Slashdot Mirror


Russian Fake News Ecosystem Targets Syrian Human Rights Workers (securityledger.com)

chicksdaddy shares a report from The Security Ledger: Kremlin linked news sites like RT and Sputnik figure prominently in an online disinformation campaign portraying Syrian humanitarian workers ("White Helmets") as terrorists and crisis actors, according to an analysis (PDF) by researchers at University of Washington and Harvard. An online "echosystem" of propaganda websites including Russia backed news outlets Sputnik and RT is attacking the credibility of humanitarian workers on the ground in rebel occupied Syria, according to a new analysis by researchers at The University of Washington and Harvard University. Online rumors circulated through so called "alternative" media sites have attacked the Syrian Civil Defense (aka "White Helmets") as "crisis actors" and Western agents working on behalf of the U.S. and NATO. Statistical analysis of the online rumors reveal a tight network of websites sharing nearly identical content via Twitter and other social media platforms, wrote Kate Starbird. Starbird is an Assistant Professor of Human Centered Design & Engineering at University of Washington and a leading expert on so-called "crisis informatics."

In activity reminiscent of the disinformation campaigns that roiled the U.S. Presidential election in 2016, articles by what Starbird describes as "a few prominent journalists and bloggers" writing for self described "alternative" news sites like 21stCenturyWire, GlobalResearch, MintPressNews, and ActivistPost are picked up by other, smaller and more niche websites including both left- and right-leaning partisan news sites, "clickbait sites," and conspiracy theory websites. Government funded media outlets from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia figure prominently in the Syrian disinformation campaign, Starbird's team found. In particular, "Russian government-funded media outlets (i.e. SputnikNews and RT) play a prominent and multi-faceted role within this ecosystem," she wrote.

17 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For millennials (particularly the one that posted this): 'fake news' is only a concern if you, the dumbass, believe it. 'Fake news' has been with us under its former name, 'propaganda' since human beings have had the ability to relay information to one another, and yet, time and humanity have marched on. Is there anything, anything at all, that folks 35 and under are capable of applying critical thought to? Is there a single millennial out there that wasn't molded into just a human-robot-victim hybrid by their parents? If this is representative of your 'higher education', you are right: your degrees are worthless. Just because you invent a name for something and start a meme does not mean you have personally discovered anything or that your style of sharing is anythng resembling accute or profound. Your parents have created the most epic failure of intelligence, consciousness, and presence of mind or heart the world has ever seen.

  2. US fake news ecosystem targets democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Meanwhile, in the US the fake news ecosystem targets democracy by attempting to overturn the last election, because the wrong candidate won.

    Damn those voters who don't know what's best for themselves! They need white, sheltered, urban "progressives" to tell them they all RAAAAACIS NAZIS!

  3. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Aequitarum+Custos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't about Democrats, Republicans, Hillary or Trump. Russia didn't care about our politics, they cared about destabilizing us. They did so by making us turn against each other. Over 50 million ad impressions per week. If you're on Facebook, you saw them. And they were designed so that the people who saw them would be most likely to engage (like/comment/share). https://www.usatoday.com/story...

  4. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Aequitarum+Custos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For context:

    3,393 advertisements purchased (a total 3,519 advertisements total were released after more were identified by the company);
    More than 11.4 million American users exposed to those advertisements;
    470 IRA-created Facebook pages;
    80,000 pieces of organic content created by those pages; and
    Exposure of organic content to more than 126 million Americans.

    Half of Americans saw their content.

  5. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This is all about US advocacy groups such as shareblue or media-matters spinning bullshit about Russia.

      Shareblue - which is spamming Slashdot and other sites with advocacy stories - is far more insidious and dangerous than the Russians ever were.

    I'd appreciated it if political advocates with 'English Degrees' didn't spam Nerd sites like this.

  6. Let people decide reliability of news by hayricop · · Score: 1, Insightful

    One great revolution caused by Internet is the collapse of media monopolies. And it is a good thing. Media monopolies were used to engineer public opinion. One example is "Weapons of Mass Destruction" fake news which was publicized by almost all main stream media to justify a war with terrible consequences. I do not automatically trust any news coming from any source. I check at least one contrary argument before making my mind.

