Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Facebook Social Networks Twitter Politics

To Disrupt America's 2020 Elections, Russian Internet Trolls Amplify Divisive Messages, Assemble 'Massive' Followings (time.com) 331

An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg: Russian internet trolls appear to be shifting strategy in their efforts to disrupt the 2020 U.S. elections, promoting politically divisive messages through phony social media accounts instead of creating propaganda themselves, cybersecurity experts say. The Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency may be among those trying to circumvent protections put in place by companies including Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. to find and remove fake content that hackers created to sow division among the American electorate in the 2016 presidential campaign. "Instead of creating content themselves, we see them amplifying content," said John Hultquist, the director of intelligence analysis at FireEye Inc. "Then it's not necessarily inauthentic, and that creates an opportunity for them to hide behind somebody else."

Other hackers are breaking into computing devices and using them to open large numbers of social media accounts, according to Candid Wueest, a senior threat researcher at Symantec Corp. The hacked devices are used to create many legitimate-looking users as well as believable followers and likes for those fake users... Wueest said he observed a decrease in the creation of new content by fake accounts from 2017 to 2018 and a shift toward building massive followings that could be used as platforms for divisive messages in 2020.

Facebook's head of cybersecurity policy responded that policing foreign influence campaigns is "an incredibly hard balance" between the need to slow down bad actors while maintaining "meaningful public discussion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

To Disrupt America's 2020 Elections, Russian Internet Trolls Amplify Divisive Messages, Assemble 'Massive' Followings

Comments Filter:
  • by Quakeulf ( 2650167 ) on Monday March 11, 2019 @05:41AM (#58251438)
    I live in Norway. Russia is my neighbour. I have been to both USA and Russia. I see both as friends, and none as enemies. I don't get why these allegations should result in nuclear war (it seems that this is the goal of those who want to drive Russia against USA). If someone is meddling with your election, you take steps to fix your election. Exploits will be exploits, regardless.
    • by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

      Someone somewhere is profiting from this. Who? Well, I don't know.

      Fact is that people are so busy fracturing society into groups by defining common enemies and lumping enough people in them through strawmen arguments to make it look like an issue to be concerned about...

      I'm wondering where people take the energy to be outraged into all directions at all times.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday March 11, 2019 @07:37AM (#58251964) Homepage Journal

        Facebook profits, more time spent on their site. YouTube profits, more time spent watching cranks instead of the real news.

        Russia profits of course, from a weaker West and NATO.

      • I'm wondering where people take the energy to be outraged into all directions at all times.

        From the conspiracy theorist's perspective, that's the whole point. If you get everybody pissed off in several directions at once they have less energy available to fight for any given cause. A distracted, divided populace is much easier to manipulate and much less likely to rebel effectively - it's called "divide and conquer".

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Someone somewhere is profiting from this. Who? Well, I don't know.

        Donald Trump and Brexit, two high-profile right wing success stories that have been achieved with the help of fabricated and fear mongering "alternative facts", from Russia, with Love:

        - US foreign policy is in shambles and the country is as divided as ever, because Trump is a divisive person.
        - Britain has been de-facto paralyzed for years and will weaken the EU as a whole by the exit.
        - Both of these weaken the relations and cooperation between the USA and Europe, the western democratic alliances that form N

        • by tsa ( 15680 )

          Problem is: people who voted for Trump or Brexit don't think that far and will fall for the next populist idiot with the next elections.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Or perhaps the truth is that Russia really is meddling in the elections, or at least in public opinion. It's a time honoured tactic of many dictators aspiring to a larger role on the world stage (Erdogan employs similar tactics, for instance)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ilguido ( 1704434 )
        "Meddling", what does that even mean in plain english? I suppose that they are... mmh... doing stuff or something. Is Saudi Arabia "meddling"? Is Israel? What about corporations? Government agencies?

        It's McCarthy all over again.
        • "Meddling", what does that even mean in plain english? I suppose that they are... mmh... doing stuff or something. Is Saudi Arabia "meddling"? Is Israel? What about corporations? Government agencies? It's McCarthy all over again.

