Reports for the Senate Intelligence Committee on the Internet Research Agency's influence operations
I'm pretty sure Paul has already explained how Russian influence didn't occur.
Or if it did, we do the same thing anyway, so....
Or something McCarthyismDNCRussiaphobia something...
I'm sure Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Mate and friends will be all over social media to try to convince us that social media couldn't persuade voters.
This is an old story that was debunked long ago. The issue came up on the "collusion" thread and I posted a bunch of links.
But if Paul Manafort can visit Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy three times without being picked up by video and photographic evidence, then 90 Russian trolls can swing an election and stir up divisions in our tranquil society.
Especially when they were politically savvy enough to know just where and when to place their Facebook ads:
There's still little evidence that Russia's 2016 social media efforts did much of anything
A little-noticed statement from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, detailed how unsophisticated the Russian ad targeting actually was in the context of the election. Among the points he made:
-- Maryland was targeted by nearly five times as many ads as was Wisconsin (262 to 55).
-- Thirty-five of the 55 ads targeting Wisconsin ran during the primary.
-- More ads targeted DC than Pennsylvania.
-- A total of $1,979 was spent in Wisconsin — $1,925 of it in the primary.
-- The spending in Michigan and Pennsylvania were $823 and $300, respectively.
-- More of the geographically targeted ads ran in 2015 than in 2016.
Facebook’s own public numbers hint at how the ads were weighted relative to the campaign. Ten million people saw ads run by the Russian agents — but 5.6 million of those views were after the election.
Please provide evidence that the info you're citing, from last year, applies to the latest report.
Paul,
If you actually bothered to read, you'd know the crux of the report was about posts, not ads.
dave23 said:
Paul,
If you actually bothered to read, you'd know the crux of the report was about posts, not ads.
Even more of a joke.
jamie said:
Please provide evidence that the info you're citing, from last year, applies to the latest report.
I posted evidence about the incompetence of the IRA. Did they become more competent in the last year?
I have no idea why you’re taking the Russian social media attacks so lightly.
Can point out inaccuracies in the latest report?
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:Even more of a joke.
Paul,
If you actually bothered to read, you'd know the crux of the report was about posts, not ads.
The idea of you reading for meaning is indeed a joke. Perhaps more bon mots about your favorite Trump supporters will throw us off eventually.
Let's look at Nate Silver's reaction: Russian social media memes not likely among the top 100 factors in the 2016 election.
PS
Gareth Porter proposes an answer to Nate's question on the IRA's percentage of total social media posts as .0000000024
Correct. How much impact it had is debatable, though it was a very tight election so every little bit matters. But at least you finally acknowledge this bit.
dave23 said:
Correct. How much impact it had is debatable, though it was a very tight election so every little bit matters. But at least you finally acknowledge this bit.
There were Russian trolls, not working for the Russian government, whose efforts were not likely in the top 100 factors in the election.
The real story is that the media is blowing this up beyond any rational proportions to generate fear and hysteria, to promote an agenda based on a hoax. We've seen this story before.
paulsurovell said:
Let's look at Nate Silver's reaction: Russian social media memes not likely among the top 100 factors in the 2016 election.
PS
Gareth Porter proposes an answer to Nate's question on the IRA's percentage of total social media posts as .0000000024
I'm surprised that Nate Silver was voicing those conclusions. He's not basing it on any statistical comparison. His stock-in-trade is statistical comparison, often to contradict or illuminate what others only "sense" or conclude just from observation. His assertion isn't "testable" since it's not based on any data. He's entitled to his opinion, but in this case it doesn't have any additional weight compared to what others may perceive.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:I posted evidence about the incompetence of the IRA. Did they become more competent in the last year?
Please provide evidence that the info you're citing, from last year, applies to the latest report.
No, Paul, but in the past year the social media companies became more forthcoming about what the IRA was doing.
Tech Companies Dragged Feet on Russian Interference Data, Reports Say
When lawmakers asked YouTube, a unit of Google, to provide information about Russian manipulation efforts, it did not disclose how many people watched the videos on its site that were created by Russian trolls.
Facebook did not release the comments that its users made when they viewed Russian-generated content. And Twitter gave only scattered details about the Russian-controlled accounts that spread propaganda there.
The tech companies’ foot-dragging was described in a pair of reports that the Senate Intelligence Committee published on Monday, in what were the most detailed accounts to date about how Russian agents have wielded social media against Americans in recent years.
