Russian Cyber Meddling in US Media

This is a serious and troubling problem with no easy solution so far as I can tell. While the linked article is about the US, there's no reason other free societies could not be similarly attacked. Just a personal opinion, but at times during the past year I believed at least one DP poster was a Russian government employee assigned to influence debate here.


Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say
Researchers found that Russians used sophisticated tools to boost Donald Trump and target Hillary Clinton, and exploited various platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment. The techniques may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do.
By Craig Timberg
1 hour ago

The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.
Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of Web sites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.
Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem. . . . .

I'm sure the "fake news" helped hillary rather than Trump..

Or maybe hurt her due to people seeing obvious lies.. Depends on how you look at it..

Orly? said:

I'm sure the "fake news" helped hillary rather than Trump..

Or maybe hurt her due to people seeing obvious lies.. Depends on how you look at it..

Click to expand...

I didn't vote for either so I'm uninterested in who it helped or hurt.

Jack Hays said:

This is a serious and troubling problem with no easy solution so far as I can tell. While the linked article is about the US, there's no reason other free societies could not be similarly attacked. Just a personal opinion, but at times during the past year I believed at least one DP poster was a Russian government employee assigned to influence debate here.


Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say
Researchers found that Russians used sophisticated tools to boost Donald Trump and target Hillary Clinton, and exploited various platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment. The techniques may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do.
By Craig Timberg
1 hour ago

The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.
Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of Web sites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.
Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem. . . . .

Click to expand...

I don't believe it for a second. The Washington Post has descended into conspiracy theory mongering. As pathetic as it is it's understandable. When a person's world view has been so thoroughly and utterly discredited, reaching for some self-serving explanation, no matter how far fetched, is inevitable.

Jack Hays said:

~ Just a personal opinion, but at times during the past year I believed at least one DP poster was a Russian government employee assigned to influence debate here ~

Click to expand...

EU approves resolution to fight back against Russian 'propaganda warfare' | The Independent

Jack Hays said:

Just a personal opinion, but at times during the past year I believed at least one DP poster was a Russian government employee assigned to influence debate here.

Click to expand...

LOL

10 chars


Fallen.

Jack Hays said:

This is a serious and troubling problem with no easy solution so far as I can tell. While the linked article is about the US, there's no reason other free societies could not be similarly attacked. Just a personal opinion, but at times during the past year I believed at least one DP poster was a Russian government employee assigned to influence debate here.


Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say
Researchers found that Russians used sophisticated tools to boost Donald Trump and target Hillary Clinton, and exploited various platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment. The techniques may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do.
By Craig Timberg
1 hour ago

The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.
Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of Web sites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.
Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem. . . . .

Click to expand...

To be very honest Jack, we have done far worse to the Soviets/Russians. It's all "tit for tat" in my opinion.

Infinite Chaos said:

EU approves resolution to fight back against Russian 'propaganda warfare' | The Independent

Click to expand...

In other words, the EU just pointed a finger without proposing any solution. I am sure Russia is shaking. Fighting Russian propaganda is certainly desirable but:

* In the same resolution they claim that Russia divides Europe and that the extreme-right is incompatible with European values. Even though the FN is going to gather at least 40% of votes in the upcoming French election and may actually win. You cannot both criticize Russian propaganda and, at the same time, spread your own imperialist propaganda, undermine our democratic parties and exclude half of us.

* I would appreciate if the EU had worried before about the US propaganda and manipulations, which they never did. The near-totality of our presidents and important ministers those days were the few who went through the "young leaders" program in their young days. A program set up by a not innocent at all US foundation. Either the USA have a crystal ball to know who will count in thirty years, either they meddle enough in our internal affairs to ensure the victory of their protégés almost all the time.

* This resolution is empty. You cannot fight Russian propaganda with a "better education for critical thinking". Especially not when you turned your education system into a propaganda machine in favor of the EU and of multiculturalism. Either you indoctrinate, either you teach critical thinking, and European countries made their decision a long time ago.

RetiredUSN said:

To be very honest Jack, we have done far worse to the Soviets/Russians. It's all "tit for tat" in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Theirs is not a free society.

Auvergnat said:

In other words, the EU just pointed a finger without proposing any solution.

Click to expand...

The EU doesn't propose solutions, the 28 nation states do that on their own.