          Well, it's a scary sounding word (for those too young to remember Scooby Doo, lol) that conveniently doesn't require any actual laws to be broken or for that to be proven in a court of law.

          Roosky gang: "Now let's see who this witch really is!"

          Roosky gang: "Hillary????"

          Hillary: "And it would have worked too, if it weren't for you meddling Rooskies!"

        • "Meddling", what does that even mean in plain english?

          That they are attempting to influence the results of elections via efforts to change public opinion.

          Is Saudi Arabia "meddling"?

          Yes.

          Is Israel?

          Yes.

          What about corporations?

          Them too

          Government agencies?

          Technically illegal, but if they're careful they can influence public opinion too.

          What's new and different is the level of effort and sophistication Russia is employing, as well as their targets. The other meddlers attempt to co-opt the already powerful which does create a sort of balance via competing lobbying efforts. Russia's going after rank-and-file voters.

      • Of course they do, as a payback for the 1990s. Doesn't mean that some people don't try really hard to create a new cold war for fun and profit since they can't bomb Iraq anymore.

      • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Monday March 11, 2019 @07:22AM (#58251826)
        Oh I'm sure that Russia is meddling in the elections here. Just like every non-American with Internet access and an opinion on Trump/Clinton chipped in their 2 cents. Just like the U.S. meddles in elections elsewhere. People talk to each other, it's a fact of life. And in the Internet age that means they'll talk across national boundaries, even about stuff that they're technically not supposed to be talking about.

        If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate, the scale of it was so small (tens of thousands of dollars of ads in an election where Trump and Clinton spent over $1.8 billion [bloomberg.com], or nearly $14 per vote) that random people in other countries posting their opinion about the U.S. election on public forums, Facebook, etc. probably had a greater cumulative influence. The media keeps hyping the Russia angle because they feel they need to discredit the 2016 election. I mean if the media were right and a few dozen Russians spending on the order of six figures really swung the election, then every politician would be tripping over themselves to hire these guys to help them run their future ad campaigns.
        • Not to mention close to half the ads in that "campaign" had nothing to do with the election or were released after the election. It was really just a grab bag of various online trolling by that organization "linked" to Putin.
        • by Jaime2 ( 824950 )

          This isn't a very useful definition of "meddling". By this definition, someone who is an American but can't vote (e.g. has a felony is their past), and expresses a political opinion, is meddling.

          every politician would be tripping over themselves to hire these guys to help them run their future ad campaigns

          The things the Russians are accused of wouldn't be tolerated in American campaigns. That's actually one of the points of the Mueller investigation - if the Russians were working for the Trump campaign is did do some of the things that have been discussed, then someone is going to jail.

        • As a Canadian, it makes me especially angry to see US media and law enforcement agencies talk about foreign election influencing. I wonder exactly how they would respond if Canadian law enforcement started issues extradition orders for the thousands of American media personalities who thought it prudent to comment on our last federal election (and whose messages get FAR more visibility than some Russian facebook ads)?
        • It's important to remember that Russia only had to come up with the memes, and fake news. Those articles were snapped right up by the public at large and disseminated across platforms. Our people were more than happy to be part of the problem. And it is important to note that those ads show that they weren't just shilling for a candidate, but pushing any divisive issue they can find, on both sides of the political spectrum. What Russia wants from this is to be able to point at the west and laugh. They

        • If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate..
          Ah, I see: you believe Whitehouse press releases.
        • by Ksevio ( 865461 )

          If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate, the scale of it was so small (tens of thousands of dollars of ads ..

          Those are some of the early reports that the Republicans/Russians were pushing. The biggest issue wasn't the thousands of dollars of ads, it was the stuff in TFA. Just because campaigns spend money inefficiently, doesn't mean that more efficient methods don't work

        • I mean if the media were right and a few dozen Russians spending on the order of six figures really swung the election

          I don't think you quite understand just how close the 2016 election was, as well as how inexpensive Russian labor is.

          10,000 more people in Michigan show up to the polls, and Clinton wins. With turnout so low, there were plenty of people who did not vote who could have been part of that 10k.

