Slashdot Mirror


Professional Russian Trolling Exposed

An anonymous reader writes: Today the New York Times published a stunning exposé revealing the strategies used by one of the Web's greatest enemies: professional, government-backed "internet trolls." These well-paid agent provocateurs are dedicated to destroying the value of the Internet as an organizing and political tool. The trolling attacks described within are mind-boggling -- they sound like the basis of a Neal Stephenson novel as much as they do real life -- but they all rely on the usual, inevitable suspects of imperfect security and human credulity.

23 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. America next? by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's just about time to drag the American organized political trolling on sites like reddit, twitter, and tumblr into the open too, right?

    --
    http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
    1. Re:America next? by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the USA has better free speech protections. therefore, nonsense on the internet has less power

      i am certain there is organized political trolling in the USA as well, by the government and by organizations with agendas, but it is less effective in the west

      countries with less free speech protection (like china and their 50 cent bullshit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5... ) will rely on this sort of organized trolling as a means of persuasion and control, domestically and internationally. more than the west, simply because the west has less need to manipulate these whisper campaigns because nonsense on the internet has less power because are exposed to it more in a free speech environment and are more resistant to it. they simply have better trained more critical minds

      the governments of authoritarian countries fear provocative opinions more, therefore they engage in this sort of nonsense more, because they view controlling people's opinions as important. their people wind of living in a walled garden of controlled opinion with less options to consider, and a state that officially endorses and pushes weak minded opinions and fear. the west simply doesn't give a fuck. the opinions and lies of random morons on the internet is exactly that, and most people can see that for what it is. you have to live in a paranoid insecure state to give much credence to inflammatory bullshit from random whispers on the internet

      in the end, it weakens these countries, because you are breeding people with weak, easily manipulated minds. people in the west simply have better and more healthy bullshit meters. simply because when you can say anything, people do

      expose a socially and psychologically normal person to 4chan for a month, and what do you get? a crackpot? no, a jaded experienced mind that can see bullshit coming from a mile away

      exposure to the kind of thinking and commentary that resembles mental illness, amongst the more rational choices of speech, gives one a more critical eye and healthy skepticism. the ability to see the difference between credible words and manipulated words

      but in countries where paranoid schizophrenic theories are actually supported and endorsed by the government's official media agencies as a means of control, you breed people to live in panic and fear. weak minds. it's a shame to weaken people's minds like this. russia, china, iran, etc., reap a side effect of their manipulations: a general population more susceptible to idiocies most westerners (not all) would easily reject, simply because westerners (even though some choose to stay within ideological bubbles and never consider other sides out of prideful ignorance, some personality types are universal, but limited) can, and do, see other sources of narrative, good or bad

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:America next? by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's a continuum. the west falls for plenty of bullshit. it's just that, on the average, the west falls for less

      every single example of the west falling for shit you just gave me, can also be shown in countries with less free speech. and they fall for *more*

      the perfect is not the enemy of the good. if you gauge all countries against an ideal perfection of a populace of everyone being perfectly rational critical minds, which does not exist and never will, then your criticisms are useless

      the west simply edges out countries with less free speech because they train more critical minds. the west is not perfect and never will be. it's just that, until countries that now have very little free speech get more, the west will simply do better than them, not perfect

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  2. And? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is anybody pretending that corporations and politicians aren't already effectively doing the same thing?

    Only they pretty it up with foundations and think tanks who put out position papers to benefit the talking points of the people paying for them.

    Propaganda comes in many forms. And from many sources.

    And even some of the people who will be hand-wringing about this propaganda will be endorsing some other stuff.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  3. It's very real by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look at any site, twitter, instagram, facebook, reddit. If you post something about say MH17 and the information about the Russians being involved, all of a sudden the trolls come out about Ukrainian aggression, whores in Kiev etc. As the TFA indicates, this can create panic considering how hooked people are on Social Media but it'll also be more than anything else, the death of anonymity on the Web. Why? because people on Social Media sites will demand it because of the trolling activities and having to filter through a bunch of propaganda and targeted misdirection.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:It's very real by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. The separatists captured an Ukrainian BUK when they took over an Ukrainian air base
      2. A BUK has in fact been seen and photographed travelling in the separatist controlled region of the Ukraine.
      3. According to witness reports, a BUK system was moved into Russia the night after the incident
      4. Immediately after the incident, separatists boasted on the Internet they shot down an Ukrainian Antonov
      5. Bellingcat analysis of Russian provided satellite imagery intending to prove Ukraininan involvement have been proven to be fakes

      Meanwhile Russian media has raised all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories trying to obfuscate the incident:
      - A mysterious spanish air controller came out and admitted an Ukrainian fighter plane shot the aircraft down
      - The pilot of the machine was an Ukrainian committing suicide to frame the separatists
      - MH17 was full of corpses to begin with, pointing towards a fucking batshit crazy CIA operation
      - It was an Ukrainian Sukoi
      - It was an Ukrainian MIG
      - It was an Ukrainian BUK
      - It was an attempted assassination attempt on Putin
      - There was an UFO in the vicinity (thanks for that one)

      Seriously man...

