Slashdot Mirror
Senate Report Shows Russia Used Social Media To Support Trump In 2016 (bbc.co.uk)
AmiMoJo shares a report from the BBC: Russia used every major social media platform to influence the 2016 US election, the report claims. New research says YouTube, Tumblr, Instagram and PayPal -- as well as Facebook and Twitter -- were leveraged to spread propaganda. Its authors criticize the "belated and uncoordinated response" by tech firms. It is the first analysis of millions of social media posts provided by Twitter, Google and Facebook to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Russia adapted techniques from digital marketing to target audiences across multiple channels, with a particular focus on targeting conservatives with posts on immigration, race, and gun rights. There were also efforts to undermine the voting power of left-leaning African-American citizens, by spreading misinformation about the electoral process.
"What is clear is that all of the messaging clearly sought to benefit the Republican Party -- and specifically Donald Trump," the report says. "Trump is mentioned most in campaigns targeting conservatives and right-wing voters, where the messaging encouraged these groups to support his campaign. The main groups that could challenge Trump were then provided messaging that sought to confuse, distract and ultimately discourage members from voting."
"What is clear is that all of the messaging clearly sought to benefit the Republican Party -- and specifically Donald Trump," the report says. "Trump is mentioned most in campaigns targeting conservatives and right-wing voters, where the messaging encouraged these groups to support his campaign. The main groups that could challenge Trump were then provided messaging that sought to confuse, distract and ultimately discourage members from voting."
I swear, I've never seen such a longrunning and ineffective damage control campaign for a losing candidate. Is this a sign they really are going to run her again in 2020?
yes, Clinton could have won if she'd just taken Trump seriously. Also if she took notice of how badly beaten up the working class was. Her solution to everything was more education. For a woman who'd spent her entire life living large off the fruits of her education that makes sense. She's a classic left wing, elitest do gooder: she can't understand why folks don't just reach out their hands for all the money out there when it's all so easy. She's literally unable to comprehend that it's not so easy for most of us.
But all that said:
1. She still won the popular vote.
2. She lost by a razor thin margin. So thin that all she needed was to focus a bit more on the rust belt but...
3. By the same token that razor thin margin means that stuff that ordinarily shouldn't have mattered, mattered.
TL;DR; I think Clinton could have won if she tried harder, but I don't think she'd have lost without Russian interference and that last minute Oct surprise from Comey pushing Trump over the edge.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The only people I hear bring her up are Republicans who keep going "Lock Her Up". Whether Trump worked Russia seems important because, you know, if he keeps working with Russia, that's really bad.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Did the Russians interfere?
Yes? DUH?
Now. Did they connive WITH Trump to do it?
Evidence (or lack thereof) says "no".
But, in the most charitable gimme to the Never-Trumpers, the answer is "we don't know (AND NEITHER DO YOU!)".
As such. It's nothing more than a teaching moment.
So, to all of those who've welded their asses to the "Impeach Impeach Impeach" train that's going "Trump woke up this morning! IMPEACH HIM NOW!" "Trump tweeted something I don't like! IMPEACH HIM NOW!" "Trump exists! IMPEACH HIM NOW!"?
Take a fucking chill pill. Because your crazy fucking behavior is destroying the Democratic Party and is going to keep the man in office until 2024.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The number of Europeans I saw on twitter bad mouthing Trump was far more than the number of Russians I saw supporting him
The obvious problem being that this support was bipartisan, as several pieces of evidence now clearly showed. The "social media ads"?
They supported both Clinton and Trump. The aim was clearly polarisation of the extremes of the supporting bases of each candidate, not supporting either of the candidates. You can see this in pretty much everything publicly released so far, from the facebook ads to the various reports.
Trump's popularity on the other hand doesn't drop for a very simple reason. Political smear jobs based on misunderstandings, misrepresentations and lies have to take out their target quickly. If they don't, the audience of the target sees one lie, than another lie, and then they simply assume that everything else coming out of those sources is probably a lie. Which isn't helped by the fact that to maintain the narrative for the audience of those doing the smearing, the narrative has to become even more extreme. And we have seen so many lies about Trump and his purported actions that were just patently false on the face of it, it's genuinely hard at this point to take any critique of Trump without reacting "ok, show me the full context of this claim you have".
And context usually ends up like that infamous statement about "migrants", which actually referred to one of the most violent gangs on the planet when viewed in context. And so, the actors actually generating the smear jobs have very little chance of being taken seriously any more beyond their own audience. Too many failures. All they can do at this point is preach to the slowly shrinking choir.
