Slashdot Mirror


How Professional Russian Trolls Operate

New submitter SecState writes: Hundreds of full-time, well-paid trolls operate thousands of fake accounts to fill social media sites and comments threads with pro-Kremlin propaganda. A St. Petersburg blogger spent two months working 12-hour shifts in a "troll factory," targeting forums of Russian municipal websites. In an interview, he describes how he worked in teams with two other trolls to create false "debates" about Russian and international politics, with pro-Putin views always scoring the winning point. Of course, with the U.S. government invoking "state secrets" to dismiss a defamation case against the supposedly independent advocacy group United Against a Nuclear Iran, Americans also need to be asking how far is too far when it comes to masked government propaganda.

145 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Russian Trolls aren't difficult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They just open in the middle and stack inside each other!

  2. Enders Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    It's like Valentine and Peter in real life.

  3. Running joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The only places these trolls operate are unlikely to influence public opinion in one way or another. Their tactics are pretty simple. First, redirect the conversation by pointing out something bad the US has done in the past. Second, demand proof that the perceived negative factoid involving Russian activities is true. Finally, finish up by casting the opposition as something negative -- fascist Nazis are a favorite. They'll also tie themselves into knots trying to get in the last word, as if that means they "win" the discussion thread.

    1. Re:Running joke by SLot · · Score: 2

      actually, they get paid by the numbers, bonus if they go over the required x number of posts. last word for them = more vodka money.

    2. Re:Running joke by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I'm sure at some point AI will troll in order to play the rest of humanity like a stradivarius.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Running joke by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      You forgot the Nazi/fascist reference. Otherwise, textbook. I give you a B+.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    4. Re:Running joke by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      No that is not true at all. In this case the reality is they get fully funded by the government and their activities are only reviewed annually at budget time. Also they incorporate already full time career, paid staff, with university educations.

      That's right radio free Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is owned by the US government, the worlds staunchest defender of the truth, bwa hah hah hah. You guys so funny, it's like you're not even trying any more. Here read this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... I mean seriously, dudes, be a little more artful in your subterfuges. Yes, all US government sources of information have been permanently tainted, well, at least until significant reform in the US electoral process has been seen and that starts to reflect in government administration.

      Bwa hah hah hah (those full timers are spies, not very good ones it seems but yes NSA and/or CIA not sure how well those two play together, each seeking to grab their own power base). No I am not Russian nor am I paid by Russia, not that I would be averse to being paid by Russia, there ain't anything evil in that. The evil is in what you do and the means used always justify the ultimate end (not that short term one you think you win but the real consequences you end up with).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Running joke by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Fags? I don't smoke.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    6. Re:Running joke by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I love the references Tolkien put in the Lord of the Rings.

      As a friend put it in parody review:

      SAM: Let’s throw some faggots on the fire!
      PIPPIN: Won’t that word totally scare the crap out of people who momentarily forgot that it used to have another meaning?
      SAM: Surely!
      PIPPIN: THEN MAKE SURE TO USE IT IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH.

  4. Re:Sure by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 5, Funny

    Which country is paying you to say that?

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  5. Parent Post Semantic Content: Null by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's only those damn Russians are doing this, all other countries are saint.

    Yeah, because that makes it all OK then.

    Your comment is designed to distract from the issue at hand, shut down intelligent conversation on the topic, and imply the wrongdoer is just fine because, by implication, "everybody else does it, too" (no evidence to said implication provided, certainly not proven, and probably not true), all without contributing a single creative or new thought to the discussion at all.

    Nice job, (Russian?) troll.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Parent Post Semantic Content: Null by prefec2 · · Score: 2

      No, he/she is pointing out that it is dishonest to throw dirt on the Russians and do like we do no evil. However, if the poster would have read the whole /. teaser he/she would have found the necessary question also at the end of the text. So his/her post is largely redundant. Anyway, it is important to point out that issue and it is also important to point out that the wrong doing of one is not making the thing acceptable for others. Lying is not a nice thing to do (in most cases). The old Jews already knew that thousands of years ago. That's why they had a rule for it.

    2. Re:Parent Post Semantic Content: Null by causality · · Score: 2

      Actually when I read that comment, I thought: "it IS good to consider that this is not solely a Russian problem". I didn't necessarily see an appeal to the bandwagon approach to "morality". The person could have meant that, too, but since it was not specified, we don't actually know that.

      But this is Slashdot, where assuming you know the poster's intent (through some sort of psychic powers, I guess) is somehow not considered arrogant.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:Parent Post Semantic Content: Null by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      No, he/she is pointing out that it is dishonest to throw dirt on the Russians and do like we do no evil.

      Someone clearly didn't read TFS --

      Of course, with the U.S. government invoking "state secrets" to dismiss a defamation case against the supposedly independent advocacy group United Against a Nuclear Iran, Americans also need to be asking how far is too far when it comes to masked government propaganda.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    4. Re:Parent Post Semantic Content: Null by aminorex · · Score: 2

      Every major government does it. It's still evil, and only by educating the public about the foreign agents subverting public discourse can we avoid the consequences of a malign deception. Education without which democracy fails.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    5. Re:Parent Post Semantic Content: Null by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, the point is to make the hypocrite look 'worse' than the heretic.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Parent Post Semantic Content: Null by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

      Actually in other stories, if you want links check google, the goal of a Russian Troll is not to stop you, but to distract you or make you pause. When the dust settles. things like Crimea happen, and you go wtf just happened?

    7. Re:Parent Post Semantic Content: Null by aralin · · Score: 1

      From my experience the Russians are not exactly inventive country in the regard of international politics or even that good at it. I would not call them as "leading the pack" in almost any regard. Which leads me to believe that if the Russians are doing it now, the Brits and Americans had been doing it already 50 years ago.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    8. Re:Parent Post Semantic Content: Null by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if I had a dime for every time some mouth breather who was lauding snowden whilst posting dick pics to 4chan called me a shill for pointing out their idiocy...

      sorry to ruin your fantasy, but the US government does not need to pay people just to be honest in discussion forums

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    9. Re:Parent Post Semantic Content: Null by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Every major government does it. It's still evil, and only by educating the public about the foreign agents subverting public discourse can we avoid the consequences of a malign deception. Education without which democracy fails.

      No, they don't. You are again implying a falsehood to make someone you like look better.

  6. here its just media. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Conversations in online forums havent really taken the bulk of social-political discourse in america, because we're all still convinced the news media is capable of objectively reporting wars and foreign politics. the administration, any administration really, has made perfectly clear that those outliers that do not fall lock step with the new york times, fox, nbc, and other household staples will be punished. Expect wiretaps, spying, litigation to uncover your sources, accidental shelling of your foreign offices, and outright disinformation and lies from both houses of congress. Expect Joe Libermann to pen a strongly worded letter to your hosting provider, as in the case of wikileaks, that insists you should be shut down. Credit processing will cease, bank accounts will be frozen, and dubious arrest warrents will be issued once you begin to report on the actualities of american foreign policy and interventionalism. during both the iraq war as well as the Afhan war, we censored news coverage of planes returning with dead soldiers. We didnt do it because of television censor standards, we did it because coverage of that nature led to mass protest of the viet-nam war. peaceful demonstration is fine, but whenever we grow tired of it we install agent provocateurs and quickly crush the manufactured dissent.

    narratives contrary to the song of exceptionalism aren't tolerated. In fergusson as in occupy we routinely arrested journalists that didnt belch the days talking points for 20 minutes, and immediately knock off to the hotel bar for steak and booze.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:here its just media. by KermodeBear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we're all still convinced the news media is capable of objectively reporting wars and foreign politics.

      I disagree here.

      I believe that a majority of people thing the major news media outlets are full of shills for one side or the other. I also believe that most of people in America, quite frankly, don't give a crap.

      As long as they have food for the day, can download porn, and watch the latest celebrity scoop, they don't care.

