• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

The point is, there are plenty of people who are paranoid about Russians mucking about with things, to the point they are seeing Russians everywhere and accusing fellow Americans of being "Russian assets" with abandon. Which means the Russian campaign to destabilize American democracy and faith therein is working.

Which is entirely relevant to the article, and most certainly adds to the discussion, whether or not it's something you'd personally prefer not to draw attention to.

It's not relevant at all you're implying that the OP or the author of the article been referred to is seeing Russians everywhere or anyone who complains about Russian trolling is seeing Russians everywhere and thus the article is a of little Merit. Your premise is absurd

But since you brought up the subject the Mueller report documented over 140 contacts between Trump's staff and Russians so if we're seeing Russians everywhere it's probably because when it comes to Trump Russians are everywhere. They certainly we're not that strong of a presence before Trump
 
Last edited:
Seeing as there's a large group of people in this country who see Russians around every corner and behind every mailbox, and everyone's suddenly a "Russian asset" if they say the "wrong" thing, I'd say it's working well beyond their wildest dreams.

It's difficult not to see them everywhere especially when trump's transition team had over a hundred contacts with russians and his love for putin.
 
And how might bias be established, hmmm?

We're not all biased the same way, so it's not a genetic predisposition.

So there is a mechanism by which we become biased one way or another

If there is a mechanism, then that mechanism can be exploited.

Not via advertising.

Bias is.

Something like that.

Not via advertising.
 
Not via advertising.

Bias is.

Something like that.

Not via advertising.

Again. You're just saying things.

You have based your position on something.

The onus is on you to support your claim.

Just repeating it with slightly different verbiage does not lend any credibility to your assertion.

This stuff fascinates me. Its why I came to this site in the first place.

If you've got some dry scholarly treatise to support your position, put it up. I will read it. I read a couple this morning researching earlier replies in this thread.
 
Just the facts. :)

Naw.

Complete nonsense; attributions of absolutism are smears - nothing more.

You can if you'd like. :shrug:

Unsupported claims are not facts.

Back to you.
 
A Russian troll sent it ;)

donald-trump-tweets-2012-1478856552.jpg
 
Ah. Misquoting a source is a serious breach of trust, hence please be more careful in future.

I read the article.

The researchers seem sincere in their concern. However, as written, the article fails to do two things for me: it doesn't quantify the extent of the problem in either absolute or (especially) relative terms, and it doesn't justify its conclusions about Russia's motivations based on the evidence it presents.

It succeeds as a primer. The case studies are a good way to expose readers to the kinds of psyops taking place. But it leaves critical questions unanswered. How many of these trolls are there? Five? Ten? A thousand? More importantly: What percentage of the Twittersphere do their activities comprise, and what can be said conclusively about the effectiveness of their trolling on changing public opinions?

Anybody with a keyboard can drum up a following on Twitter by telling people what they want to hear. I assume that's basically what "subscription" is used for on Twitter: a reader telling a writer "I want to hear what you have to say." Changing people's social opinions involves persuading them to believe things they don't want to hear. No doubt this can be accomplished to some extent with sufficient subtlety and patience, but for "some extent" to be of serious concern here, we'd have to be facing down legions of trolls (tens or hundreds of thousands), each one a hundredfold as persuasive as run-of-the-mill born-in-America partisans.

Where the article really loses me is the researchers' assertion that the end goal is to "further widen existing divisions in the American public and decrease our faith and trust in institutions that help maintain a strong democracy". Based on what, exactly?

First of all, none of the case studies they provide does anything I can see that would "decrease our faith and trust in institutions". Even if they did, how do we know this is Russia's goal? It doesn't even make sense as a motivation.

Here's an alternative theory: The IRA gets some money from Moscow. "We want to know the extent to which trolling social media can be used to change people's opinions on: Pres. Putin, Hillary Clinton, cats, gambling, and Russian vodka. You're the research agency. Get it done." So one team of ten guys plugs Pres. Putin for a decade, one team plugs vodka, one team bashes cats, etc. They report back: "We got x followers here and y followers there." Moscow turns the data into an assessment of whether trolling is worth a fart in a windstorm as a weapon of information warfare, as a vector of attack against Russia, etc.