Jack Hays said:

I believed at least one DP poster was a Russian government employee assigned to influence debate here.

Click to expand...

Do let me know when that next happens.

I'd love to tangle with them ... !

Orly? said:

I'm sure the "fake news" helped hillary rather than Trump..

Or maybe hurt her due to people seeing obvious lies.. Depends on how you look at it..

Click to expand...

Given the way you "shout" Trumps victory, we know how "you look at it" ...

I will repeat again - for the residual know-nothings who refuse to believe it - that Hillary was never ever condemned for any travesty of the truth except in the popular-press for electoral purposes. You (plural) are simply perverse-males who cannot abide the fact that an intelligent woman was fit to be PotUS.

Get help ...

Jack Hays said:

"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

Click to expand...

Appropriate quote.

And a great many of them are to be found right here in this forum ...

Lafayette said:

Given the way you "shout" Trumps victory, we know how "you look at it" ...

I will repeat again - for the residual know-nothings who refuse to believe it - that Hillary was never ever condemned for any travesty of the truth except in the popular-press for electoral purposes. You (plural) are simply perverse-males who cannot abide the fact that an intelligent woman was fit to be PotUS.

Get help ...

Click to expand...

That is such a blind post that its almost like the single mosquito hovering over the the nudist colony, where does one even start? I call bogus, sexist and ignorance of any truth in matters of great importance.

Gaugingcatenate said:

I call bogus, sexist and ignorance of any truth in matters of great importance.

Click to expand...

First, some definitions, which you obviously despise:
*Bogus: Not genuine or true (used in a disapproving manner when deception has been attempted)
*Sexist: The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life.
*Ignorance: Lack of knowledge or information.

We obviously have very different dictionaries. What I said was "bogus"? How? "Sexist"? How? "Ignorant"? How?

Nothing but one word "cheap shots" in a tiresome display of lacking intelligence.

Try harder ...

Jack Hays said:

This is a serious and troubling problem with no easy solution so far as I can tell. While the linked article is about the US, there's no reason other free societies could not be similarly attacked. Just a personal opinion, but at times during the past year I believed at least one DP poster was a Russian government employee assigned to influence debate here.


Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say
Researchers found that Russians used sophisticated tools to boost Donald Trump and target Hillary Clinton, and exploited various platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment. The techniques may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do.
By Craig Timberg
1 hour ago

...

Click to expand...

Jack, could not get to the WP article so will have to make some assumptions based on a quick perusal of several different articles on the alleged meddling including:

https://www.ft.com/content/ff1f1cdc-9227-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923

U.S. Accuses Russia Of Election Year Cyber-Meddling : The Two-Way : NPR

What I am concerned with is I cannot see any specific instances or articles listed, besides a general claim of meddling, where I can go to observe what was said and be able to judge for myself what was being done. That which I do know, WikiLeaks, if it was Russian supported... I have to admit I am not against it in the fact that I want to get as close to and as much of the truth as is possible. A truth which we most certainly now know we were not getting from Mainstream American media.

Or, maybe someone has found where any of the WikiLeaks information was incorrect?

Russia, and the former Soviet Union, has been doing this kind of thing, fairly successfully it seems apparent, for decades. I submit this video, an abridgment of a longer and more thorough interview back in 1985 with a former high level KGB agent that had defected. He details the plan, methods and specifics, the efforts that had been and were being made to undermine our society from the another perspective in another direction at that time.



As an American I am generally against other countries meddling in our business. However, I am more for getting at the truth, from whatever the source, which my country's and the world's free media is/was not making any real attempt at securing for me and others in a country that should require it of itself.

We simply should not be having to get this important information second hand from a potential enemy.

The meddling is bad, but on a scale with that of the corruption, manipulation, the bias we have been getting from our own government and free media, I think it rather pales in significance. Especially if what information that this brought to us cannot be specifically proven, or really even suggested by any credible source, to be untrue.

Lafayette said:

First, some definitions, which you obviously despise:
*Bogus: Not genuine or true (used in a disapproving manner when deception has been attempted)
*Sexist: The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life.
*Ignorance: Lack of knowledge or information.

We obviously have very different dictionaries. What I said was "bogus"? How? "Sexist"? How? "Ignorant"? How?

Nothing but one word "cheap shots" in a tiresome display of lacking intelligence.

