Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Notifies 1.4 Million Users of Interaction With Russian Accounts (recode.net)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Recode: At least 1.4 million people on Twitter engaged with content created by Russian trolls during the 2016 presidential election, the company revealed on Wednesday. That's more than double the amount that Twitter initially identified -- and perhaps still just a fraction of the full universe of users who may have witnessed Kremlin propaganda over that period. In announcing the new data in a blog post, Twitter also said it had notified all 1.4 million affected users that they saw election disinformation. That fulfilled a pledge that the company previously made to members of Congress who are investigating Russia's tactics on social media. Notified users included those that followed one of the roughly 3,000 accounts belonging to the Internet Research Agency, the troll army tied to the Russian government, as well as users who retweeted, replied, liked or mentioned those IRA accounts in their tweets. But Twitter did not alert users who merely saw Russian troll tweets in their feeds but did not interact with the content. Nor did it reach out to users who saw tweets from the roughly 50,000 Russian bots that tweeted election-related content around November 2016.
Wonder who they were targeting...
Other bots.
How many followers does CNN have?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Russia wants the U.S. to be divided politically.
This has been the historical norm.
the last Presidential election was divisive. Regardless of who won, bipartisanship is, if not at an all time low, pretty close to it's all time low.
I honestly do not believe that if Clinton had won we would have the same merry-go-round circus shit-show we have now. Sure, many GOP would do obstruct with like Obama but that is hardly new and not the same level of divisiveness.
Part of the issue is cognitive dissonance on the left after Trump won. Because the rhetoric was "literally Hitler" they had to accept the fact that people disagree with them and try to figure out why or double down and find any excuse to validate their belief no matter how faulty or weak the evidence. Saying "The country is more racist than I thought.[1] Russians stole the election.[2] Trump only won because collusion with Russia[3]" etc is easier than to admit your were wrong or that the media that influenced your belief was wrong. There is no evidence as it stands for any of those things. If Clinton had won it would have been a "sigh of relief that we avoided disaster " and "avoided literally Hitler" and they could continue to believe what they already believed without having to face disagreement or that they might be wrong.
Honestly, given the State of the Union address and the Democrats sitting on their hands for literally anything said, I am not sure how you can get any bipartisan agreement. I am curious how the opposition party reaction during the State of the Union can predict future agreements. Did the GOP sit for everything said by Obama or only for things they don't like? Were they able to make progress on the things they agreed on errr stand up for?
1) The only evidence was a statistic that had hate crimes rise a little and if you break down the numbers most of the increase was attributed to more hate crimes against white men.
2) There is no evidence that Russia changed a single vote or hacked a single voting machine.
3) There is an investigation but as it stands now there is no evidence. Anyone claiming otherwise before the evidence is out is only looking for things to confirm their per-existing belief.