Meanwhile, the CIA, FBI, and a dozen other US agencies with a combined budget of billions, desperate to justify their existence, sees some of the campaigns and throws up the alarm "Sweet snowy leopards, we're under attack by the Reds! Damn the battle stations! Man the torpedoes!", instantly drumming up Red Scare 2.0.

This theory is just as valid based on what little the article provides, and it strikes me as more plausible than the Russians "widen[ing] existing divisions in the American public" for no discernible reason. The reaction also makes me wonder: to what extent are the IRA's activities reciprocated? Are the US agencies so alarmed because they're witnessing their own warfare tactics being employed against them in earnest for the first time?

I'll summarize thusly: based on what little the article provides, one could argue that debatepolitics.com, with its many partisans and day-to-day bickering, is as big a threat to the unity and stability of America as Russian trolls. Personally, I don't think all the bickering and bellyaching we do here, even with all the countless millions of views DP gets in a given year, has any meaningful effect on changing social attitudes in America. YMMV.

Thank you for a rational opinion on the article. I do not necessarily agree with your conclusion, but I do appreciate your post.

Some of the questions you bring up are valid. In addition to this article I have also read these 2 books:

Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media. This goes into much more detail, and does not focus just on Russia. i highly recommend this book, as it was very eye opening and alarming.

Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe This does not focus on Russia, but it is part of the story. The power Zuck has, is simply too much. another good read (or listen)
 
You are a fine example of the results William Casey alluded to in 1981: When everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts.

Believe everything your government and media tell you. They would never deceive you. :mrgreen:

Sorry, I am not a conspiracy theorist fan.

Enjoy your day!
 
If you're going to quote an article Don't alter any of the words the author didn't put there, now you did this and you know it's wrong.


<Snipped>


So the moral of this story is if you're going to complain about Russian trolling don't be one yourself.

The article is excellent by the way

It was an accident. I have an old chrome extension (courtesy of John Oliver) I tried to go back and fix it, but was unable to.

Thank you.
 
You'll do it in this thread, so my posts are just to "key" others to recognize it when you do.

It's a "narrative". Currency of the realm at this point in time. Encouraging folks to view you through a lens of my creation. From a perspective of my choosing.

Truth and facts are irrelevant. You know this.

So you're continuing to make **** up and pretend its true.
 
It's not relevant at all you're implying that the OP or the author of the article been referred to is seeing Russians everywhere or anyone who complains about Russian trolling is seeing Russians everywhere and thus the article is a of little Merit.

I'm not doing either of those things. Stop lying, or improve your reading comprehension.

What I did say is actually happening. You may wish to blind yourself to it, but that's sort of self-inflicted handicap on your part isn't my problem.



But since you brought up the subject the Mueller report documented over 140 contacts between Trump's staff and Russians so if we're seeing Russians everywhere it's probably because when it comes to Trump Russians are everywhere. They certainly we're not that strong of a presence before Trump

This might be an excellent response to something other than anything I said. But it's no response to anything I did say.
 
It's difficult not to see them everywhere especially when trump's transition team had over a hundred contacts with russians and his love for putin.

It's difficult for you not to see what you want to, I'm sure. But why you want to be a neo-McCarthyist, I don't know.
 
The point is, there are plenty of people who are paranoid about Russians mucking about with things, to the point they are seeing Russians everywhere and accusing fellow Americans of being "Russian assets" with abandon. Which means the Russian campaign to destabilize American democracy and faith therein is working.

Which is entirely relevant to the article, and most certainly adds to the discussion, whether or not it's something you'd personally prefer not to draw attention to.