  4. In Soviet Russia by clam666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Internet Trolls You!

    --
    I'm a satanic clam.
  5. You're Talking About a Different Scale by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's just about time to drag the American organized political trolling on sites like reddit, twitter, and tumblr into the open too, right?

    Well, astroturfing is no new tactic but ... I think what this article deals with is scale. 400 clearly skilled (bilingual at the least) individuals running multiple catfish personalities online day in and day out ... the whole thing on a budget of $400k a month? That level and size is probably unparalleled by ... say, Digg's conservative idiots.

    You have one entity orchestrating the 12 hours a day work of 400 individuals on topics that are pro-Russian and tangentially pro-Russian. They are sophisticated enough to "hit play" at a certain time to unfold a natural disaster or assassination or anything to destabilize/confuse a region and they do so over many accounts on multiple social media platforms. They create video, screenshots, websites, etc. And they use proxies and sufficiently sophisticated means to appear to be disjoint at first glance.

    They appear to have run an exercise on a rubber plant explosion in Louisiana for no other discernible purpose than to test out their new super powers or demonstrate their abilities to their customers/leaders.

    Frankly put, I'm unaware of "American organized political trolling" that rivals this. This is paid. This is tightly controlled. This is prepared. This is unified. American organized political trolling is just a run-of-the-mill monkey shitfight with the occasional Koch Bros/Soros website (usually easily sourceable) thrown in.

    Now if you can point me to a faked ISIS attack on American soil right before an election that was done by some political group stateside, I'd be interested to hear about it.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly put, I'm unaware of "American organized political trolling" that rivals this.

      Americans are quick to believe the Official Narrative, no matter how absurd. Mass media is the professional 'troll' that gets people to fight each here.

      Again, you're conflating two things that are significant enough that I don't see a simple one-to-one comparison here.

      The clear difference here is that the trolls in the article are a nebulous entity whereas the media trolls are not. I know to laugh at Glenn Beck and Katie Couric. I know who they are. I recognize their blubbering stupid talking heads. They're a trainwreck of lies and half truths. On the other hand, you can't stop google from returning search results that confirm what you're looking for. When it's a "trending hastag" on Twitter, you can't figure out if it's legit or not. How do I know that podonski432 on Twitter is the same individual on Youtube named ashirefort posting videos of an explosion is the same person retweeting podonski432 and adding ashirefort's video to their tweet?

      Mass media doesn't employ subterfuge and I sure as hell can stop reading the New York Post & Washington Times & CNSNews & Huffington Post and all that other drivel. I can't, however, identify easily that this account on Twitter is just the new troll account that tricked me last time.

      You do know that it's news if the New York Times is caught lying or spreading known falsities, right? I watched Jon Stewart hold a "reporters" feet to the WMD fire on one of his recent episodes. There's no self-policing mechanism like that among trolls.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In a way this is right, trolling and astroturfing are done on the mass media via PR mouthpieces, press releases and advertising.

      I think the difference is that it's so professional and done with such public transparency (ie, you can call the PR office and get mailed a press kit, nobody pretends they're not doing it) that it lacks the kind of nefarious, ministry of propaganda kind of dishonesty that a state-sponsored organized astroturfing campaign has.

      I just don't think those tactics would work all that well within the US. It seems like whenever an organization DOES try an astroturfing campaign ("Citizens for Enhanced Comcast Monopoly") it gets spotted so quickly for what it is that it seems to achieve negative results.

    3. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not making allegations, I'm explaining what happened. The consulate was attacked by a well armed local terrorist franchise that had carefully planned their evening project. Everyone on the US side new within hours (even as it was happening) exactly what had occurred. The White House certainly did. They then went about a deliberate campaign of lying about what happened, because telling the truth about it would have been acknowledging that a key part of their at-the-time ongoing re-election campaign was their narrative about how exactly such terrorist groups were "on the run" and losing their ability to cause trouble. The event demonstrated that their often repeated campaign talking point was either itself a lie, or reflected a remarkably obtuse/naive understanding of what was happening on the ground in places like Libya.

      The GP was questioning the existence of a US counter-example of what we see regularly in the Russian/Ukraine mess (where Russia blatantly lies about what's happening on the ground, using all sorts of classical methods in their media, including the professional trolls discussed in TFA). I said that we had a close example that we could examine - where something that happened on the ground and was well understood by everyone in defense and intelligence, right up the food chain to the White House, was never the less lied about for weeks in the service of spinning for the imminent election. They sent people like Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton out to deliberately troll, multiple times, in order to muddy the waters and distract from the fact that what happened was taking the fun out of part of their re-election campaign narrative.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Astroturfing

      Cosmoturfing

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are the one spreading lies. There have been numerous investigations into Benghazi and it has been concluded that "The CIA talking points were flawed but still "painted a mostly accurate picture of the IC's analysis of the Benghazi attacks at that time, in an unclassified form and without compromising the nascent [FBI] investigation of the attacks."" and "that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes." Seriously, let's put this BS to bed.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    6. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 3

      There is a big difference. The Russian trolls are pretending to be your average Mr. Normal posting on the internet, hiding the fact that they are employed by the Kremlin and spreading Russian propaganda.