      Never underestimate the power of apathy.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    2. Re:here its just media. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a simple question - Why do liberals only acknowledge the bias of Fox news or other such outlets, and never the more extreme bias of MSNBC or CNN? Why is this? Why? Look at CNN and how desperate and parasitic their content and clickbait titles are for views and clicks. They have nothing going for them except public memory of a former titan brand. I think I could study something like astrophysics and be less confused. How are people so dumb? I call myself a moderate

    3. Re:here its just media. by benjfowler · · Score: 2

      These days, I'm not so sure that CNN's agenda is driven by anything other than pure self-interest. They are a low-budget operation who do no serious investigative reporting, and take their "news" (if you could call it that), from warmed-over press releases and govenrment/corporate PR departments. CNN's agenda is not sinister -- it's driven by pure greed and laziness.

      The "content" is just one long, slow, dumbed-down blowjob to the preening, international-English speaking jet set.

      People paying the most for CNN are the advertisers -- mostly, middle eastern despots and luxury good makers. Like Facebook, the viewers are the _product_, not the customers.

    4. Re:here its just media. by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I have a simple question - Why do liberals only acknowledge the bias of Fox news or other such outlets, and never the more extreme bias of MSNBC or CNN?

      Because CNN is very right-wing, but not as extremely as Fox? MSNBC I see get a lot of flak for being generally shit, including its weird attempt at counterbalancing Fox.

    5. Re:here its just media. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      More extreme bias of CNN? Their bias is at most just reporting what they're told to.. Fox is happy to publish complete lies.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  7. Re:Sure by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's only those damn Russians are doing this, all other countries are saint.

    Excluded middle much? Other countries may be doing this — or planning to catch-up — but Russia has been doing this on massive scale for many years — all the while, in a classic fit of projection, accusing others of it.

    Another difference is, the US, for example, may consider such propaganda a war-fighting tool to be used outside, but Putin's regime — according to TFA — is happy to use it to prop the government domestically.

    Then, I suppose, for knuckle-dragging simpletons happy to equate Joe McCarthy with Lavrenty Beria, none of the above makes any difference...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  8. Putin is greatest, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hail Putin! He will save Russia , make Russia the most powerful country is. There's no doubt that he will do it , in time. Rejoice, Putin !

  9. Astroturfing by crunchy_one · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe the term is astroturfing, i.e., when someone is paid to write commentary in support of some other entity.

    1. Re:Astroturfing by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Funny

      In this case, wouldn't that be cosmoturfing?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Astroturfing by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Can we stop calling everybody who posts something bad on the internet a 'troll'?
      It's bad enough that the luddites are doing it, but Slashdot should keep true to the meaning of the word 'trolling'.

    3. Re:Astroturfing by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is different from astroturfing. Anonymous means "I don't know/care who it came from", astroturfing means you believe it came from the people (cf "grass-roots support) even though it actually came from a particular organisation.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    4. Re:Astroturfing by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      In this case, wouldn't that be cosmoturfing?

      Well played. You win the internet for today.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    5. Re: Astroturfing by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I thought astroturf was in contrast to a organic, "grassroots" effort.

      Derailing discussion forums in itself is not really astroturfing. Maybe I misread and that's not all of it.

      Astroturfing is just pretending to be a grassroot, that is pretending to be a non-sponsored individual supporting a certain point of view. Any paid commentator not explicitly stating they are paid, is an astroturfer.

  10. As opposed to American Trolls? by tekrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On various news sites, I see what are obviously paid Republican Trolls, Paid Pro-Koch Brothers Trolls, they come in day after day under various identities but having the same writing style, and post comment after comment (sometimes the same comment multiple times on multiple sites).

    So exactly what's the difference...

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:As opposed to American Trolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you don't think there are democratic trolls/astroturfers, you're kidding yourself. It depends on the issue, but both sides have corporations paying for Dark-PR.

    2. Re:As opposed to American Trolls? by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      So it's okay then. Just because other people are indulging in black PR doesn't make it okay for well-funded far-Right groups to do it. Actually, the opposite -- because they are setting a bad precedent by getting away with it.

    3. Re:As opposed to American Trolls? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      He is, he has his own network TheBlaze. He is not on Fox anymore. He's as credible as any other talking head. More so in some ways, less so in others.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    4. Re:As opposed to American Trolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it's not OK.

      It's also not OK to point to "the other side" doing it and use that as further confirmation that they are "the bad guys," that "my side" are "the good guys," and that anyone who writes comments that disagree with "the good guys" is obviously a paid shill for "the bad guys," all of which is implied by the OP.

    5. Re:As opposed to American Trolls? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Difference is about 1/3 Americans actually believe far right wing news.

      Whereas a significant majority of Russians approve of Putin.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    6. Re:As opposed to American Trolls? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Whereas a significant majority of Russians approve of Putin.

      Russians have historically liked having a StrongMan(tm) telling them what to do.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    7. Re:As opposed to American Trolls? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I've been monitoring some the forums of some German news sites and can guarantee you that American trolls are totally outnumbered by the Russian propaganda machinery. And yes, it's blazingly obvious that these posters are paid and use vast numbers of fake accounts.

      +1 interesting. Anyone else with a non-American new site perspective?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    8. Re:As opposed to American Trolls? by GammaKitsune · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because the Democrats are a bunch of goddamned corporatists. There's big money to be made rooking the public into supporting corporate interests, and those interests support both parties pretty equally. What you rarely, if ever see is actual liberals running astroturfing campaigns, because there aren't billions of dollars to be made in reducing corruption and spreading democratic ideals that benefit everyone rather than just the filthy rich. If you're trying to imply that the left is just as bad as the right, you're either a fool or you've been bought.

      --
      Gamertag: WyleType
    9. Re:As opposed to American Trolls? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Glenn Beck and Fox news has more ratings than anything else besides the superbowl on TV.

      You're kidding, right?

  11. See it on CNN by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go to any major news site and click on an Ukraine story?

    90% of the posters are about those American backed Nazi's out to destroy the freedom fighters who had enough of American backed oppression. It is stated so many times it is true that Ukraine is a puppet of the Nato and the US.

    Really? How can anyone believe this. It is obvious Russian trolls. Also Crimea is a place with tons of political censorship and political prisoners now. All the comments say it is propaganda and paradise now under Putin. Uh yeah

    1. Re:See it on CNN by benjfowler · · Score: 1, Troll

      Easy to spot too. You can see the talking points showing up in each post.

      Like Victoria Nuland. Most westerners are like "who the fuck is Victoria Nuland?" She gets mentioned CONSTANTLY in Putinbot forum spam. As it turns out, the Putinistas are really gunning for Nuland and various other State Department employees... I think they hate Victoria Nuland as much as they hate Bill Browder.

    2. Re:See it on CNN by sbrown123 · · Score: 2

      "90% of the posters are about those American backed Nazi's out to destroy the freedom fighters who had enough of American backed oppression."

      What a bunch of bulls*. 90% is people trying to convince people about Russian equipment and/or soldiers in Ukraine. What these people fail to notice is 100% of the people they are telling that to go "yeah I know". I don't think this is the desired reaction because they keep doing it over and over. Maybe those posting these comments and threads in forums and social media are secretly Russians trying to make us just ignore these types of news announcements? I need more tin for my hat before following that rabbit.

    3. Re:See it on CNN by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why this would be modded Troll. Actually, I know full why.
      Slashdot needs some more meta-modding.

      For awhile, I could tell when I was reading Russian troll-spam, because they would constantly refer not to the Ukraine but to "Kiev." No one in the Western Hemisphere calls the country that, but it's a semi-subtle dig, the implication that it's only the high leadership of Ukraine who opposes Russia's takeover.

  12. Re:Sure by catchblue22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I often wonder what percentage of responses on slashdot climate stories are made by paid trolls.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  13. This isn't a surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    So we have evidence of a government doing it, but can we get a whistleblower from the lobbyists/PR/Corps? In just a recent example, the amount of comments on many websites' (particularly right-wing websites, but even on some more mainstream sites) articles about Net Neutrality and Title II far exceeded the normal levels, and most of the comments were negative and looked to me like they were scraped from other sites or autogenerated, plus there were large groups of trolls that were using every trick in the book to drown-out or malign anyone who posted pro-NN/T2 comments. Aside from the rampant astroturfing, there were fake 'grassroots' websites and social media accounts that spouted the same anti-NN talking points.