          That's not to say Russia was entirely responsible - team Clinton could have overwhelmed the Russian efforts in Michigan if they hadn't ignored the state. But that statement doesn't mean the Russian efforts did not exist

          • This sounds like a post from CNN. A bunch of what-if's, followed by blaming the Russians. I'm open to the discussion but you have to somehow provide me 2 things to get me to even consider this scenario.

            1. Give me context. How many other countries 'meddle' in our election. If fake news and random facebook posts are attempts to 'hack' our election, then there is zero chance that only Russia was involved. Of course they are trying to influence our elections, virtually everyone is. If Saudi Arabia or France
            • A bunch of what-if's, followed by blaming the Russians.

              If you're going to discuss the effects that any particular group had on an election, you're going to have to discuss what would happen in the absence of those efforts.

              Give me context. How many other countries 'meddle' in our election

              You'll need some more specifics. Meddle specifically in elections? So far it's Russia. Meddle in our politics in general via lobbying and public relations campaigns? A shitload. That's why we have a lot of laws about things like registering as foreign lobbyist.

              Those efforts do spill over into elections, but elections are not themselves th

          • I agree. One point that I think gets overlooked is that with most polls predicting a seemingly easy Clinton win, I'd bet a whole lot of Clinton supporters didn't bother to vote. Maybe even 10,000 of them in Michigan.

            Trump supporters love to talk about how the "lying" polls tried to keep Trump voters away by claiming he didn't have a chance, but I suspect it hurt Clinton more. I don't think the polls were dishonest. Didn't they all indicate margins of error?

            I was fairly sure of a Clinton win too, up until

            • Didn't they all indicate margins of error?

              Yep, though far more important is they all have turnout models. And turnout among Democrats in 2016 was abysmal. Democratic turnout in 2016 was lower than in 2014. That's mostly unheard of - Turnout has always gone up in presidential election years. (Republican turnout was about as expected in 2016).

              So it's understandable that the turnout models expected that pattern to continue, as well as an indication of just how terrible the Clinton campaign was at the basics of campaigning.

        • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

          If the reports of Russian meddling I've seen are accurate, the scale of it was so small (tens of thousands of dollars of ads in an election where Trump and Clinton spent over $1.8 billion [bloomberg.com], or nearly $14 per vote) that random people in other countries posting their opinion about the U.S. election on public forums, Facebook, etc. probably had a greater cumulative influence. The media keeps hyping the Russia angle because they feel they need to discredit the 2016 election. I mean if the media were right and a few dozen Russians spending on the order of six figures really swung the election, then every politician would be tripping over themselves to hire these guys to help them run their future ad campaigns.

          You're focusing on paid advertisements, which is a fraction of the alleged interference. There were also the numerous fake accounts posting both pro and anti-BLM stuff, pushing memes, posting false or partisan articles, and the networks of bots and other fake accounts used to to amplify the visibility of those posts. This is all done without spending a cent on advertising. They probably spent a lot more on wages, developing bots, etc, but those would be hidden (to us) costs. The whole point was to drive

        • were thinner than the Garlic slices in Goodfellas. Russia also did a ton of work on Facebook, twitter and other non advertising sites. This coming from an ex-KGB guy that specialized in information warfare.

          I think it's naive to underestimate the effect Russia had on our elections. Doing so will leave us vulnerable to additional attacks. That said, I'm happy to see Candidates like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard pushing policy non-stop. Let the CIA spooks, the FBI and Mueller take care of Russian interf
        • A number of flaws in your analysis:
          (1) You are comparing figures spent in a specific venue to aggregate figures that include the total of all ad spending. That total includes (for example) TV ads which are much more expensive and arguable less effective.
          (2) Much of this is getting pushed by free social media accounts, not by ad purchases. Again, these are also more effective than ads, as they are presented as "authentic" and non-paid.
          (3) The Internet Research Agency isn't for hire to run anyone's electio
    • Just as they are doing right now in Brazil, when you want to force an unpopular government or a dictatorship into power, you just have to invent an imaginary enemy, internal or external, and then present your government/dictatorship as a "solution" against this imaginary enemy.
    • If someone is meddling with your election, you take steps to fix your election.