Try harder ...

Click to expand...

Hat tip, we are using the similar definitions.

I despise definitions? Another bogus claim. Before the internet, I used to have spread conveniently about my home 13 dictionaries. Included was a large Oxford for which I always meant to build a wooden stand.

So what did I call bogus, that not being genuine and true, where there is an assertion that one sex should dominate our important political life... and where you lack information. There is an overlap of these as follows.

First, your bogus, sexist and ignorant statement:

Lafayette said:

Given the way you "shout" Trumps victory, we know how "you look at it" ...

1. I will repeat again - for the residual know-nothings who refuse to believe it - that Hillary was never ever condemned for any travesty of the truth except in the popular-press for electoral purposes.

2. You (plural) are simply perverse-males who cannot abide the fact that an intelligent woman was fit to be PotUS.

Get help ...

Click to expand...

Another definition: condemn = to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence

1. Your statement on this is both bogus and ignorant. While Hillary has yet to be convicted, that is only because the current administration will have no part of it. Comey more than revealed this curiously adding intent... everyone knows but the ignorant partisan hack... so its also bogus.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—...
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; ...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

or

8 U.S. Code § 2071 A Violator Of This Statute “Shall Forfeit His Office And Be Disqualified From Holding Any Office Under The United States.”“Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.


Hillary signed on the dotted line — and then broke the law | TheHill

2. To believe that is was because "perverse-males who cannot abide the fact that an intelligent woman was fit to be PotUS" Is all three, ignorant, bogus and sexist. Many females ALSO did not feel that she was fit to be president, its questionable whether she is truly intelligent [ may be more along the lines of a corrupt idiot savant styled intelligence ], and so to place this squarely on the shoulders of men, well, sexist.

Read this, admittedly generally biased towards overly liberal leanings. Note that the race was fairly normal even though this was a first for a woman candidate. Hillary probably should have had even more of the women's vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/u...-unite-to-vote-against-donald-trump.html?_r=0

"The gender gap — the difference in the share of men and women who vote for a candidate — was 11 percentage points for Mr. Trump (53-42), similar to the gender gap for Bill Clinton in 1996 and Barack Obama in 2012, and in line with the gender breakdown of Republican voters."

Now that I have proven simple truths... explain your calling men perverse [showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable] when men who vote Republican without a female Republican on the ticket can be called that when they would have voted similarly against a man who had performed as poorly in jobs past and who held the views and ideology she did?

Gaugingcatenate said:

Jack, could not get to the WP article so will have to make some assumptions based on a quick perusal of several different articles on the alleged meddling including:

https://www.ft.com/content/ff1f1cdc-9227-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923

U.S. Accuses Russia Of Election Year Cyber-Meddling : The Two-Way : NPR

What I am concerned with is I cannot see any specific instances or articles listed, besides a general claim of meddling, where I can go to observe what was said and be able to judge for myself what was being done. That which I do know, WikiLeaks, if it was Russian supported... I have to admit I am not against it in the fact that I want to get as close to and as much of the truth as is possible. A truth which we most certainly now know we were not getting from Mainstream American media.

Or, maybe someone has found where any of the WikiLeaks information was incorrect?

Russia, and the former Soviet Union, has been doing this kind of thing, fairly successfully it seems apparent, for decades. I submit this video, an abridgment of a longer and more thorough interview back in 1985 with a former high level KGB agent that had defected. He details the plan, methods and specifics, the efforts that had been and were being made to undermine our society from the another perspective in another direction at that time.



As an American I am generally against other countries meddling in our business. However, I am more for getting at the truth, from whatever the source, which my country's and the world's free media is/was not making any real attempt at securing for me and others in a country that should require it of itself.

We simply should not be having to get this important information second hand from a potential enemy.

The meddling is bad, but on a scale with that of the corruption, manipulation, the bias we have been getting from our own government and free media, I think it rather pales in significance. Especially if what information that this brought to us cannot be specifically proven, or really even suggested by any credible source, to be untrue.

Click to expand...

Did the WaPo link not work for you?

Jack Hays said:

Did the WaPo link not work for you?

Click to expand...

And not willing to subscribe to anything unless I truly desire.

Gaugingcatenate said:

View attachment 67210385

And not willing to subscribe to anything unless I truly desire.

Click to expand...