    I'm far less worried about government propaganda right now when the corporations and lobby groups are undertaking orwellian large-scale psyops to sway public opinion.

    1. Re:This isn't a surprise. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Fox News is the largest Psyops campaign ever run on the american people. You have an entire channel (actually several) whose news and stories are being scripted by one of the political parties.

      It's amazing to me how many people aren't horrified by this. The old FCC regulation about fairness wouldn't have allowed that, but it was sunk years ago, and rather deliberately.

    2. Re:This isn't a surprise. by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      In cybernetic capitalism the distinction between government and corporate is a false dichotomy.

  14. Re:Putin no good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sure, and just think if he wasn't a far-right hugging nationalist idiot. He could've hit 500% by now because Russia has massive amounts of land, the largest natural resource reserves in the world, and a decent sized population that can, if it wants to, be quite innovative.

    Instead it seems Russian pride is more important than actually contributing anything worthwhile to the world and so yep, you're stuck at 66% growth (and shrinking) from a low point. How pathetic.

  15. Re:Sure by jythie · · Score: 1

    Eh, getting caught at it, even if everyone else is doing it too, is still news worthy.

  16. Re:Putin no good by MobyDisk · · Score: 1, Troll

    And he increased the chocolate ration to 20 grams per week!

  17. Meanwhile in China... by Lew+Perin · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has been going on a long time in China, though there the troll workplaces are decentralized and the pay's a lot lower.

    --
    Sorry, I forgot there are ads on the Web; I use Lynx.
  18. Re:Sure by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the other hand, the US has always had a rather loose interpretation of 'war fighting outside' which allowed for usage on disruptive elements of American society too. How much it is done is a big question though.

  19. Re:Sure by jythie · · Score: 2

    Given the low visibility slashdot has today, probably not many if any at all. Slashdot just isn't the major nexus it once was, and using paid shills here would likely not be all that worthwhile.

  20. The Hypnotoad by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!

  21. more trolls! by Torvac · · Score: 1

    lets talk about the american troll tv stations and the american troll movie industry and ...

  22. Re:Putin no good by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    But Putin is sending expert to learn from US and A to better their health system.

  23. Re:Sure by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "It's only those damn Russians are doing this, all other countries are saint."

    I can assure you that I'm not getting paid for my trolling.

  24. Targeting forums by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    Good one! - like anybody actually pays attention to comments posted to online forums...

  25. How propaganda decides wars by mi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Compare our invasion of Korea with that of Vietnam only a few years later. Before you say "Korea was UN-approved" — no, that's a lame excuse. Stalin boycotted UN at the time action on Korea was decided, but by the time of Vietnam USSR has changed its approach. That's all.

    In both cases American military was sent to fight in remote lands against people, who didn't threaten America directly in any way — for fear of the domino effect of Communism. In both cases the fighting was heavy and numerous war-crimes have taken place.

    And yet, there was no domestic opposition to the Korean war — virtually none. No protests against the draft, no accusations of returning soldiers being "baby-killers". John Kerry, for example, has gained more political capital for opposing the war (and returning his medals), than for fighting in it (for an entire 4 months).

    Vietnam was widely considered a national shame long before the war was lost. Meanwhile the only source of any negativity about the Korean war in mass culture was the M*A*S*H series.

    Why was the domestic reaction to the two wars so drastically different? The theory of propagandists controlled and funded (with or without their own knowledge) by the USSR would explain the known facts.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:How propaganda decides wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is typical libtard behavior, making mountains out of mole hills. it's all about what the public and government are doing wrong and how it's the rich's job to fix it.

    2. Re:How propaganda decides wars by k6mfw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think for Korean War it was 1950s and less than 10 years since WWII, there was no counterculture/question authority types during that decade. Also wartime coverage was limited but skyrocketed during Vietnam War. Though video was 16mm film, it quickly be developed and broadcasted on TV (there was less TV sets in homes in early 50s than in 1960s). Also during Vietnam War, media had much free access to battle zones. If there's room in the Huey, a reporter or camera guy can hop on board. Military only denied them on special ops missions. Of course all that had major impact on opinion. Civilians can see what battles are really like (chaos, nobody knows WTF is going on,etc.) and not like choreographed battles in the movies. After Vietnam, military forces realized they need tight control of media. We witnessed that during Falklands campaign which news was sporadic with much unsaid, first Gulf War where CNN kept showing the same footage of a cruise missile impacting a rooftop door but not much on the biggest tank battle since WWII.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    3. Re:How propaganda decides wars by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Compare our invasion of Korea with that of Vietnam only a few years later. Before you say "Korea was UN-approved" — no, that's a lame excuse. Stalin boycotted UN at the time action on Korea was decided, but by the time of Vietnam USSR has changed its approach. That's all.

      So what? You're talking about the public perception of the war, UN approval forms part of that public perception.

      In both cases American military was sent to fight in remote lands against people, who didn't threaten America directly in any way — for fear of the domino effect of Communism. In both cases the fighting was heavy and numerous war-crimes have taken place.

      And yet, there was no domestic opposition to the Korean war — virtually none. No protests against the draft, no accusations of returning soldiers being "baby-killers". John Kerry, for example, has gained more political capital for opposing the war (and returning his medals), than for fighting in it (for an entire 4 months).

      Vietnam was widely considered a national shame long before the war was lost. Meanwhile the only source of any negativity about the Korean war in mass culture was the M*A*S*H series.

      Why was the domestic reaction to the two wars so drastically different? The theory of propagandists controlled and funded (with or without their own knowledge) by the USSR would explain the known facts.

      It's possible, but a far more likely factor is the fact they were very different wars at very different times.

      The Korean war was over in 3 years. In Vietnam the US stepped into a long running conflict which ran a lot longer.

      The US was also coming straight out of WWII, so the idea that you should deal with belligerent countries pro-actively sounded like a really good idea and provided a great narrative, the communist threat would have also seemed less intractable since you didn't have to deal with Nuclear arms race.

      You've also got media actually showing the home front what the battlefield actually looks like, that's a pretty profound change from previously where media pieces were basically clips from war movies.

      Finally you had a completely different culture in the 60's that was largely based on a rejection of authority, do you think that was going to mix well with the military?

      You don't need Soviet propaganda to explain the Vietnam peace movement, the known facts are explained by the known facts.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:How propaganda decides wars by swb · · Score: 1

      It was vastly different political era.

      There was a lot of paranoia about Communist conspiracies. The Rosenberg trials. Joe McCarthy was making headlines "exposing" Communists. In some sense, there was some legitimate fear of Communist actions -- the Soviets had blockaded West Berlin, leading to the Berlin airlift in 1948.

      Not only was the political climate dangerous for anyone opposing fighting Communist expansion in Korea, it wasn't irrational to believe that expansionist communism was a real threat, especially after recently fighting a war against two nations who started wars of imperial expansion, at least one of whom did so under the guise of a totalitarian political philosophy.

    5. Re:How propaganda decides wars by mi · · Score: 1

      There was a lot of paranoia about Communist conspiracies. The Rosenberg trials.

      Is it really "paranoia" (a mental disease involving ungrounded fears) if the fear is substantiated? Rosenbergs really were Communist-spies, you know, who helped USSR obtain nuclear weapons sooner.

      it wasn't irrational to believe that expansionist communism was a real threat

      Well, it didn't stop being a real threat — as Budapest in 1956 and Prague in 1968 kept proving. But, somehow, that clear and present danger of Communism no longer played the role it played during Korea War. Why?

      Like I said, the USSR's active stimulation of "peace"-movement's collective clitoris played a role. Perhaps, a decisive one...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:How propaganda decides wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Former-Soviet-immigrant Slashdoter, like Alex-libs, who hate very much government, pro-corporate, private sectors, Misha (mi) was also from Ukraine.
      Of course, with these people like those, they have bad memory about Communism and Soviet. Every comments of 'mi (197448)' about Soviet, Russia and communism are negative.