      The point is, the people who usually fix the elections didn't get their result last time around. They're mad as hell, and they're not taking it anymore.

    • Russia is making themselves the enemy by hacking into maliciously hacking foreign elections. US, British, French, maybe they will hack Norway's elections, Maybe they have already been doing it and installed someone friendly in Norway to keep Norway under there sphere of influence
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Political parties who can't win elections due to their own low quality candidates.
      NGO's with a political view to spread looking for funding.
      NATO looking for funding.
      Clandestine services looking for larger budgets.
      Energy interests looking to block the flow of lower cost energy from Russia.
      People selling security products and services.
      Groups pushing for censorship and control over the internet.
      To position funny cartoons, comments as "fake accounts".
      People who now want a political test for art, joke
      • So, in your world view, the russians were running a million dollar a year troll farm completely for the benefit of a cabal of western businesses and clandestine organizations?

        You see how that sounds crazy, right?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's far more than meddling in the US election. Russia is trying to destabilize the west. Trump, brexit, the far right funded by them in France and Italy and Germany... The goal is to weaken the west by taking advantage of our open and free societies where we try to give everyone a voice.

      The internet was supposed to enhance democracy by creating a more level playing field, a meritocracy of ideas. It doesn't work though, people in Russia whose job is to spend all day every day posting carefully designed mess

      • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        People voting all over the USA and UK got the results they wanted.
        Messages and memes are part of the freedom the USA protects for people to share cartoons, art, culture and funny memes.
        Freedom of speech. Freedom after speech.
        Should a NGO, brand, gov, think tank, academic get to stop funny art? Stop a fun cartoon? Stop a funny meme?
        Should Germany get to ban history, art and cartoons?
        Should Spain get to block comments?
        Should China get to say what Taiwan can publish?
        Who gets to say what is going to
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Who gets to say what is going to "enhance democracy"?

          Someone has to. Someone has to design the democratic systems we use, decide on the format and the rules.

          By the way, demanding that it stays the same and never change because you ad-hom'ed the person proposing he change is just as oppressive and authoritarian as demanding that it does change. Like all things democratic, it's the process and the ability to participate that counts.

          Personally I think that an informed population enhances democracy. Disinformation is a direct attack on it. Of course you will now

          • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
            Re "There is no perfect solution"
            Thats why the USA has that great system of allowing publication, comments and freedom of speech.
            Who gets to say what is "correctly and prominently attributed" to what standard?
            A think tank? NGO? NATO? Germany? China? A person with ideas about a code of conduct? A faith group?
            Everyone will have ideas for what is an approved "publication" once any censorship is allowed.
            Freedom of speech lets everyone have the ability to publish and enjoy other peoples ideas, cartoon
            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Just asking "who?" is not an argument, it's an admission that you don't have a viable plan for a democracy.

              No democracy has absolute freedom of speech. Someone always has to decide where the limits are. In the US it was the Supreme Court, e.g. "true threats" and libel laws.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Where's your evidence that Russian "funded" any of these right wing groups?
        If anyone wants to weaken the West, it's not the right wing groups. Left wing are far more likely to be anti-military, to have a "live and let live" attitude that ensures Russia (and others) can do whatever they want around the world, to allow larges swaths of the country to lower it's quality of life and increase government dependency, open it's borders, abolish ICE, and engage in divisive identity politics and foment guilt and ang

    • The problem is that the meddling in the elections is less about hacking voting machines and creating fake results and more about exploiting social media to distort public opinion.

      As long as we have the toxic combination of mendacious for-profit social media companies, it will be trivial to disrupt public opinion. Both platforms make money from this and neither one wants to impose controls that limit user speech or cut ad revenue.

      There's no defense against that "exploit" unless Facebook or Twitter is forcef

      • I'm more concerned with the way CNN exploits media to distort public opinion. A lot more people pay attention to that garbage than twatter.

        • The mainstream media contributes, but these days its kind of a social media amplifier. I'm continually amazed at how much media time is devoted to talking heads promoting and debating what was said on Twitter.