Which is why you should be genuinely afraid of Trump if you're against his agenda. Not because of the contents of his agenda, or because of any of the smears. You should be afraid of him because there's one thing on which Bannon was completely correct in that Munk debate. Trump is the paradigm shift, where disenfranchised people actually found franchise, and where there are now too many people who have been disenfranchised by the globalist trend. To the point where it's not limited to the continent - Yellow Jackets was a part of the exact same paradigm shift in a country that is about as different as a country could be to US while still remaining a part of "Western" umbrella. Utterly different court system, literal codification of anti-theism into all government functions, very socialist policies. And yet, France had protests that literally showed that Trump's paradigm shift clearly happened in France too, and it reached a point where it cannot be simply dismissed as "those deplorable people that are beneath us that we will call names and dismiss as if they're irrelevant".
Hell, the entire point that leadership adhering to the will of the populace, "populism" is now considered a bad word in upper echelons of society shows just how badly fractured the political elite and ordinary people are becoming. All it takes is a capable person who genuinely cares for their plight, and you get Salvini.
These people are not irrelevant any more. They're starting to organise. And as a traditional leftie who voted social democrats in a Nordic country his whole life, it scares the shit out of me. Mostly because I find that when they make points of failures of globalist aspects of policy, I find myself forced to agree with them because of my social democratic principles. I believe that those most disenfranchised in the nation, the workers, the farmers, should have a clear and loud voice in how country is run. And then I look at the party I voted for my entire life, and many among them are parroting the anti-populist narrative and singing praises of policy that is pointedly ignoring and even aggressively dismissing the disenfranchised. And when you're a social democratic party, you do not get to do that and get away with it. That is against the very core principles your party stands for. You are supposed to stand for the disenfranchised. That's why I voted for you my entire life.
And so, like so many people on the centre left, I find myself without a political home. Without even being an American. All because of Trump showing the world the ugliness that was allowed to fester for so long in the Western political systems as globalism co-opted the democratic republics.
> Russia funded every divisive movement they could. Black Lives Matter, Muslims for Hillary, etc. Their purpose is psy ops to sow derision in the populace - the same purpose they've had when they've done the exact same thing for the past 75 years. We do the same.
Exactly. Russia is trying to beat the US, not Clinton. They want us fighting with each other instead of beating them at whatever. We just got new confirmation that Russia was running Black Lives Matter ads. Whatever gets Americans fighting Americans, whatever divides us.
> It had zero impact in the election's outcome though. This is all about providing an excuse for Clinton's loss to make her 2020 run more palatable.
Clinton was a really bad candidate, with terrible poll numbers. Of the six "finalists" for the Republican nomination, five of the six beat Clinton in the polls. Only one, Donald Trump, could lose to Clinton, according to polling during the primaries. Trump was also a pretty crappy candidate - the only one who didn't poll better than Clinton during the primaries.
I think the Russian ads probably did what they were designed to do and not much else - they made the election period more partisan, encouraged us to be even less unified, and probably didn't materially affect the election, but there's no way to be 100% sure of what would have happened if things had been different. Wen might have even had a more moderate, less polarizing candidate win. Doubtful though.
1. She still won the popular vote.
There is no "popular vote" for the US President. Please refer to the Constitution if you are confused about the process the US uses to elect the President. I'm sure there is a Wikipedia page about it if the old words are hard.
2. She lost by a razor thin margin.
"She won ... she lost ...". What?
Trump won the electoral college 304-227. That's not "razor thin".
I think Clinton could have won if she tried harder, but I don't think she'd have lost without Russian interference
Do you have evidence that any Russians voted illegally in the 2016 Presidential election? That would be a good argument for voter ID, you know.
You do realize that lots of non-US people tried to exert influence in US elections, don't you? And we've tried to influence other country's elections. It's a tempest in a teapot trying to justify what obviously couldn't happen but did.
Why was it wrong for Russia to try to influence the election in 2016? The reason I arrive at is because Russians aren't allowed to vote in our election, so it's wrong for them to try to influence it.
But by that same reasoning, isn't it also wrong for the two political parties to influence elections for Senators and Congresscritters by shifting money to candidate's campaign that has been raised outside the state or district the candidate is running in? After all, that's money donated by someone who can't vote in that election being used to try to influence it.
So if you carry this outrage over Russian interference to its logical conclusion, you end up with a ban on political parties' unrestricted use of donations. No using money raised in New York to try to influence a Congressional race in Arizona. Money raised in New York has to be used in New York. Only money raised in that Arizona congressional district can be used to influence the race there.
Somehow I suspect the political parties aren't going to see it that way. And their stance is going to be that it's wrong for other people to try to influence races they can't vote in, but it's OK for them to do it.
The obvious problem being that this support was bipartisan, as several pieces of evidence now clearly showed. The "social media ads"?
They supported both Clinton and Trump. The aim was clearly polarisation of the extremes of the supporting bases of each candidate, not supporting either of the candidates.
Polarization was an objective, but so was Trump. To say the Russian interference "supported both Clinton and Trump" is to ignore overwhelming evidence to contrary.
Trump's popularity on the other hand doesn't drop for a very simple reason. Political smear jobs based on misunderstandings, misrepresentations and lies have to take out their target quickly. If they don't, the audience of the target sees one lie, than another lie, and then they simply assume that everything else coming out of those sources is probably a lie.