    1. Re:Let people decide reliability of news by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One example is "Weapons of Mass Destruction" fake news which was publicized by almost all main stream media

      I remember it being all over the news that that was a fake claim by the government. it seems you've fallen into the "fake news" trap by believing fake claims about the media.

      I check at least one contrary argument before making my mind.

      Not every story has two sides.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  7. And it's the fault of the MSM by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For context:
    3,393 advertisements purchased (a total 3,519 advertisements total were released after more were identified by the company);
    More than 11.4 million American users exposed to those advertisements;
    470 IRA-created Facebook pages;
    80,000 pieces of organic content created by those pages; and
    Exposure of organic content to more than 126 million Americans.
    Half of Americans saw their content.

    I have to think that the MSM is partly to blame here.

    There is really no trusted news authority one can go to for verification or accurate information any more. I suppose there used to be only a *perception* of accurate reporting, but even that has vanished in the age of internet fact-checking.

    During the run-up to the presidential election, otherwise legitimate news sources spewed a torrent of contempt, insults, and partisan framing. After the election, those same news sources went absolutely ballistic over the results.

    Even today, highly regarded sources such as MSNBC and CNN post factually incorrect statements and politically misleading facts, that have to be quietly walked back a few days later.

    Is it any wonder that people look to alternate sources?

    You used to be able to go to online fact-checking sites such as Snopes.com and politifact, but even these have been taken over by partisan views. I've researched a couple of Snopes articles myself and found them to be either completely wrong, whitewashed, or highly misleading.

    You used to be able to trust polling results: the polling companies made it their business to be accurate. Even now polls that report inconvenient truths are being suppressed.

    If the news organizations started simply reporting what happened, instead of trying to get emotional engagement by emotionally framing the facts, people might leave the fringe sources and go back to regular news.

    (Of note: CNN's ratings are down 20% compared to a year ago. I cannot understand how they believe what they're doing is in their best interests. I thought it was the fiducial responsibility of a corporation to make money, and pushing a political agenda seems to be a poor strategy for that.)

    1. Re:And it's the fault of the MSM by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is really no trusted news authority one can go to for verification or accurate information any more.

      Don't be stupid.

      Even now polls that report inconvenient truths are being suppressed [breitbart.com]

      Wow. Complaining about a lack of "trusted news authority" and then citing breitbart.com. That's stupid squared.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:And it's the fault of the MSM by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      truths are being suppressed.[breitbart.com]

      I love how you complain about the lack of trust in the "MSM" and how they post factually incorrect statements by linking to a place which does that way more and has a way worse record on corrections.

      If you're taking Breitbart's word on, well, anything then you are very much part of the problem.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:And it's the fault of the MSM by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I won't bury the lede: You're attempting to blame a right-wing boogey man for the hostile acts of a foreign power.

      I have to think that the MSM is partly to blame here.

      There is really no trusted news authority one can go to for verification or accurate information any more. I suppose there used to be only a *perception* of accurate reporting, but even that has vanished in the age of internet fact-checking.

      You are blaming the MSM for not being all things to all people. There is no universally trusted news authority because people seek out sources that confirm their preconceptions. Also, a foreign power released propaganda using the "emotional engagement" that you decry below to make people trust the media less.

      During the run-up to the presidential election, otherwise legitimate news sources spewed a torrent of contempt, insults, and partisan framing. After the election, those same news sources went absolutely ballistic over the results.

      Donald Trump is unfit to be president. It isn't a partisan issue (see the many "never Trumper" conservatives), any more than saying shit stinks.

      Even today, highly regarded sources such as MSNBC and CNN post factually incorrect statements and politically misleading facts, that have to be quietly walked back a few days later.

      Is it any wonder that people look to alternate sources?

      I would prefer infallible news sources. At least MSNBC and CNN post retractions when they are wrong. The trolls and bots and Sean Hannity don't.

      You used to be able to go to online fact-checking sites such as Snopes.com and politifact, but even these have been taken over by partisan views. I've researched a couple of Snopes articles myself and found them to be either completely wrong, whitewashed, or highly misleading.

      See above.

      Even now polls that report inconvenient truths [Breitbart link] are being suppressed.

      Not every outlier poll deserves 15 minutes of fame. Also, I'll note the irony of pivoting from a breitbart story to ...