      • There's no defense against that "exploit"

        Mostly I don't think there's any defense against this.

        I designed a defense specifically against this.

        Let's say you have two political philosophies: Liberal and Conservative. They're diametrically-opposed, and adherents carry them to various degrees.

        In a one-vote system or an approval system, you get two parties. Ranked systems can also raise two parties, but there's less need. The two-plus system appears because of damage in these systems: the candidate with the strongest favor--not the majority favor--wins.

        With majority-runoff and instant runoff v

        • That's a great fix, but it's along the lines of saying we need to rewrite the entire code base to solve the problem. It's technically correct -- I agree 100% percent that the electoral system, especially the primaries, are broken in major ways.

          But getting there is extremely difficult -- those two parties have a vested interest in maintaining this system, and will resist any change that undermines it.

          Where I live we have switched to ranked choice voting at the municipal level, but we're also a town controll

          • But getting there is extremely difficult -- those two parties have a vested interest in maintaining this system, and will resist any change that undermines it.

            No they won't. Well, the Republicans will.

            The Democrats in power in Baltimore and in Maryland seem to resist change of which they are uncertain. Undermining their party power base is not a large concern; political fall-out--that the change has unintended consequences which make their voters angry--has heavier weight. They're all loss-averse and vulnerable to other typical human cognitive flaws, so they hyperfocus on such things.

            Where I live we have switched to ranked choice voting at the municipal level, but we're also a town controlled by Democrats, so switching didn't imperil party control of the elected offices, and only boiled down to making party insiders' choices slightly more at risk.

            The Instant Runoff Voting switch actually leaves the election vulnerable t

    • The problem is a fundamental weakness in Democracy: people. With the expectation of a reasonable IQ, proof of education, and a nuance understanding of the issues facing a nation, the voters are at the mercy of others who they seek to summarize and highlight key issues that are deemed important to those voters. There's nothing wrong that, most people don't have the time/desire/energy/basic intelligence to dedicate themselves towards understanding the thousands of local, state, national, and geopolitical issu
      • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        All of that chaos though mostly comes from being able to dive people into groups. Humans are pretty tribal creatures. "Othering" each other is about as natural as breathing to that end Putnum and others are correct; diversity and inclusion are really not of value to society. They basically reduce our ability to trust one another. Which means rather then a cohesive community we have a population permanently on edge that is easily swayed by the next thing the read online.

        You can have Democracy, Multicultu

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      The Russian and American people as potential friends -- sure. The respective *governments*? Not so much. Russia especially is a kleptocracy with no tradition of constitutional restraint of power.

    • he needs external enemies to hold on to power. Also, he's managed to gourd us out of a missile treaty that will allow him to openly develop short range missiles [youtube.com] that used to be banned. He'll need those if he wants to go after more territory, which with what he's doing in Ukraine he obviously does.

      One of the major problems with Trump and his people is they're not very good at what they do but they don't seem to know or care. As near as anyone can tell Trump got talked into exiting Syria in one phone call
  • cringe. this stuff needs to be kept in its containment site (reddit)
  • Fox news? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    You won't stop Fox News repeating the Russian Memes, you cannot tell the difference between RT and Fox, and haven't been able to since Obama era. Whatever token thing Facebook does won't change a thing when it comes to the National Enquirer and Fox repeating those fake stories.

    Try this, when they're both running commentary shows, flip between Fox and RT. Same talking points, same lies, interchangeable.

    Putin never takes over a country by external force, he leverages the traitors inside. That's you Fox and Fr

    • The irony is that AC here may well be the Russian operative in the room.

      Always remember that Russia is not truly sided with or against any American party, political idea, or institution. What they are against is American and Western strength, and what they are for is anything which sabotages that strength and ability to act. Their goal is to be able to muscle in like they did in Ukraine and Syria and fill the vacuum that results from weakening global contenders.

      To that end, they are more than happy to be

    • You won't stop Fox News repeating the Russian Memes, you cannot tell the difference between RT and Fox, and haven't been able to since Obama era. Whatever token thing Facebook does won't change a thing when it comes to the National Enquirer and Fox repeating those fake stories.