      This comment is not new.
      He also stated that war against VC was good thing before. No surprise!

      http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6307687&cid=48543949
      http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5104087&cid=46892549

    7. Re:How propaganda decides wars by quantaman · · Score: 1

      You're talking about the public perception of the war, UN approval forms part of that public perception.

      UN's approval or lack thereof, by all appearances, was used to justify the opposition to war later, when the questions like mine here started popping up. I could find no references to UN's decision (or absence of it) as a factor. Could you?

      I'm not mining quotes from 60 years ago but it certainly would have affected the perception. Korean was very much a multinational mission, Vietnam was not.

      It's possible, but a far more likely factor is the fact they were very different wars at very different times.

      Well, I explained, how they were similar — only a few years apart and both in far lands without evident immediate threat to the US.

      The Korean war was over in 3 years. In Vietnam the US stepped into a long running conflict which ran a lot longer.

      I fail to see, how the length of a conflict affects the justification of it.

      Wars become more unpopular the longer they go, that's fairly basic. The public wasn't particularly anti-War at the start of the war, it became that way later on (similar to Iraq).

      You've also got media actually showing the home front what the battlefield actually looks like, that's a pretty profound change from previously where media pieces were basically clips from war movies.

      Yes. And the fact that media at home chose to concentrate on the negative, instead of praising the troops in general and heralding acts of valor in particular is, in my opinion, explained by (at least, in part) by the enemy's propaganda efforts.

      That would be a pretty small part. The moment the media came to the conclusion they could be actual reporters instead of propagandists the friendly propaganda effort was done.

      Finally you had a completely different culture in the 60's that was largely based on a rejection of authority

      And where, one wonders, did that come from?

      From stuff that didn't have much to do with the USSR (though many were undoubtedly interested in leftist ideas).

      And where is it now, when questioning authority is not only not patriotic, but racist?

      It's only racist when the complainers start blowing dog whistles. As it happens referring to Obama as a community organizer, a job he held for 3 years in his mid-twenties before going onto far more impressive things. That could be just partisan bias, but there's a definite dog whistle quality to it.

      You don't need Soviet propaganda to explain the Vietnam peace movement

      Well, we know for a fact (an inconvenient one), that USSR and other Communists were behind at least some of the "peace" organizations, such as the venerable World Peace Council.

      The practice is still ongoing — an establishment calling itself "anti-war", for example, is calling for international approval of Russia's invasion into and annexation of Crimea — do you think, they would've approved of Kosovo or Kurdistan voting to become a United States' 51st state? Is it really over-the-board to wonder, if, perhaps, this Justin Raimondo is manipulated by Kremlin — whether he even knows it or not?

      So just because the USSR tried to manipulate the peace movement therefore delegitimizes the entire peace movement? And an 'anti-war' organization that virtually no one on the left listens to or agrees with is evidence of that fact?

      Israel is certainly trying to sway US public opinion, does that make you a puppet of some Jewish lobby? (for the record I say no)

      --
      I stole this Sig
    8. Re:How propaganda decides wars by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Where is the "question authority" sentiment now

      it's there but when you speak out, you will get flamed for it as unpatriotic terrist commie pinko. or you get ignored. Getting back to media, nobody knows what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan. Information is out there but difficult find. i.e. nobody in US knows the difference between a Sunni and a Shia. Or how did ISIS become so strong so quick. Information is out there but many articles either veer toward putting blame on someone (i.e. Obama's or Bush's fault). Or article is very long and very esoteric, will take many years to fully understand. Or what about all that money spent but infrastructure is still very third world country?

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    9. Re:How propaganda decides wars by mi · · Score: 1

      it's there but when you speak out, you will get flamed for it as unpatriotic terrist commie pinko.

      Citations needed.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:How propaganda decides wars by swb · · Score: 1

      Is it really "paranoia" (a mental disease involving ungrounded fears) if the fear is substantiated?

      Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?

      I'd say the number of non-threats who were actively and vigorously blackballed might call into question as to where the boundary between legitimate fear and paranoia fear is on this topic.

      But, somehow, that clear and present danger of Communism no longer played the role it played during Korea War. Why?

      Probably no one single answer. I don't think the early years of Viet Nam faced that much ideological opposition. I do think that the political-based mismanagement of the war led to "conventional" opposition to it. Then add in civil rights discontent, the exemptions that made it a "poor man's war" and the general social upheaval of the 1960s, shake well and pour over ice.

    11. Re:How propaganda decides wars by quantaman · · Score: 1

      So just because the USSR tried to manipulate the peace movement therefore delegitimizes the entire peace movement?

      No, not entire — there were sincere pacifists even during WW2 — and not automatically. We need to painfully examine, to what extent the peace movement was compromised by involvement of both USSR and domestic terrorists. You may suspect me of overestimating the enemy's impact, but you are certainly underestimating it.

      You're not overestimating the enemy's impact, you're accusing your ideological opponents of being stooges. I'm certain you're not nearly as concerned by the propaganda put out by those who agree with you.

      When the US was about to resume shooting in Iraq in 2003, the whole world erupted in the biggest coordinated protest in history — and not by Iraqis, but by outraged Westerners expressing their sympathy.. Where were these peace-loving legions, when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014? What few protests there were, they were largely by Ukrainian expats with very few sympathetic locals in evidence. Why?

      Because:
      a) People expect a lot more of the US than Russia
      b) The US sets international standards, and by invading Iraq it helps legitimize things like Ukraine
      c) The US is a Western country, it makes a lot of sense for Westerners to protest it because they have a chance of influencing the politicians. What the hell does Russia care if a bunch of Americans or Canadians come out in protest? And what should Canadians and Americans even protest for, we don't have a lot of leverage.

      Because Putin's propaganda machine worked — on the entire spectrum of Western politics, not just the Left as the USSR used to. Rightist Jews in the US were accusing Ukraine's new "junta" of being "nazis", while actual American Nazis called the new government "Jews". Without arguing with each other, but both helped Putin. Most likely, they didn't realize it — but there is no doubt, a there is a group of analysts at FSB attached to each Western opinion-maker. US is a pathetic noob at this.

      Wake up and smell "people's power" — and the power of propagandists to manipulate it.

      It didn't do squat. Yes there's a few fringe folks who are influenced, but they're pretty insubstantial.

      In the EU it might be different, Greece in particular might have a legitimate problem, but in the English speaking West Russian propaganda is a joke.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    12. Re:How propaganda decides wars by quantaman · · Score: 1

      You're not overestimating the enemy's impact, you're accusing your ideological opponents of being stooges.

      The links I've posted by now confirm beyond reasonable doubt, that they (or some of them, anyway) are, in fact, stooges. That's a settled question. Just how many — that's a problem of (under/over)estimation.

      There will always be stooges in any movement, suggesting that delegitimizes the movement is a completely different standard,

      a) People expect a lot more of the US than Russia

      Khm, it does not seem like many people think, Russia is doing anything wrong.

      I have no idea what people you're thinking of. Outside of Russian I've only encountered a very small handful who supported Russia, and they wrote and argued so badly I actually felt bad engaging since I thought they were dealing with legitimate mental illnesses.

      b) by invading Iraq it helps legitimize things like Ukraine

      Your Bush-blaming fails. Putin's number one justification (at least within Russia) was not Iraq, but Kosovo — for over a year now Russians online are arguing, that if it was Ok for the US to run a referendum there, it is Ok for Russia to run one in Crimea. (That, unlike Americans in Kosovo, Russian occupiers of Crimea had an obvious conflict-of-interest seems to have escaped their attention.)

      Kosovo is the big justification (because of their traditional alliance with the Serbs) but Iraq is certainly part of the narrative. And I only brought up Iraq because you explicitly mentioned it as an example of a protest movement that didn't have proper justification. As it turns out it was actually a very well informed protest movement as the invasion of Iraq was by any metric a disaster.

