Knowledge pops up again. They are the data firm that the Senate Intelligence Community used for their report in the article you linked.

It's the same New Knowledge firm that was caught using Russia like tactics to help influence the Alabama Senate race.

As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.

Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics (Published 2018)

A project to help the Democratic contender, Doug Jones, in his closely contested race against Roy Moore used deception on Facebook and Twitter.

www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org

This thread has some revealing background on New Knowledge:

 

[not2rich]

It's interesting that the name New Knowledge pops up again. They are the data firm that the Senate Intelligence Community used for their report in the article you linked.

It's the same New Knowledge firm that was caught using Russia like tactics to help influence the Alabama Senate race.

As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.

Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics (Published 2018)

A project to help the Democratic contender, Doug Jones, in his closely contested race against Roy Moore used deception on Facebook and Twitter.

www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org

This thread has some revealing background on New Knowledge:

You said you find the above interesting. How so?

 

[UriUT]

I think it is interesting that members of this online community are certain that the Russians were able to influence opinions online, when we all know that the PDB existed for years without a single opinion being changed on any subject. Are the Russians really that better at internetting than we are?

Interesting comment. So if someone can prove that an opinion was changed on this board, you will admit that Russian efforts can and did work? I'll refer you to Jim and his comment somewhere on the board that Oye changed his views on how corporations can negatively affect the decision making of local governments, particularly on Detroit.

I did a little digging and it wasnt hard to find:

I will watch it later, but my suspicions are that it is going to be something I have seen before.

There was this guy I used to read on a message board and he went by the name Oye. We were discussing the decline of Detroit and he made the observation that Detroit faltered in large part because it did the bidding, almost universally, of the corporations that dominated the city: auto companies and suppliers.

I thought it was an interesting point and did some minor investigating it, and I think what he said is true. I suspect that might be similar to what this video will say.

 

[MT15]

I think it is interesting that members of this online community are certain that the Russians were able to influence opinions online, when we all know that the PDB existed for years without a single opinion being changed on any subject. Are the Russians really that better at internetting than we are?

False assumption, friend. I received a pm from a member once that said what I posted had changed some of his views and made him rethink positions he had held without really thinking about them.

I have also had my mind changed by reading and considering other posters’ positions. Most recently, I have been educated on the problems with the FISA process and have come around to the notion that it either needs a complete overhaul or to be abolished. Thanks, JimEverett, for making me think about that.

 

[MT15]

I think the view being championed here by UriUt and MT15 relies on a view that some people are less sophisticated than they are.

This is not fair, Jim. It’s a pretty uncharitable view of everything I have been saying.

 

[JimEverett]

This is not fair, Jim. It’s a pretty uncharitable view of everything I have been saying.

Perhaps - but if the idea is that the historic nature of 2008 and 2012 did not increase enthusiasm and therefore drive higher black turnout while some Facebook posts depressed turnout in 2016 it seems like you are not giving people much credit.

 

[MT15]

okay, I hate to keep posting your graph over and over, but I don’t think you’re reading it correctly. Take a look at black voter turnout from 1996 to 2012, that’s a pretty straight line at a specific rate of increase, or slope. There is actually nothing about 2008 that makes it stand out of the norm for the trend that was started in 1996. It shows a constant rate of increase, beginning in 1996. If you want to nitpick, you can say that 2012 shows a slight decrease in the rate of increase that started in 1996. Then in 2016 everything turns the other way. Not only less than 2008, but even slightly less than 2004. It’s a big move, just using the eyeball test. I’m no statistician, so I’m open to someone who is better at these things helping out here, but your idea that 2008 and 2012 are the outliers and that 2016 wasn’t a significant change just doesn’t wash.

If you don’t think people are influenced by listening to people identified as leaders in a movement, whether they are self-identified leaders or not, I’m not sure what else to say. To what extent people were influenced is pretty much unknown, but people were influenced. People are being influenced. People by nature are social beings. They listen to what other people say and change their minds. If they didn’t, there are entire industries that would collapse.

 

[samiam5211]

okay, I hate to keep posting your graph over and over, but I don’t think you’re reading it correctly. Take a look at black voter turnout from 1996 to 2012, that’s a pretty straight line at a specific rate of increase, or slope. There is actually nothing about 2008 that makes it stand out of the norm for the trend that was started in 1996. It shows a constant rate of increase, beginning in 1996. If you want to nitpick, you can say that 2012 shows a slight decrease in the rate of increase that started in 1996. Then in 2016 everything turns the other way. Not only less than 2008, but even slightly less than 2004. It’s a big move, just using the eyeball test. I’m no statistician, so I’m open to someone who is better at these things helping out here, but your idea that 2008 and 2012 are the outliers and that 2016 wasn’t a significant change just doesn’t wash.

If you don’t think people are influenced by listening to people identified as leaders in a movement, whether they are self-identified leaders or not, I’m not sure what else to say. To what extent people were influenced is pretty much unknown, but people were influenced. People are being influenced. People by nature are social beings. They listen to what other people say and change their minds. If they didn’t, there are entire industries that would collapse.

Jim seems to think hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars are spent each election cycle because Pacs love waste money.

 

[Soundwave]

False assumption, friend. I received a pm from a member once that said what I posted had changed some of his views and made him rethink positions he had held without really thinking about them.

I have also had my mind changed by reading and considering other posters’ positions. Most recently, I have been educated on the problems with the FISA process and have come around to the notion that it either needs a complete overhaul or to be abolished. Thanks, JimEverett, for making me think about that.

My positions on plenty of things have changed due to the PDB. But in most instances it took months and years of observation and discussion. Never a single item on Facebook (I never believe a single thing I see there, and I wish all other would follow suit.)

 

[MT15]

You are correct, it’s probably never a single post. It’s cumulative, but we know that they’ve been doing it for years. There were trolls claiming to be American activists with pretty large followings.

FWIW, I think (hope) the worst is past, and that enough people are aware now of the attempts to influence that their effects are lessened. Of course, everyone knows someone in their family that lacks the skeptic gene and just believes everything they see.