      Try this, when they're both running commentary shows, flip between Fox and RT. Same talking points, same lies, interchangeable.

      Putin never takes over a country by external force, he leverages the traitors inside. That's you Fox and Friends, Hannity, Pirro....

      Hillary was (thankfully) not elected due to her very real deficiencies. No fake news required.

      She was worse than a clown. Let that sink in.

      You all were so gobsmacked though that you had to come up with some crazy theory as to how she could have possibly lost.

  • by mentil ( 1748130 ) on Monday March 11, 2019 @05:57AM (#58251474)

    <Satire>My fellow Americans, this is why we need to eliminate the threat of Democracy. Once only the properly-educated are allowed to choose our great nation's leaders, will we be safe from the threat of Commie election interference! Do you want spies, illegal aliens, and godless heathens casting your vote for you?! This voting test will ensure that No True American will be ineligible to vote.</Satire>

  • With some graph theory, shouldn't those (mostly) closed cycles of accounts be easy to individuate and cordon off ? Better than delete them, just hide their messages outside their own cycles, similar to -1 messages here on /.
  • So was Hillary a Russian troll when she declared a quarter of America a "basket of deplorables"?
    • by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Monday March 11, 2019 @07:11AM (#58251738)

      So was Hillary a Russian troll when she declared a quarter of America a "basket of deplorables"?

      She was trolling for the same people Mitt Romney was trolling for when he effectively called 47% of Americans a bunch of enitled moochers and his entire Republican audience clapped their approval. Hint: most of those 47% are dirt poor minimum wage workers who don’t pay income taxes because the tax code explicitly exempts them due to them being dirt poor. According to the Republicans these Walmart slaves are simply to lazy to be millionaires.

  • We don't need this (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gabest ( 852807 )
    Candidates lie about everything already. What's the point spreading more misinformation?
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday March 11, 2019 @07:18AM (#58251800) Homepage Journal

      That's the post-truth narrative: everyone lies all the time about everything so believe whatever you want.

      It's dangerous because it's basically giving up on democracy and trying to make things better, and instead voting for stupid reasons like pissing off liberals or trying to disrupt the establishment by voting for even more established candidates.

      Worst of all it makes people think that their opinions are the most valid and ignore all advice from people who do actually understand the issues. Brexit is basically 25% of the population of the UK experiencing a Dunning-Kruger moment.

      • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        The UK population got to vote on Brexit.
      • "Post-truth narrative" is just some stupid buzzword; nothing has changed from the past, we're just seeing a new generation formulate the opinion that politicians lie and/or shouldn't be trusted. It amazes me this ever started to go away. I have to laugh at the constant accusation Donald Trump has told a lie - when did you ever look to politicians as truth tellers, trustable, or even someone who would know the facts on any subject????

        Politics and politicians were never supposed to be about laying out al
  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Monday March 11, 2019 @07:13AM (#58251754) Homepage

    Look, it's entirely possible that certain Russian groups are having fun screwing with the US. I mean, the US has mucked around in other people's countries for decades, so why not?

    That said, it's pretty stupid to blame the Russians for the current, divisive politics in the US. The locals (I'm in Europe, so I'm not involved here)...the locals are doing a bang-up job all by themselves. Decades ago, conservatives didn't much approve of liberal opinions. Downright Puritan, sometimes. Then came the 60's and 70's, and the progressive movement was born and grew. Since roughly the 80's, the progressives have defined whole new levels of intolerance. If you disagree with them, you are not only wrong, you are evil. It's the reaction to this intolerance, not any sort of Russian hacking, that got Trump elected.

    The progressives just cannot imagine that half of the country actually disagrees with them. It's so much easier to find some external enemy to blame - it's not that the progs are wrong, or that they've alienated half the country - it's those damned Ruskies.

    A few years ago, I thought that the growing backlash might result in some self-examination and a grudging-but-peaceful retreat from this intolerance. Sadly, the idea that the progressives themselves have become the intolerant ones - that differing opinions can legitimately exist - this seems to be beyond their comprehension. Which means that the way forward is likely to be increasingly vicious and even violent.