Virtually none of the attacks against Trump are "smear jobs", "misunderstandings", "misrepresentations", or "lies". The reason they don't hurt Trump's popularity is that virtually everyone except his base has abandoned him. And his base doesn't care about the attacks because they don't care if he's a corrupt businessman who colluded with Russia. They probably wouldn't even care if he was a literal Russian asset, at this point they're in it for the culture war, and no one goes after liberals with as much vitriol as Trump.
Yellow Jackets was a part of the exact same paradigm shift in a country that is about as different as a country could be to US while still remaining a part of "Western" umbrella. Utterly different court system, literal codification of anti-theism into all government functions, very socialist policies. And yet, France had protests that literally showed that Trump's paradigm shift clearly happened in France too, and it reached a point where it cannot be simply dismissed as "those deplorable people that are beneath us that we will call names and dismiss as if they're irrelevant".
The Yellow Vests in France have more to do with Marcon's centre-right economics than immigration and anti-globalism. It's just the US framing that makes it look Trumpy.
Hell, the entire point that leadership adhering to the will of the populace, "populism" is now considered a bad word in upper echelons of society shows just how badly fractured the political elite and ordinary people are becoming.
It's a dirty word because it's almost always used to justify policies that sound good as a slogan but have terrible consequences. The rise of populism is usually a sign that media institutions that help regulate the public debate and stop dump slogans from becoming policy are broken.
Mostly because I find that when they make points of failures of globalist aspects of policy, I find myself forced to agree with them because of my social democratic principles. I believe that those most disenfranchised in the nation, the workers, the farmers, should have a clear and loud voice in how country is run.
This has nothing to do with globalism. Globalism is just robust international trade and institutions. There's no reason why you can't have a boatload of those while still empowering the people to control their government. In fact if you look at the most "globalized" countries and the most democratic countries you have a really strong relationship.
And so, like so many people on the centre left, I find myself without a political home. Without even being an American. All because of Trump showing the world the ugliness that was allowed to fester for so long in the Western political systems as globalism co-opted the democratic republics.
The thing you actually hate is corporatism and oligarchy, corruption and rule by the rich. And that's exactly what Trump brings. Russia is probably the best example of the Trump model, and that's pretty much the definition of corruption and mass disenfranchisement.
I stole this Sig
Don't reduce this to a "Hillary vs Trump" fight. The Russians influenced more than the last American elections: for instance, they facilitated Brexit in Britain, and supported Salvini in Italy. I don't think you should reduce the problem to a "Hillary vs Trump" fight. The problem is people being convinced by incendiary propaganda on social networks, and the control of this mechanism by malicious actors. And in this case it was the Russians, but in the future it could very well be others to take advantage of it.
Everyone not retarded was scared shitless of Hillary ending up in the White house!
Hillary Clinton spent nearly 2 billion dollars to Trump's approx $600 Million, and some of the money she spent was laundered through the Democrat-hack lawfirm Perkins Coie as "legal fees" to a British spy named Steele who bought anti-Trump propaganda from Russia in the form of the so-called "Steele dossier" which was funneled into the FBI and used without validation to get warrants to spy on Trump's campaign, effectively bringing the CIA and FBI into the election on Hillary's side...... but we're supposed to imagine that a few thousand dollars worth of clumbsy Facebook ads swung the election to trump.
yup.
that makes sense all right.
It gets worse when you pay attention to two facts:
[1] The Russians also spent money against Trump (they wanted chaos in US politics, which all our mainstream media and the Democrats are now complicit in providing for two whole years)
[2] The US Senate contains a number of "Never Trump" establishment Republicans. Guys like Flake and Sasse despise Trump as much as Hillary does.
The American people need to wake up and realize that, like him or hate him, Trump has totally freaked-out the uni-party in Washington DC and if they manage to nullify him in one way or another they will have effectively blocked any future outsider from ever being elected. These freakish career double-speaking globalist elitists will close all the loopholes Trump got in through, and will intimidate funders from contributing to, and compaign workers from working for, any future outsider candidate. This nation has endured far worse than Trump and will survive him - he's certainly NOT Hitler as some Democrats and even a few Democrats insisted he would be. The big question is: Do we let the uni-party destroy the idea of equal justice in America as they feverishly work to knock him out and lock things down so they never lose control again?
Russia tried to influence a US election. So what? This is standard stuff. Every country tries to protect its interests, and part of this is trying to influence other countries and their governments. News at 11:00.
The US not only meddles in elections; they go farther: the US goes in and overthrows governments they don't like (that's a list of 57 publicly known incidents).
If people want to get upset about something, how about prosecuting Bush and Obama for attacking sovereign countries without a declaration of war? While Trump hasn't ended any wars, at least he hasn't added any new entries to the list...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.