Actually I see your post as a problem. Somehow you see the people who are worried about Russian interference as the problem and not the Russians themselves. A lot of that is due to people including trump worried that he is not seen as a legitimate president, HE IS. You use the constant tirade about people calling people Russian assests as a way to deflect from the real issue. I have not seen many posts on this board calling anyone a Russian assest. And if you can not see the danger of Russian interference in our elections and are so interested in using your message to protect Trump, then you are the problem.
 
Actually I see your post as a problem.

And that would be your problem, not mine.

Somehow you see the people who are worried about Russian interference as the problem and not the Russians themselves.

That is not what I said, but a lot of you are seeing exactly what you want to in this thread.

A lot of that is due to people including trump worried that he is not seen as a legitimate president, HE IS.

There are many, many, many people who don't "see" him as a legitimate president.

Donald Trump is an illegitimate president — and here is why – Raw Story

Jimmy Carter: Donald Trump Is An Illegitimate President, Put In To Office By The Russians | Video | RealClearPolitics!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...c9271c-a613-11e8-97ce-cc9042272f07_story.html

Hillary Clinton Says Donald Trump Is an Illegitimate President and Tulsi Gabbard Is a Russian Tool – Reason.com

What Happens When a President Is Declared Illegitimate? - The Atlantic

Those links could go on for days.

You use the constant tirade about people calling people Russian assests as a way to deflect from the real issue.

No, I use them as a fuller illustration of the point of the OP, but I am entirely unsurprised to find people not wanting to hear it.

I have not seen many posts on this board calling anyone a Russian assest.

Then you have some pretty big blinders.

And if you can not see the danger of Russian interference in our elections

Nothing I said indicates that I don't. The opposite, in fact, is true, if you actually understood what I said.

and are so interested in using your message to protect Trump, then you are the problem.

Nothing I said "protects Trump" in the slightest.

I just said things you really, really don't want to hear.
 
It was an accident. I have an old chrome extension (courtesy of John Oliver) I tried to go back and fix it, but was unable to.

Thank you.

Ok, ...
 
Again. You're just saying things.

You have based your position on something.

The onus is on you to support your claim.

Just repeating it with slightly different verbiage does not lend any credibility to your assertion.

This stuff fascinates me. Its why I came to this site in the first place.

If you've got some dry scholarly treatise to support your position, put it up. I will read it. I read a couple this morning researching earlier replies in this thread.

Indeed. Meaningless.

Yes.

Nope.

Meaningless.

Fine. You seem to have learned little & are actively resisting knowledge - that's due to your bias.

Treatise: Bias is all. You likely read material which affirms/does not seriously challenge your bias. :shrug:

Propaganda = As effective as a coin flip at best
 
Thank you for a rational opinion on the article. I do not necessarily agree with your conclusion, but I do appreciate your post.

Some of the questions you bring up are valid. In addition to this article I have also read these 2 books:

Likewar: The Weaponization of Social Media. This goes into much more detail, and does not focus just on Russia. i highly recommend this book, as it was very eye opening and alarming.

Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe This does not focus on Russia, but it is part of the story. The power Zuck has, is simply too much. another good read (or listen)

Propaganda = Meaningless term
 
Actually I see your post as a problem. Somehow you see the people who are worried about Russian interference as the problem and not the Russians themselves. A lot of that is due to people including trump worried that he is not seen as a legitimate president, HE IS. You use the constant tirade about people calling people Russian assests as a way to deflect from the real issue. I have not seen many posts on this board calling anyone a Russian assest. And if you can not see the danger of Russian interference in our elections and are so interested in using your message to protect Trump, then you are the problem.

It happens constantly.

The entire ridiculous propaganda narrative is Democrats denying reality and screaming "Russian!!!!" at anyone who challenges their insane conspiracy theories.

:shrug:
 
Sorry, I am not a conspiracy theorist fan.

Enjoy your day!

Thank you!

We are all CT fans. All that separates us is whether we prefer Official Conspiracy Theories or those not approved by TPTB.
 
Thank you!

We are all CT fans. All that separates us is whether we prefer Official Conspiracy Theories or those not approved by TPTB.

You are being too rational. :2mad:
 
Back
Top Bottom