    It ain't the Russians driving this, it's the progressive agenda, and the intolerant people who support it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by meta-monkey ( 321000 )

      A few years ago, I thought that the growing backlash might result in some self-examination and a grudging-but-peaceful retreat from this intolerance

      Yeah, I thought so, too. I remember when Trump won the NH primary and HuffPo's headline was all caps "NEW HAMPSHIRE GOES RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC!" I thought Trump was going to win since about a month after he started campaigning, and I wondered, "when Trump wins, will the media and the libs on my FaceBook feed reflect and say 'Ohhhh...NH didn't vote for racism and sexism and homophobia...they just want somebody to do something about the opioid crisis that's killing their families and neighbors! Silly us, 6

  • Since no meaningful public discussion happens on Facebook, it should be an easy balance.

  • What a load of crap. No specifics at all, we are just supposed to take some government official's word that some Russian actor has a "massive" following? Are wen in Russia or something?
  • Pro tip: The Russians have been trying to influence elections since 1918 and even before. I'd love to see everyone gets this upset over illegal aliens voting ("THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT, YOU RIGHT-WING TRUMPIST TROLL!" Touche', There's no evidence Russia had a meaningful effect on the elections either). It all depends on whose side you're on
  • As a non-American on Facebook, every time I voice my opinion about anything related to politics, I am potentially influencing the outcome of the US elections....
  • by Headw1nd ( 829599 ) on Monday March 11, 2019 @08:43AM (#58252472)

    Just saying the Russians are spreading messages is not helpful, the correct course of action is to figure out the messages and let people know. What people don't realize is that they are playing both sides of the fence, however it seems the news only talks about the right-wing disinfo campaigns. We know for a fact that they do the same thing to galvanize left-wing partisans as well, so why don't we expose that? It would do a lot to ensure people on the right that this isn't just about silencing their views, and would help convince them of the problem. Making it a one-party issue only makes it easier for the trolls to defend.

    Myself I became a believer after I encountered a few online who were trying to promote ethnostatism in stilted English while posing as "Americans", in a sports forum of all places. From what I've read stirring up racial animosity seems to be a big part of the plan, including things like drumming up support for BLM while at the same time marshaling forces against it.

  • Anonymity on the Internet is useful to hide from corrupt governments...but they can use anonymity too.

  • Then it's not necessarily inauthentic

    So, the "problem" then is that they are "amplifying" true things?

  • This social media thing certainly didn't turn out to be a shit-show or anything.
  • I think that due the proliferation of smartphones and social media spreading propaganda is way, way easier than what happened in the Cold War. To listen to Voice of Russia or Voice of America one had to use a short wave receiver and knowingly what was tuning in.
    Nowadays it's difficult for an user of social media to know where they are readin is coming from, so propaganda is way sthealthier. and really pervasive about it.
  • How about this for an idea. Look at how the candidates have vote or what core beliefs they lean to. Ignore all the stupid "russian influence" and other garbage and then vote. Don't vote off emotions. Ignore all the stupid.

    and shut off Facebook (insert dumb "website" here) and go get some fresh air.

  • by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Monday March 11, 2019 @11:18AM (#58253742)
    I mean, the GOP's main strategy is cultivating a divisive climate on hot button topics & in/out-group labelling. They're spending a lot of money on this & are also getting considerable support & amplification from traditional corporate media. Are they annoyed that Russia is spending a fraction of what they are on it & getting all the credit?
  • by omfglearntoplay ( 1163771 ) on Monday March 11, 2019 @11:35AM (#58253886)

    So many posts on places even like Slashdot are designed to create vitriol between different schools of thought, political parties, you name it. I don't know how many are pure trolls and how many might just be pissed off at "the other side", but the best way to get past this stuff is to take a step back and evaluate all this stuff pushing our hate buttons. Don't let the trolls control your emotions. Hating everything and everybody is not the best way to go through life. And the headlines of people doing stupid and hate-worthy things do not represent the majority of any subset of people.

    If everybody would post a useful/positive post every time they saw a troll post, it would go a long way to getting rid of the unneeded hate bandwagon going around the internet these days.

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous

Working...