      Greece in particular might have a legitimate problem

      Greece is an EU-member and can break the union's consensus-driven foreign policy.

      One of the things that makes it a real problem

      in the English speaking West Russian propaganda is a joke.

      It is good, you've kept a level head, but I've already given you a number of links to English-speaking opinion-makers, who were affected by KremlinTV.

      Fringe opinion-makers whom I'd never heard of. I don't think they're really affecting anything.

      Another aspect you are ignoring is the Russian-diaspora living in the West. They still watch nostalgic movies on Russian channels and the propaganda "analysis" in between. Then, when asked about current events by their non-Russian peers, they help spread Putin's point of view.

      I don't know many so I can't really speak to it but I doubt many are actually backing the invasion. It's also probably that their opinions have nothing to do with the propaganda, they're still Russian, they'll have a strong urge to identify with and defend their home country.

      It should be noted that the West's hands aren't completely clean in this. NATO was started as an anti-Russia alliance, expanding into former Warsaw pact countries after the end of the Cold War was absolutely moronic. Without that expansion there's a decent chance that everyone is still on relatively good terms.

      I just came back from Germany — both in Munich and Frankfurt there are pro-Putin signs on the walls and fences. His support there is mostly among Socialists, but those assholes are a considerable power there — and Merkel has to defend herself from their sniping.

      Putin's evil is, indeed, obvious to those paying attention, but there are too few of those in

      --
      I stole this Sig
    13. Re:How propaganda decides wars by quantaman · · Score: 1

      There will always be stooges in any movement

      Well, the opposition to the Korean war — as I outlined from the get-go — never rose to anywhere the same pitch. Not while the war was running, not later. Soldiers returning from Vietnam war were "baby-killers", but those who came back from Korea were not. The "peace-movement" being infested by stooges is a confirmed theory that explains all of the known facts. It may be difficult for you to accept, probably, because you and/or your parents participated — without knowing, who got the ball rolling, of course, being sincere useful idiots — but that's what it is.

      Yeah, I'm Canadian and I'm quite certain neither of my parents really participated in the peace movement. I would point to this fact as evidence to the fact that you're over-extrapolating from limited data and reaching erroneous conclusions.

      The currently-existing "disaster" was not at all inevitable

      All I can say is I consider Marc Theissen to be a terrible analyst, though going into that would be a needless diversion.

      and it did not become a disaster for any of the reasons known at the time.of those coordinated protests.

      I'm confused, why did you link to quotes of people supporting the war as evidence that the opponents were wrong?

      Well, you may not like Michael Savage, but he certainly is not "a fringe"... And the already mentioned Justin Raimondo has his loyal following.

      I don't know, I think I'd still call Savage as being on the fringe. Sure he's got a following but he's so far out that he can't even enter the UK.

      There you go! NATO was meant to check USSR's advancement further into Europe — without it more countries would've shared the fate of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and others. Because while NATO membership was voluntary, membership of the Warsaw Pact was not. And the Pact invaded those, who tried to get out. What's "unclean" about NATO, I'll never know.

      Remember the Cuban missile crisis? The US isn't particularly amendable to countries in its sphere of influence allying with Russia either.

      And as you just said NATO was meant to counter the USSR (ie Russia), of course they're going to react with hostility when neighbouring countries start joining a military alliance literally designed to oppose them.

      Huh? If they weren't NATO-members, Baltic states would've been taken over by the same "polite" troops long ago. Moldova and Georgia were invaded before Ukraine.

      Though Georgia was invaded while trying to join NATO. And the initial situations with South Ossetia and Transitivia happened in the fairly messy aftermath of the collapse of the USSR. My understanding is that the NATO expansion was interpreted by Russians as an aggressive act, and that's been responsible for the subsequent rejection of Western liberalism and the return to an adversarial mindset.

      But, it is interesting... So, in your peace-loving opinion, NATO should've rejected Eastern Europe's attempts to join it to please Russia... Just how do you justify this? What sort of ethical standards do you have? What books did momma read to you? Should the wisest of the Three Pigs have rejected his brothers' attempts to hide in his masonry house — so as not to aggravate the Wolf? Wow!

      --
      I stole this Sig
  26. Re:Sure by mi · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, the US has always had a rather loose interpretation of 'war fighting outside' which allowed for usage on disruptive elements of American society too.

    Citations?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  27. Those are not trolls, those are sockpuppets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those are not trolls, those are sockpuppets; there's a difference.

  28. JTRIG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Time to repeat the British entry to the astroturd brigade. JTRIG:

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

    "Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums"

    "Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:"

    "Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends."

    "The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:"

    Lord Ha Ha

  29. Re:Sure by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure what Fox News is except the biggest, most well known right wing troll on planet Earth. Russia just doesn't quite get how to do it properly.

  30. It's not just Russia by MagickalMyst · · Score: 2, Informative

    Look at any forum - especially news forums.

    It's usually pretty obvious to see who is paid to troll.

    Comments that are responded to by paid trolls are usually peppered with words and phrases such as "the Liberal government...", "what a conservative thing to do", "If the republicans were in power", "blame Obama", "Harpercrytes", "the far right", "leftist", etc. - which is very telling.

    The same is true of any criticism of Israel regarding the illegal and brutal occupation of Palestine. Anyone who disagrees with the occupation is attacked by trolls and labelled an "anti-semite" and a "holocaust denier". Unless, of course, if they are Jewish then they are a called "self hater".

    Sometimes it seems like the whole world has gone completely mad.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    1. Re:It's not just Russia by marxmarv · · Score: 1

      How's the weather in Herzliya?

      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
  31. How ALL professional trolls operate by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2

    FTFY

    Social media trolls have been with us for years. On the good side, they're trivial to spot and ignore - a fact completely lost on their employers.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  32. Re:Sure by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course we are saints. We are the good guys. When we deceive the enemy with lies that this is only a tactic to prevent evil. When the Russians do it, it is to undermine freedom and democracy. Welcome back in the eighties, well maybe it is already the sixties. Those old top honchos in the US, UK and the rest of the west have secured another round with Russia with their special inferiority complex based politics. Both sides have hoped to get back to that. For a short time, they thought Islam might be a suitable evil, but that does not work very well when one half of the Muslims tries to kill the other half over things we do not really understand. True, I do not understand why we had that 30 years war in Europe over religion and power.

  33. Re:Submission is a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sorry for expressing my opinion then you fucking asshole, I guess the community here has become so bitter this is what Slashdot comments simply are now. A bunch of shitposters and crybaby perfectionists like yourself. Fuck you

    I accept your apology. Have a nice day!

  34. Re:Sure by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    So anybody who interrupts the anti-American, anti-West circlejerk is a shill?

    Sounds like the internet-libertarian equivalent to the Pharma Shill Gambit that anti-vaxxers love to trot out every time they're losing an argument.

  35. Re:Sure by jythie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, a nice high profile one would be the entire McCarthy era, and Hover's infiltration of civil right's organizations under the argument that they were aligned with communists.

  36. Re:It seem it continues to need pointing out by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    'Poisoning the well'. Incidentally, a common tactic of the Putinbots.

    Just make everyone believe that there is no truth or reality, just narratives. And spoil the usefulness of the media for everybody.

    It suits Putler's short-term needs, but fucks everyone in the long term.

  37. Re:Sure by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    "Troll"?!? Someone clearly didn't get the joke...

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  38. Re:Sure by bytesex · · Score: 1

    In America, cooperations do this.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  39. Re:Sure by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

    And the NSA hoovering up Americans' communications data.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  40. Re:Sure by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, all the shills here are unpaid interns.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  41. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    So anybody who interrupts the anti-American, anti-West circlejerk is a shill?

    Cold Fjord isn't interrupting any anit-American or anti-West discussion. He is disrupting discussions where someone mentions that we shouldn't hand Snowden and instead should hold people who work against the US population responsible.
    That is Cold Fjord is anti-American and anti-West. He actively works against the things that makes the American and western values worth fighting for.