    7. Re:You're Talking About a Different Scale by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems like whenever an organization DOES try an astroturfing campaign ("Citizens for Enhanced Comcast Monopoly") it gets spotted so quickly for what it is that it seems to achieve negative results.

      Not when it is framed as an *Exciting new customer experience at lower than low prices that only we, with our grand national infrastructure and 5 billion channels, can provide*. This is why Comcast already enjoys its monopoly it holds now.

      This stuff is all over the place. Somebody just got named. And who knows? With this Ukraine thing, there's plenty of propaganda flying in both directions. Some people on this side have a war to sell. And the fact is that our wars were sold to us by professional "trolls", precisely through mass media. Sounds pretty nefarious to me... Definitely state sponsored astroturfing.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. Read this by microbox · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read Trust me, I'm Lying -- it is a book by a self-confessed media manipulator who got depressed and left the industry. He worked for an apparel company. One example tactic was to take sexually explicit photos of porn stars, and then complain about said photos to feminist groups. And then: OUTRAGE!!!

    The story of ACORN is a perfect example of how media manipulators manufactured a scandal -- literally creating reality for movement conservatives -- in order to shut the group down. To this day, some GOP congress critters are unaware that ACORN is defunct. The interesting thing is, the more outraged a person is (politically), the easier they are to manipulate. It is all rather ironic.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:Read this by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Attorneys General of several states, various government agencies, and a couple of independent analysis all agreed that the original videos show no indication of what you called "really ad things." The journalists even admitted their wrongdoing.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

  7. Re:par for the course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Holy crap, that guy. Cold fjord shows up to every Snowden/Manning/Wikileaks story like an unwanted sex offender to a family Christmas dinner.

  8. Don't forget slashdot by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's just about time to drag the American organized political trolling on sites like reddit, twitter, and tumblr into the open too, right?

    I've often wondered about certain comment threads on slashdot. Framing certain actions as "hijacking the conversation for propaganda purposes" seems to hit the Bayesian priors higher than just "a lot of people really feel that way".

    The conversations attached to Uber articles are weird, not at all what one would expect.

    The recent one about California raising the minimum wage was suspect: affecting roughly 2.4% of wage earners, you would expect posts like "has no effect because costs are passed on to consumers", "raising everyone's wages make costs rise to compensate", and so on to be roundly debunked by the first person to google some numbers.

    It's worse around election time. In a presidential election year, about 6 weeks beforehand we start to get framing posts - some of which are quite insidious. "I agree with him on *that* issue, but everything else he stands for is batshit crazy". It seemed like every response to a Ron Paul was that way: his immediate position is OK, but it puts the "batshit crazy" idea into people's minds with no supporting evidence.

    ...and it's starting to happen for Rand Paul as well.

    Then there's the visibility-massaging techniques: posting an opinion that's not *quite* right just to get people to respond so that text further down gets pushed below the fold where no one can see it. Posting a definition that's not *quite* right so that people argue the definition back and forth and avoid the core issues, and of course modding things down.

    I sometimes monitor certain posts and see them modded down... only to see them modded up a few hours later. That indicates to me that there are people trying to promote an agenda with the moderation system, but get overruled by the general population.

    In addition to participating in the conversation, take a step back and look at the overall context of the conversation some time. Instead of just responding, think about the reasoning behind *why* the person made the post that they did.

    It is sometimes quite enlightening.

    1. Re:Don't forget slashdot by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, sorry, the Pauls take great positions on one or two issues and the rest of them are batshit crazy. That's a reflection of reality, not a conspiracy theory.

      That said, I might actually vote for Rand, because I think it's time for the pendulum to swing back to the other end of the spectrum for a while. Not all of the changes will be for the best, assuming he manages to make any, but we really need to take a break from the national security/world police routine.

  9. Blame America first by mi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Four years ago the article said: "The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda."

    There is not a more recent update as to what has become of that software development effort. But we do know, that in 2011 — when the article you are linking to was talking about America's evil plans in future tense — Russian government's Internet-propaganda machine was already up and running:

    A Russian journalist who visited one such comment-mill, the St. Petersburg Internet Research Agency, met with a coordinator who said the job was not unlike writing copy for a hair dryer: "The only difference is that this hair dryer is a political one."

    Let me guess, USSR's Lavrenty Beria was a normal reaction to America's Joseph McCarthy in your opinion too?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  10. Nyet by puddingebola · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nyet, everything excellent in Russia, all American disasters real and American. Giant plume kill 1200 people in Louisiana city of New Orleans. Work of imperialists. American CIA responsible, deaths cover up. Real! Contact me at agent0@kremlin.gov for more big news.

  11. Re:par for the course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The professional Russian trolls are about as subtle.

    Thing is, you don't need to be very good at trolling if you are working full time at it. You will always get the last word against people who has better things to do than to argue with paid trolls.