In the reports, Google, Twitter and Facebook (which also owns Instagram) were described by researchers as having “evaded” and “misrepresented” themselves and the extent of Russian activity on their sites. The companies were also criticized for not turning over complete sets of data about Russian manipulation to the Senate.
The data they did provide “lacked core components that would have provided a fuller and more actionable picture,” said one of the reports, which was written by New Knowledge, a cybersecurity company, along with researchers at Columbia University and Canfield Research. The report added: “Regrettably, it appears that the platforms may have misrepresented or evaded in some of their statements to Congress.”
This report was available last evening as you were commenting using reports from last year. Whatever "evidence" you posted wasn't reliable, as discussed in the reports that you decided to dismiss.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:There were Russian trolls, not working for the Russian government, whose efforts were not likely in the top 100 factors in the election.
Correct. How much impact it had is debatable, though it was a very tight election so every little bit matters. But at least you finally acknowledge this bit.
The real story is that the media is blowing this up beyond any rational proportions to generate fear and hysteria, to promote an agenda based on a hoax. We've seen this story before.
You're remarkable. It's like you're anti-evidence. The more evidence against your positions comes out, the deeper you go into your hidey-hole.
Even though Mr. Surovell relies on what Senator Burr said last year, guess who doesn't rely on it? Senator Burr doesn't rely on it any more, because of the new information that Mr. Surovell ignores. From the same article -
On Monday in Washington, lawmakers lashed out at the tech companies for hiding the ball.
…
Senator Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, “These reports are proof positive that one of the most important things we can do is increase information-sharing between the social media companies who can identify disinformation campaigns and the third-party experts who can analyze them.”
And one more quote, which hopefully makes the point.
All three companies have since acknowledged that the scope of Russian interference was broader than what they originally disclosed.
nohero said:
Even though Mr. Surovell relies on what Senator Burr said last year, guess who doesn't rely on it? Senator Burr doesn't rely on it any more, because of the new information that Mr. Surovell ignores. From the same article -
On Monday in Washington, lawmakers lashed out at the tech companies for hiding the ball.And one more quote, which hopefully makes the point.
…
Senator Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, “These reports are proof positive that one of the most important things we can do is increase information-sharing between the social media companies who can identify disinformation campaigns and the third-party experts who can analyze them.”
All three companies have since acknowledged that the scope of Russian interference was broader than what they originally disclosed.
This has nothing to do with the incompetence of the Russian trolls, which is the point you are ostensibly trying to rebut.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:You're remarkable. It's like you're anti-evidence. The more evidence against your positions comes out, the deeper you go into your hidey-hole.
dave23 said:There were Russian trolls, not working for the Russian government, whose efforts were not likely in the top 100 factors in the election.
Correct. How much impact it had is debatable, though it was a very tight election so every little bit matters. But at least you finally acknowledge this bit.
The real story is that the media is blowing this up beyond any rational proportions to generate fear and hysteria, to promote an agenda based on a hoax. We've seen this story before.
You've got to go after Nate Silver if you want to criticize my post. Because it's his view that I cited that the work of the Russian trolls were not likely in the top 100 factors in the election.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:I'm surprised that Nate Silver was voicing those conclusions. He's not basing it on any statistical comparison. His stock-in-trade is statistical comparison, often to contradict or illuminate what others only "sense" or conclude just from observation. His assertion isn't "testable" since it's not based on any data. He's entitled to his opinion, but in this case it doesn't have any additional weight compared to what others may perceive.
Let's look at Nate Silver's reaction: Russian social media memes not likely among the top 100 factors in the 2016 election.
PS
Gareth Porter proposes an answer to Nate's question on the IRA's percentage of total social media posts as .0000000024
It has as much weight as the hacks who wrote the report and the hacks who are hyping it and those gullible enough to believe them.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:There were Russian trolls, not working for the Russian government, whose efforts were not likely in the top 100 factors in the election.
Correct. How much impact it had is debatable, though it was a very tight election so every little bit matters. But at least you finally acknowledge this bit.
The real story is that the media is blowing this up beyond any rational proportions to generate fear and hysteria, to promote an agenda based on a hoax. We've seen this story before.
You honestly believe that the IRA functioned entirely outside the Russian government's purview? They "propagated lies about voting rules and processes, attempted to steer voters toward third-party candidates and created stories that advocated not voting" in an effort to suppress minority voting.