    And no, anyone who takes that position isn't a shill, some of them are just retards.
    The things that separates Cold Fjord from those people is that he only shows up in NSA related threads on Slashdot and he is so obvious that the only way he isn't a shill for NSA would be if he is a shill for some other nation that is trying really hard to make the US government look bad.
    Either way, the result of his actions is that things get worse for the American public.

  42. Re:Sure by aminorex · · Score: 1

    Amen, Brother.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  43. Re:Putin no good by aminorex · · Score: 1, Informative

    By reducing the value of the Ruble 66%, the Ruble value of the Russian economy increased 66%. 50% of which went to pay for his Sochii boondogle, harem of gymnasts, assassinations of journalists and advocates of justice, etc.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  44. Re:They arent the only ones by aminorex · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure that this does not happen in Vanuatu.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  45. Epic fail by Computershack · · Score: 2

    Well they're not doing very well especially on Reddit. Propoganda posts stick out like a sore thumb there.

    --
    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
  46. And on slashdot as well by phorm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, this happens on Slash too, so apparently the Chinese astroturfing squad seems to lurk here as well. For example, in regards to cheating exams:

    You have this guy mentioning that cheating test scores is also a big problem in China, followed by some more detailed posts as to why.

    Then you have a response by an AC who basically says "oh it's just Westerners trying to make China look bad. We don't do that anymore! Look, I'm in the US now so I'm believable. Despite posting AC and having stereotypical Chinese grammatical mistakes common to non-landed Chinese astroturfers, modded +1

    I point out that the previous response is an obvious astroturfer (aforementioned grammatical errors etc), and am modded down twice rather readily. But seriously, read the astroturfer's post out with a bad accent and it will sound like a Chinese villain from an old movie. The linguistic keys make it pretty clear the guy isn't somebody who's been living in the west for any length of time.

    For the record, I have plenty of Chinese friends etc whom I've worked on language skills with. Missing pronouns is usually a fairly basic thing that gets fixed earlier on, as is the use of infinite verbs ("keep to spread" instead of "spreading"). So unless the poster had been living in Chinatown for the last few years, one would expect those language'isms to have cleared up by now.

    Also, "flied lice", though attributed to a Chinese restaurateur in Lethal Weapon and added for humour, would be more of a Japanese/Korean language issue as they lack distinct "L" and "R" sounds in their language (or rather, "L" and "R" exist as single character/sound). Chinese don't really seem to have issues with consonant swaps in English.

  47. It's trolls, all the way down by HBI · · Score: 1

    The turtle lady was wrong.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  48. And on Slashdot? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    I've often wondered how much astroturfing goes on at Slashdot.

    Certain news stories come up, and people make the most twisted arguments imaginable to deflect, downplay, or show shades of grey. Sometimes it's from long-term users with varied post histories - are these well-crafted astroturfers, carefully building up a false history to deflect suspicion?

    My last remembered example was the one about home solar installations: The panels give unused power to the grid during the day, and the users take power from the grid at night.

    The home-solar owner is using the grid as offline storage and not paying for it... and that's not fair.

    This is straight from Robert Cialdini's book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion(*). "I'd like to get solar panels for my house, but oh! if I'm being unfair, then the answer's obvious! I can't be unfair now... can I?"

    It's a well-crafted argument that halts rational thought by activating an automatic response on the part of the reader... by presenting a point of view that's not particularly obvious, and not something that is actually important to the issue.

    (Consider: Do you really care about being unfair to the huge corporate energy conglomerate? And do you think that they would be fair to you in return? And looking forward 50 years, is the world populated by distributed home solar installations *better* than the world relying on monolithic energy production? And if so, won't "being unfair" now help to bring that about?)

    This is only one example, I've noticed many sketchy arguments presented here - the Uber controversy seems to be particularly inflated.

    We know that big corporate interests will astroturf politicians and regulators by faking letters of support &c (viz: the outpouring of support of the Comcast/TimeWarner merger).

    We're a nexus (probably the biggest one) of smart people on the internet. Are there teams of astroturfers trying to shape public opinion?

    Has anyone else noticed any particularly suspicious arguments?

    (*) Chapter 3, "Commitment and Consistency"

    1. Re:And on Slashdot? by west · · Score: 1

      Consider: Do you really care about being unfair to the huge corporate energy conglomerate? And do you think that they would be fair to you in return?

      Actually, I want to be especially fair to those I oppose, and their behavior is irrelevant.

      Otherwise it's just a bunch of Hatfield's vs. McCoy's, and why should anyone prefer my Hatfield to the opposing McCoy?

      Sadly. you've made it clear in your post that
            (1) there can be no true information against your base premise
            (2) that anyone disseminating untrue information is an agent of the enemy
            (3) there is no obligation to treat enemy or enemy agents ethically
      which puts you in the company of a lot of less-than-august characters.

      Since I've indicated disagreement, does that mean I'm in the pay of the energy companies?

    2. Re: And on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are thinking way too hard about it. That person doesn't think selling home solar power at wholesale rates is fair. That is their opinion. I can't sell extra tomatoes from my garden this week at the same price I pay for them later when I need more. Even stocks in real time have different buy and a sell prices. Personally, I don't see how selling power back at the same rate is fair, and I'm not that guy.

      We're you completely ignoring that persons opinion because you think they are employing some kind of psychological trickery on you????

      Try actually TALKING to a variety of people about these topics. Everyone has an opinion, and you'll find most are different if you really discuss it with them.

      The Internet is the BEST way to find THE ONE person in the whole world that totally disagrees with you. Slashdot is full of really dismissive people, not shills.

    3. Re:And on Slashdot? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

      (2) that anyone disseminating untrue information is an agent of the enemy

      "What Muggles have learned is that there is a power in the truth, in all the pieces of the truth which interact with each other, which you can only find by discovering as many truths as possible. To do that you can't defend false beliefs in any way, not even by saying the false belief is useful." (source)

      (3) there is no obligation to treat enemy or enemy agents ethically which puts you in the company of a lot of less-than-august characters.

      You're extending my position from fairness to ethics and then applying it to people, implying that since I said it was OK to be unfair to a corporation, it's also OK to be unethical to people. And then an ad-hominem attack by putting me in the company of unsavory people.

      One definition of ethics is to take actions which minimize the suffering of others. Rooftop solar would likely reduce total suffering much more than bolstering the profits of the energy conglomerate, so I don't see a problem with the ethics.

      And why is the argument suddenly about me? Doesn't that deflect discussion away from the original point?

      (1) there can be no true information against your base premise

      You certainly haven't presented any true information. In fact, you haven't presented any information at all.

      Really. Speak to the specific issue (rooftop solar), or the outer issue of (astroturfing) and let's have a discussion.

    4. Re:And on Slashdot? by west · · Score: 1

      Look, rooftop solar is a good thing. I'm not arguing with your facts, I'm arguing with your approach. The topic is irrelevant.

      However, if it helps, let me put this out there. I'm cognizant of the fact that while my electrical bill is by use, the fairly obvious reality is that a connection to the utility and the maintenance of the utility has a very high fixed cost, which doesn't go away even if my net use is zero.

      A cost-based scheme might be to bill every house $100/month for connection to the grid, and then substantially drop the price we pay (and are paid) for solar, but that hits the poor too heavily. Also, I think we can make a case that we *want* more solar than is optimal in an strictly economic sense.

      In other words, there are arguments pro and con, and dismissing either pro or con means that society is denied the facts that it needs to make choices.

      The dismissal of any recognition that rooftop solar, like almost *every single choice on the planet* has tradeoffs raised hackles. That any attempt to discuss such trade-offs was characterized as deceitful made them rise even further.

      So, I apologize for the ad hominem nature of my post. But I stick with my basic claim: assuming bad faith on the part of your opponents harms society in general, and that unfairness towards any, individual or in the aggregate, is also harmful.

      History is simply too full of examples of what can happen when people feel the rightness of their cause obviates their need for fairness.

    5. Re:And on Slashdot? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's from long-term users with varied post histories - are these well-crafted astroturfers, carefully building up a false history to deflect suspicion?