Ah. I see. Here are couple of paragraphs on the evidence.

. . . Watts’s report on this work, with colleagues Andrew Weisburd and J.M. Berger, appeared on the national security online magazine War on the Rocks this month under the headline “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy.” Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.

The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity. . . .​

Lafayette said:

Given the way you "shout" Trumps victory, we know how "you look at it" ...

I will repeat again - for the residual know-nothings who refuse to believe it - that Hillary was never ever condemned for any travesty of the truth except in the popular-press for electoral purposes. You (plural) are simply perverse-males who cannot abide the fact that an intelligent woman was fit to be PotUS.

Get help ...

Click to expand...

Not that woman..

Jack Hays said:

Ah. I see. Here are couple of paragraphs on the evidence.

. . . Watts’s report on this work, with colleagues Andrew Weisburd and J.M. Berger, appeared on the national security online magazine War on the Rocks this month under the headline “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy.” Another group, called PropOrNot, a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds, planned to release its own findings Friday showing the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.

The researchers used Internet analytics tools to trace the origins of particular tweets and mapped the connections among social-media accounts that consistently delivered synchronized messages. Identifying website codes sometimes revealed common ownership. In other cases, exact phrases or sentences were echoed by sites and social-media accounts in rapid succession, signaling membership in connected networks controlled by a single entity. . . .​

Click to expand...

I have no doubt that the Russians have continued doing what they, and their former selves, the USSR, have always done. Just as we, no doubt also do as best we might.

And am in total agreement that if there is a there there, which I have yet to see any real evidence regarding Trump specifically which didn't seem to appear in that which you referenced, then I am an American first, to hell with any body in collusion with those trying to undermine my government and nation.

At the same time, giving us the truth about corrupt practices in our own political realm that we are not getting from the sources that we depend upon, that we should get them from... I have no particular problem with... if they are the truth. Truth does not undermine our democracy...

It only undermines a corrupt government. As well it should.

Gaugingcatenate said:

While Hillary has yet to be convicted, that is only because the current administration will have no part of it

Click to expand...

Back to basics - please explain EXACTLY your premise that Hillary has done something "illegal".

Lafayette said:

Back to basics - please explain EXACTLY your premise that Hillary has done something "illegal".

Click to expand...

Good lord dude, I gave you the statutes, I showed where Comey went line and verse to Hillary's lies, she lied to Congress under oath about the same things... and you say you are not ignorant... you are saying she didn't do any of those things, she didn't break any national security and FOIA laws, went against no directives?

I have spelled it all out to where an average sixth grader could easily understand. I am here to think for you, you will have to do that yourself.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Good lord dude, I gave you the statutes, I showed where Comey went line and verse to Hillary's lies, she lied to Congress under oath about the same things... and you say you are not ignorant...

Click to expand...

Oh? And what did the Dubya administration say to Congress about their use of the RNC's emailer?

See here: Bush White House email controversy, excerpt:

During the 2007 Congressional investigation of the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, it was discovered that administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee, for various official communications. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The use of this email domain became public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas. Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc.") and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee").

Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978. Over 5 million emails may have been lost. Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations. In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.

Click to expand...

And here: Bush White-House Lost 22 Million Emails - excerpt:

Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails. “It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters. “If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers’ emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC. Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails set up on a private DNC server?”

Click to expand...

Or here: CNN - White House: Millions of e-mails may be missing:

White House: 'We screwed up'

Perino's disclosure about the White House e-mail comes a day after she admitted that the White House "screwed up" by not requiring e-mails from Republican Party and campaign accounts to be saved and was also trying to recover those e-mails.

Perino said 22 aides in the political arm of the president's office use party or campaign e-mail accounts, which were issued to separate official business from political work. Some of those accounts were used to discuss the December firings of eight federal prosecutors, a shake-up that has triggered a spreading controversy on Capitol Hill.

Congressional investigators have questioned whether White House aides used e-mail accounts from the Republican Party and President Bush's re-election campaign for official government business to avoid scrutiny of those dealings.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, accused the White House of trying to hide messages on the Republican Party system related to the firing of the U.S. attorneys, which has stirred up a hornet's nest on Capitol Hill.

Click to expand...

Answer the question: Why was it OK for Dubya to lose millions of emails on the RNC email-system, but not Hillary to use her own private email-system ... ?