We will likely never know how much of an impact these efforts had, but we do know that you used to pretend to care about efforts to dissuade black men and women from voting. When liberals point out voter suppression attempts, the right uses similar language: "...an agenda based on a hoax." You are in good company.
paulsurovell said:
You've got to go after Nate Silver if you want to criticize my post. Because it's his view that I cited that the work of the Russian trolls were not likely in the top 100 factors in the election.
I’m not sure that this applies to Nate Silver, but when I think something is worth sharing for consideration but is still rather debatable, “I’m not sure that” is how I often put it.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:This has nothing to do with the incompetence of the Russian trolls, which is the point you are ostensibly trying to rebut.
Even though Mr. Surovell relies on what Senator Burr said last year, guess who doesn't rely on it? Senator Burr doesn't rely on it any more, because of the new information that Mr. Surovell ignores. From the same article -
On Monday in Washington, lawmakers lashed out at the tech companies for hiding the ball.And one more quote, which hopefully makes the point.
…
Senator Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, “These reports are proof positive that one of the most important things we can do is increase information-sharing between the social media companies who can identify disinformation campaigns and the third-party experts who can analyze them.”
All three companies have since acknowledged that the scope of Russian interference was broader than what they originally disclosed.
It has everything to do with the fact that you're supporting your position with statements from Senator Burr, who himself doesn't consider them "operative" any more.
And you have no flippin' clue about the competence or lack thereof, of the Russian trolls (especially since you seem to have made a conscious choice to ignore the most recent information and discussion of that information).
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:It has as much weight as the hacks who wrote the report and the hacks who are hyping it and those gullible enough to believe them.
paulsurovell said:I'm surprised that Nate Silver was voicing those conclusions. He's not basing it on any statistical comparison. His stock-in-trade is statistical comparison, often to contradict or illuminate what others only "sense" or conclude just from observation. His assertion isn't "testable" since it's not based on any data. He's entitled to his opinion, but in this case it doesn't have any additional weight compared to what others may perceive.
Let's look at Nate Silver's reaction: Russian social media memes not likely among the top 100 factors in the 2016 election.
PS
Gareth Porter proposes an answer to Nate's question on the IRA's percentage of total social media posts as .0000000024
I didn't call Nate Silver a hack; he's not. You're calling the authors of the reports "hacks" because you don't like the conclusion.
And face it, you and all the other folks who were bad-mouthing Hillary (and telling people to vote third-party or not vote at all) during the election feel embarrassed by the fact that you were doing what the Russians were doing.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:I’m not sure that this applies to Nate Silver, but when I think something is worth sharing for consideration but is still rather debatable, “I’m not sure that” is how I often put it.
You've got to go after Nate Silver if you want to criticize my post. Because it's his view that I cited that the work of the Russian trolls were not likely in the top 100 factors in the election.
Not necessary to parse, his meaning is clear. Not likely in top 100 factors in the election. Which is actually kind of obvious.
nohero said:you and all the other folks who were bad-mouthing Hillary
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
you and all the other folks who were bad-mouthing Hillary
Yes, this is a message board, with a "Search" function. Maybe your account was "hacked" during the 2016 election and you're unaware of what was posted using your ID. Otherwise, you know to what I refer.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Yes, this is a message board, with a "Search" function. Maybe your account was "hacked" during the 2016 election and you're unaware of what was posted using your ID. Otherwise, you know to what I refer.
nohero said:
you and all the other folks who were bad-mouthing Hillary
Yes, yes, I know. Hillary is above criticism. And anyone who has the audacity to question anything she says is an "Arsonist."
David Sirota made an insightful comment on this disorder last night. Your obsession is doing the Republicans (and Trump) a big favor:
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
Multi Family Garage Sale Sale Date: Apr 20, 2024
More info
Advertisement
Links to the reports:
ttps://www.dropbox.com/s/f3jav3mfd87g4pq/Whitepaper%20final.pdf?dl=0
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5631936-IRA-Report-17-Dec.html
WASHINGTON — Russian efforts to interfere in American politics were more pervasive on Instagram and other social media platforms than previously known and showed a clear preference for Donald Trump during the last presidential election, according to a pair of new reports prepared for the Senate.
Third-party researchers completed two reports for the Senate Intelligence Committee, which released them on Monday. The documents provide the most complete picture to date of the years-long campaign by the Internet Research Agency — a Kremlin-connected troll farm indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller in February — to sow divisions in American society, spread disinformation, and manipulate US voters through social media.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emmaloop/russia-social-media-internet-research-agency-senate-report