      Extremely unlikely. The point of astroturfing is not to look impeccable to someone who researches the poster for hours. A paid astroturfers time is thousands of times more valuable if spent finding more forums to make a couple astroturfing posts on, compared to wasting hours writing good posts on other topics.

      Those posters may, however, have vested interests -- such as investments in certain companies.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    6. Re:And on Slashdot? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

      A cost-based scheme might be to bill every house $100/month for connection to the grid, and then substantially drop the price we pay (and are paid) for solar, but that hits the poor too heavily. Also, I think we can make a case that we *want* more solar than is optimal in an strictly economic sense.

      That is an informed position, I have no problem with it.

      You said that you're arguing with my approach, but I was only pointing out how their approach used psychological trickery to circumvent rational analysis. I realize that there are tradeoffs, and I come to this site specifically to see the tradeoffs and all sides of the story.

      It isn't about the tradeoffs, it's about the trickery.

      (And for the record, paying an access fee to store energy on the grid seems logical and reasonable. I 'kinda agree with it. Keep an eye out for trickery, though.)

    7. Re:And on Slashdot? by marxmarv · · Score: 1

      On high-value matters, building up that sort of record is an extremely valuable bolster to one's credibility. e.g. bipolarbear0's well-documented editorial prerogative ensuring blue-team hegemony over at Reddit. Captured or willing is a worthy question, though.

      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    8. Re:And on Slashdot? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Certain news stories come up, and people make the most twisted arguments imaginable to deflect, downplay, or show shades of grey. Sometimes it's from long-term users with varied post histories - are these well-crafted astroturfers, carefully building up a false history to deflect suspicion?

      No, they are likely smarter or just as as you. You should listen to them.

      My last remembered example was the one about home solar installations: The panels give unused power to the grid during the day, and the users take power from the grid at night.

      Exactly. Briliant example. The naive point of view is to let them abuse the net as storage, but any person thinking it through can tell you that will not work in the long run.

    9. Re:And on Slashdot? by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Why do people still use Reddit? My impression is that it's so heavily censored as to be utterly worthless as a "news" site, and has been for many years. Am I missing something?

  49. Re:US Government Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh no, the USA would *never* do anything like that. To flood forums with US propaganda? The US are *so* above that. Evil Russians indeed are the only people evil enough to do that and evil enough to spy on their own people and evil enough to wage war on other countries to increase their hegemony over the rest of the world and evil enough to export their debts to the rest of the world through confiscatory taxation through inflation by holding the world's reserve currency. Only Russia would do that.

  50. Matryoshka Trolls by Drewdad · · Score: 2

    Inside each Russian troll is another, slightly smaller Russian troll.

  51. Fully agree by s.petry · · Score: 3, Informative

    I find that most people I talk to don't trust US media. They don't do anything about it, but they don't believe what they are told any longer. Apathy works for a while, but historically this can not last. Corruption and abuse will get to a point where there has to be some form of revolution (not always bloody) and then the cycle will start over again.

    To be in line with TFA's point, sure the Russian's have paid shills and trolls. Their play books are the same as our own Government's. Whistle blowers have demonstrated that most large US companies have paid shills and trolls, the US Government pays shills and trolls, as does just every "Western" Government including the UK and Canada. Snowden's leaks give us a nice powerpoint view of the play book, no need for anecdote and hearsay trying to vilify "those other guys". Nobody likes a hypocrite..

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  52. Re:Sure by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Not only country governments do that but even municipals do it. Often using trolls that ridicules those willing to raise the questions about high-risk projects.

    Looking at Västlänken, Gothenburg, Sweden you will see a local debate that's quite heated.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  53. Re:Sure by mi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hover's infiltration of civil right's organizations

    That was a covert operation, which is a direct opposite of propaganda.

    Hoover was running FBI — federal police — not military. Countering foreign agents and spies is openly and officially within the scope of such establishments in all countries and infiltration is a perfectly legitimate tactics.

    "Interesting" my butt.

    under the argument that they were aligned with communists.

    Many were USSR-controlled (knowingly or not), in all likelihood. Some certainly were.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  54. Oh, you want a job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So who is hiring for the US Troll operations?

    Fox News might be hiring. Most active major commercial propaganda outlet we have. Amazingly distorted rhetoric straight-up designed to mislead and motivate the gullible. The chief job requirement for on-screen employees seems to be the ability to keep a straight face. Off screen, though, they need video editors and "reporters" who can take the key elements of a story and write up (barely) credible fiction that somehow implicates that "Kenyan Muslim Socialist." Digging up images that are supposed to be about a story, but really are about something else, is also a very important job skill.

    Voice of America used to be a great place for the aspiring propagandist, but shortwave isn't what it used to be. Of course, you can go into politics, which near as I can tell is about 9.99% purest propaganda and .1% some poor bastard trying to buck the system.

    Drudge might be looking for an intern as well. Or Breitbart. For that matter, there is the clergy, always a hotbed of cobbled-up agitprop -- pay tends to be low unless you go the evangelist route, so keep that in mind.

    Wikipedia is a good place to practice, and you can always put it on your resume -- public figures are always looking for (cough) "image management."

    Be of good cheer! Plenty of opportunity still remaining!

    1. Re:Oh, you want a job? by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      This ^ mod 5 informative

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
  55. Re:Sure by mi · · Score: 1

    And the NSA hoovering up Americans' communications data.

    NSA's domestic spying is highly secretive and covert.

    They run away from any sunlight and do not engage in propaganda, which would've blown their secrets.

    They supply information to other branches of government, but don't do anything with it themselves. Had they done anything of the kind, you've would've heard plenty about it from Snowden's fans...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  56. You totally blew that. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    You totally blew that. As third post, there was supposed to be a picture demonstrating the first posters point.

    1. Re:You totally blew that. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      At least he reads the articles...

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  57. Lexic by deblike · · Score: 1

    Russian ones: you call them trolls. Western ones: you call them press. Hummm...

  58. See how trolls operate in any NSA thread on /. by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Who cares abouy Russian trolls when slashdot already has its share of government shills (cold fjord), telecom / cable shills (Sarten X), and fossil fuel shills? Russia is the least of our worries when it comes to disinfo.

  59. Re:Sure by cazzazullu · · Score: 2

    That would explain the quality of some comments...

    --
    int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
  60. Re:Sure by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

    Russia gets its quite well. RT is backed up by every remaining news source in the country. Its all 100% controlled from the top down now. Russians are becoming irrelevant as they are almost completely buried in this crap and are scared out of their wits to say anything out of line with it. The Russian church is even on the dole or afraid, they declared the march into Ukraine a holy Crusade. Believe me, Russia does quite get it. The Question is do you.

  61. Who needs astroturfing by marxmarv · · Score: 1

    when a corporate talent search firm owns the thing? You must not have noticed the shift over the past decade or so, in the slavish adherence to conventional wisdom and mainstream narratives.

    For that matter, most conspiracy theory can be explained by good old high-school conformism and a shared culture among those whom we are allowed to endorse to run the place.

    --
    /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    1. Re:Who needs astroturfing by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      I have wondered if there was a market for unused accounts with low UIDs, whether from the site owner or or just people skilled at social engineering

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
  62. Militia Acts, etc. by marxmarv · · Score: 1

    The Militia Acts of the 1790s are fair examples. Think of the larger pattern this way: when has the US not been bipolar and schizophrenic in its social order? When has it not had some Other into which to schizophrenically split off its less Exceptional parts?

    --
    /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    1. Re:Militia Acts, etc. by mi · · Score: 1

      Just what is so uniquely American or "bypolar" about Militia Acts?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  63. Get over yourself, infant by marxmarv · · Score: 1

    You pathetic, whimpering, pietous, arrogant, Exceptional tool. People like you who are willing to die for some gorram BEDTIME STORY ought to do so posthaste.

    --
    /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
  64. Re:Sure by marxmarv · · Score: 1

    You forgot the entire Republican Party. If you really believe the trappings of intellectualism or anti-intellectualism are not just the designated irreconcilable tribal grunts, you are probably too naïve to understand politics.