      If the news organizations started simply reporting what happened, instead of trying to get emotional engagement by emotionally framing the facts, people might leave the fringe sources and go back to regular news.

      (Of note: CNN's ratings are [different breitbart link] down 20% compared to a year ago. I cannot understand how they believe what they're doing is in their best interests. I thought it was the fiducial responsibility of a corporation to make money, and pushing a political agenda seems to be a poor strategy for that.)

      Corporations do not have a fiduciary obligation to make money (but it is a common misconception). Pushing a political agenda has been a very good strategy for some news outlets. "Simply reporting what happened" is a riskier game, and companies that do that offer suffer in the ratings.

    4. Re: And it's the fault of the MSM by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The notion that journalists can't be trusted arose directly from the observation...

      No, it didn't. That's just the legend, via the people who are threatened by an informed populace. The supposed "trusted media" of the past is really a re-imagining of what was really just a media invested in the status quo. There have always been people who would benefit from an all-out assault on truth. We watched it happen in other countries and now a consortium of foreign and corrupt domestic entities have unleashed it here. Fortunately, it seems that Donald Trump will be both the apotheosis and the demise of this phenomenon, as you can see by how the cries of "fake news!" are becoming less effective, plus the utter transparency of state-run media outlets like Fox News.

      People aren't buying any more. That's why CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and Washington Post have all seen increases in viewership and revenue as the Trump presidency has worn on. The "fake news" movement has jumped the shark.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. insanity or troll ? by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every once in a while, a story comes up on /. that makes me question the authors sanity. This is one of them.

    There is plenty of reason to doubt the neutrality and motives of the White Helmets, outside of and being shared around long before any Russian news stories. There are plenty of pictures where the same people are seen as victims in different locations, and the curious fact that the White Helmets are routinely at the scene immediately and seemingly active exclusively in islamist-controlled territory.

    So what is this story? FUD? Did too many questionable details about these guys surface recently?

    From an outside perspective, two things seem to be obvious: One, the White Helmets are doing humanitarian work and providing emergency services to civilian victims in a war zone. Two, they are clearly aligned with one of the sides in this conflict.

    Neither of these diminishes the importance of the other.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  9. Re:Cue all the trumptard russian apologists by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, just real Nerds here who are tired of being spammed by (as another poster put it) paid DNC political shills (with 'English or Sociology Degrees') spamming Slashdot. They should [f'go] off to a different site.

    "just real Nerds" who only created their Slashdot account today are complaining about spammers.

    The Internet Research Agency must be having a hard time hiring good people.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Re:Enough Already by darkharlequin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Buddy, I've been on slashdot since I stumbled upon Chips and Dips looking for hints on how to use gimp. Rob had some cool ideas and I stayed for the tech news. The fact that this site has an obvious political bias makes me sick when I remember it was all about tech and not 15 pages of: "well this is tech because well reasons and global warming" or "you better believe this needs to be talked about because 'tenuous reasons' and Trump said mean things" which somehow peripherally affects tech--it doesn't. At this point, i'd be happy sitting in a global warming induced desert on my russian government controlled non-net neutral, non general purpose, NSA, FSA, and Chinese intelligence backdoored approved propaganda device praising trump's 32nd landslide election and knowing that my starving children are starving to make america great again.

    --
    i am so very tired....
  11. Re:White Helmets funded by US State Dept. by quonset · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course US will say they're the good guys and Russia will say they're the bad guys. Who is right? There are no independent journalists on the ground. You will never know.

    Faith is all you have to go on.

    Holy shit! You Russian trolls are really losing it. Your blatant, "But who knows what's real?" is your last, pathetic, desperate attempt to say something, anything, to make it seem there is no truth to the situation.

    The fact is the white helmets are like the Red Cross. Neutral people whose sole job is rescue people after Russia bombs a hospital or civilians in bread lines. To claim otherwise is simply the latest propaganda to come out of your St. Petersburg location.

    Now scurry along and get your bottle of vodka. Vlad will be proud of you for putting out another lie. It's all Russia is good for.

  12. Re:"roiled the U.S. election" by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the long history of American 3 letter agencies doing exactly this to third world countries, you'd think they would have spent some effort protecting America against the exact same attack vector.