Slashdot Mirror
Pretty Clear GRU's Goal Was To Weaken a Future Clinton Presidency, Former Facebook CSO Says (zdnet.com)
Speaking at the TechCrunch Disrupt tech conference this week, former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos reflected on his time dealing with fake news and Russian intelligence interference ahead and after the 2016 US presidential election. From a report: The former Facebook security head said "it [was] pretty clear the GRU's goal was to weaken a future Hillary presidency. Putin has a [you know, it's been well-documented] like a personal antipathy towards her and believes that she was behind the protests against him in the 2012 Russian election, and so, the GRU activity was specifically focused on weakening her."
"I think it was less about actually electing Trump," Stamos added. "I find it unlikely that the Russians are better than Nate Silver at predicting elections." What kind of attacks could we expect in the near future? Per Stamos, "Throwing an election one way or another is going to be very difficult for a foreign adversary but throwing any election into chaos is totally doable right now."
"I think it was less about actually electing Trump," Stamos added. "I find it unlikely that the Russians are better than Nate Silver at predicting elections." What kind of attacks could we expect in the near future? Per Stamos, "Throwing an election one way or another is going to be very difficult for a foreign adversary but throwing any election into chaos is totally doable right now."
Install a weak president.
Fair Question: Did Clinton meddle in the Russian election?
but throwing any election into chaos is totally doable right now."
"Chaos"?
First of all, we would know that how, lol? Aren't they all chaos?
In any case, real elections are "chaos" ... in real elections there's real potential for the voters to actually choose something different, whether the elites like it or not.
That feels like "chaos" to the people who think that only one party should rule and that any other parties are to be kept around only for appearances sake.
Was I the only one that had to look up "GRU" and "IRA Troll Farm" because neither the article nor summary explained it?
From Wiki: The Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russia... and still commonly known by its previous abbreviation GRU... is the foreign military intelligence agency of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation ... whose heads report directly to the president of Russia.
The Internet Research Agency... is a Russian company, based in Saint Petersburg, engaged in online influence operations on behalf of Russian business and political interests.
There is no such thing as a popular vote. Journalists can go out and collect dissimilar numbers to add up, but the total is not some 'popular vote.' That's similar to trying to add up 'interception recoveries' to determine the winner of a football game.
Not diplomat or political scientist, meaning Stamos opinion on why Russia is about as good as yours.
Personally I think Russia would have been sowing discord regardless Clinton, Trumps behaviour, narcissism and lack of diplomacy make him a particularly good stooge for attempting to create turmoil in western nations. See also brexit.
Either way its THE SYSTEM that's at fault. EITHER ONE WAS DESTINED TO BE THE WORST PRESIDENT OF THE USA.
You elect Clinton she will go onto be a pig at the trough of the military industrial complex. You elect trump he will go onto be a pig at the trough of the military industrial complex.
Russia is unimportant to the outcome of the election. Mountains of collusion with Cambridge Analytics, Israel, Oligarchs in the USA like Robert Mercer. Facebook is subservient to the US military industrial complex now anyway, a few meme's here and there don't swing an election its utter bulls**t.
Then that empirically pales in comparison to a president (Obama) that did nothing for the middle class except destroy it with junk economics after the GFC in 2008. Lethargic voters who voted obama 2 times and got nothing didnt bother to turn up on election day there's the empirical cause effect of trump winning.
Remember the debates? Hillary was firm in wanting a no-fly zone in Syria. This would have led to direct conflict between USAF and Russian AF. It could have easily broken out into a big shooting war. Heck, I get the idea that a lot of people in DC (the unelected government, so-called deep state) would have greatly desired that. World War II hero and former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) once observed, in a different context: "There exists a shadowy government with ... its own fundraising mechanism."
Also remember, just before the inauguration, that US armored brigade landed and the jokes wrote themselves? Obama just sent tanks into Poland, that sort of thing. They then traveled to the Russian border? That was Hillary's big stick. Plant a bunch of troops near them and then start shit in Syria. But she wasn't elected, and they just did some training and then left. Peace broke out instead.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
... And there's still a ridiculous amount of derangement. Hilldog was a bad candidate who few outside the far left liked. She was caught meddling in her own party's process to boot Bernie. She tried pretending that destroying evidence on her personal email server was an innocent mistake. Worst of all, she pretended to be a saint when she is definitely not. That wolf in sheeps clothing never sat well with me. Look up Hitchens thoughts on her for more things to be unsettled about. Now 2 years later, uncountable hours have gone into trying to shift the blame. When will the Dems admit it was a mistake to have her as the candidate?
It's like saying "what's this CIA abbreviation?"........ this is why the americans get called ignorant :)
The closer an election is, the more a small effect will tip the result. The 2016 election turned out to tilt on 80,000 votes in three states, a very small margin in an election in which 57.6 million people voted.
The Russian campaign contributions had a significant advantage; they didn't even have a need to pretend to truth or accuracy or morality. They were aiming for disruption of America by any means necessary, with no concern for collateral damage.
(and note that your figure of "$100K in ads" is the documented part of the advertising budget for their interference-- we don't have any idea of the full extent of it, but that is only the barest tip of the iceberg, not even including the money spent on trolls and fake grass-roots organizations. The full extent was a lot higher than that, and we have no idea how much higher.)
Sorry, no. She doubled Trump up. Even if you add money for Russian interference.
They're not only creating election turmoil, they're amplifying and exploiting the issues we have in this country. I believe they are partly to blame for all the left-right anger and hate.
Both sides spent roughly a billion dollars on their campaigns.
False. Hillary's campaign cost about double what Trump's did. And that ignores all the backdoor bullshit with the media, the DNC, and the Clinton Foundation.
So the callousness in which you treat the general population is quite amazing. If the two candidates where identical, you might be right. But this was black vs. white. There was no common ground between the two. If you are saying that 100K of advertising is all it takes to tip someone from black to white, then our "election" process is beyond repair. Really, people made the opinion early on, and disregarded information based on their bias.
This fantasy world that people live in where obviously the Russians are the ONLY reason Trump is president is amazing. Admitting Hillary was a flawed candidate would really help the democrats swing centrists, but instead they prefer to go off the rails.
--WooooHoooo--
Fake News Sharing In US Is a Rightwing Thing, Says Oxford Study
On top of that the vast majority of the media companies endorsed Hillary Clinton. 500 newspapers endorsed Hillary Clinton, while only 28 endorsed Trump and an additional 30 newspapers, including USA Today, were outright against Trump.
But the big question is: why did the GRU know where to spend their (up to) $100,000 (including post electoral expenditures), while Hillary Clinton and her staff did not? Probably because it is all an excuse for a very poor performance, after all the money she spent and all the media support she gained.