    --
    /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
  65. +1, Insightful by marxmarv · · Score: 1

    The act of deflection is on the part of those who are posting this ZOMG RUSSIA propaganda in the MSM. But without victim blaming, it is impossible to have American Exceptionalism, a not-too-distant offshoot of Protestantism, as the secular religion, so what then? I for one will happily pee on the grave of American Exceptionalism once it is buried.

    --
    /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
  66. Well, that's capitalism by marxmarv · · Score: 1

    You'd think people on /. would be smarter than mainstream-fed USians and actually think more than 1/2 move ahead, but to do so risks "talking like a fag", as a certain Mike Judge movie once labeled it, so it's not done.

    --
    /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
  67. Re:Sure by aralin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In Russia it is a small government based operation involving couple hundred people. In US it is a wide scale, industrial operation, otherwise referred to as mainstream media and involves hundreds of thousands of people. In Russia the product is comments under articles, in US the product are the articles themselves. I don't think that we, in the US, are exactly qualified to complain about what the Russians are doing.

    Just as one example, look at articles from 2008 to 2013 about Russia in the US mainstream media. It reads like hit job. There is not a single article published without a mention of some perceived problem in Russia, be it with Putin himself, so called human rights violations, free speech violations or corruption. Not a single article that would not spend at least several paragraphs on bad mouthing Russia.

    And even if you say, those are justified, compare it to articles from 2008 to 2013 on Saudi Arabia, which has much worse record in every single regard. You will see the stark difference.

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  68. Maskirovka by jfengel · · Score: 1

    So much so that they even have a name for it: Maskirovka. The term was originally used just for camouflage, and the uses of it seem entirely in keeping with ordinary warfare. The disinformation campaign around D-Day would have been a brilliant example of maskirovka.

    But the Russians do it before a war, and even during active hostilities as a way to demand that they be treated as if they were non-combatants. It's going on right now, pretending that they aren't engaging in war against Ukraine. It's so traditional in the culture that it's not even really something we can blame them for, exactly. But it means that our actions and reactions have to be calibrated around the fact that this is part of the way they view the world.

  69. Re:Sure by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

    Wrap yourself in the flag much?
    Playing the patriot does not make you right

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  70. Re:I am a paid troll by Layzej · · Score: 1

    The Heartland institute is paid by the fossil fuel industry to spread misinformation about climate change. Popular misinformation sites like WUWT have received $80,000 in a single year. Even as a lowly intern you can get a small piece of the pie. They'll pay you $150/week to comment on relevant blogs, newspaper articles, and social media.

  71. And we trust this article because...? by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

    If I were waging a propaganda war against Russia, (and we are; it is ferocious, filled with an utterly astonishing amount of crap; hell, the entire Western media coverage of the last Olympic games was one giant psychological warfare operation.)

    Given that, then this little article is *exactly* the kind of spoof I'd publish. Not saying it isn't truthful. Maybe it is. But it could very easily be a complete or partial fabrication. It has the same flavor as that "Incubator Babies" lie packaged and sold by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador posing as a refugee before a congressional committee, and all packaged up neat and tidy by American PR firm, Hill & Knowlton.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/...

    And why not? That kind of shit is incredibly effective. If you use the "who benefits" measure to determine the likelihood of a story being a fabrication, then this one stinks to high heaven. -It casts doubt on any of the counter-arguments Russia might present in defense of itself against many of the ludicrous claims of the West. I mean, how many times has the West claimed that Russia has "invaded" Ukraine? FFS.

    Seriously. Would this kid be allowed to report on his psy-ops activities were he really what he claims? Would an intelligence operation really not be able to vet this kid's past political leanings? He's an internet child, for goodness sake. According to the propaganda, the Russian secret services should render this kind of leak next to impossible. So which is it? Is Russia a fascist empire or a clown show incapable of controlling a bunch of trolls for hire? You can't have it both ways. Unless you're dumb.

    And how dumb are we?

    Well, just look at the number of people posting today who have taken for granted that this article represents reality.

    So one way or another, this astroturfing bullshit works.

    For those who want to work out what is *really* going on, you need to do three things:

    1. Take the time to listen, read and sift through the media.

    2. Measure the claims against the samples of objective reality you can distill.

    3. (And this is the most important one) Remember past behavior patterns of the players involved and use those recollections in your calculations. Psychopaths who have lied and manipulated once will not suddenly be truthful and honest just because today is a new day.

    -This message brought to you by a completely unpaid Western idiot who should really be working right now but is instead wasting time throwing useless punches at a tidal wave of bullshit.

    Hill and Knowlton earned a reported 10 million for their efforts which sent us to war. I'm trying to scrape a few bucks together for my next rent check. Go America.

  72. No Gaming Reference? No puns? by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Only Soulskill's Department byline had any reference to the game. What has slashdot turned into?

    Actually I prefer the Quorum Trolls as outlined in HackMaster.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  73. job titles / keywords? by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    What job titles and keywords are used in ads for troll operator positions? I would love to read some of their job postings.

    Reading job ads is a good way to see what the Empire is actually working on. For instance, if you work on databases, the job ads in Northern Virginia are just fascinating. Read them for a while if you wish to be disabused of the silly notion that we live in a free republic. Similarly, I suspect job ads for troll operators would give some insight into the ideologies and memes promulgated by the financialist cybernetic police state.

  74. Re:Sure by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    And the NSA hoovering up Americans' communications data.

    NSA's domestic spying is highly secretive and covert.

    They run away from any sunlight and do not engage in propaganda, which would've blown their secrets.

    So which organizations ("government" or "corporate") are responsible for our domestic propaganda ops?

  75. "Quit Calling People Trolls" - by iq145 · · Score: 1

    – If you want to troll Damon Linker, just accuse him of being a troll. In his latest column for the Week, Linker calls the term "facile, vacuous, imprecise," and "insipid." After all, "everyone online wants to be noticed, have a say, start an argument, be recognized as clever." There are thousands of people online saying things that someone considers outrageous. "Are they all trolls?" We can never know if someone means what they're saying, which means accusations of trolling "invariably amount to an ad hominem attack." Was Niccolo Machiavelli trolling when he wrote The Prince? Was Nietzsche trolling when he said that "God is dead"? Malcolm X, Ayn Rand, HL Mencken, and countless others could look like trolls in the right light—and it's much easier to call them that than engage with their ideas. "At its most basic level, trolling is what everyone is doing online every hour of every day. And at its best, trolling is coterminous with thinking itself—which often requires provocation as a goad to move the mind out of its well-worn grooves." http://www.newser.com/story/19...

  76. Re:Sure by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    I honestly don't care if they're getting paid or not... 99% of them are so easy to spot it's laughable. Always look at their history, if it's mostly Russian conflict stories then *ping* They'll refer to NATO or Ukraine as fascist *ping* They LOVE to use a basic western first name and claim to be American. Ironically when they're pretending to be American they're typically support a conservative stance politically.

  77. Re:Sure by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    The things that separates Cold Fjord from those people is that he only shows up in NSA related threads on Slashdot and he is so obvious that the only way he isn't a shill for NSA would be if he is a shill for some other nation that is trying really hard to make the US government look bad.

    I'd think a real NSA operative wouldn't act so... well, in a way that would make us suspect he's an NSA operative.

  78. Re:Sure by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what MSNBC is except the biggest, most well known left-wing troll on planet Earth

    Ehhhh, I don't know about that. No one watches MSNBC. I'd give that award to Huffington Post, maybe? Village Voice? The left-wing stuff seems far more spread out and less centralized.

    But Fox's numbers are only impressive when compared against other cable news channels, which most people don't care about. Hell, more people probably see Fox clips on the Daily Show than on Fox.

  79. Re:Non-russian troll shitpost by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Sheesh give me a chance here, it was a shitpost as stated. They get full time pay, it's rather discouraging!

    Do you get paid in shit then? Sounds like a shit job.