Russia's troll army?

[Pete Tar]

Don't forget it takes place in this context -

http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-...n-propaganda-justifying-invasion-of-crimea/#2
The Most Hilarious Russian Propaganda Justifying the Invasion of Crimea


There is nothing funny about Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian Crimea. However, Moscow’s attempts to justify its naked aggression against Ukraine are positively hilarious.

Russia watchers in publications like POLITICO Magazine, The Daily Beast, Interpreter Mag and, of course, Russia Today have complied examples of some of the best pro-Russian propaganda available (though that last outlet is not aiming for irony).

Here are a few of the best samples:


Pro-European Protesters Were Shooting Themselves
prev
next

Russia Today (or, RT, as the network prefers to be known these days) demonstrated its total independence from Moscow on Thursday when it published audio of a telephone call between Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and The European Union’s High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton. The call, which was randomly intercepted by highly capable but unidentified intelligence operatives, purports to reveal that Paet had informed Ashton that the EuroMaidan protesters hired snipers to shoot at EuroMaidan protesters, presumably to cause a pretext to topple the government (which eventually fell when Yanukovich fled and ordered local security guards to abandon government buildings). But the bombshell call removed the context of Paet’s comments. "I was talking on the theories there were about what happened...from both sides - among policemen and the people from the streets - that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” he later said. “It is extremely regrettable that phone calls are being intercepted,” Paet added. “The fact that this phone call has been leaked is not a coincidence.” [Photo via Sergei Supinsky/AFP]

Content from external source

It's not an extraordinary claim.

 

[Mick West]

The Guardian in England have been considering this issue.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/04/pro-russia-trolls-ukraine-guardian-online

For quite some time too, that story links to one from feb 2012
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/07/nashi-emails-insight-kremlin-groups-priorities

Regarding emails supposedly sent from Vasily Yakemenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Yakemenko

 

[Josh Heuer]

Don't forget it takes place in this context -

http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-...n-propaganda-justifying-invasion-of-crimea/#2
The Most Hilarious Russian Propaganda Justifying the Invasion of Crimea


There is nothing funny about Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian Crimea. However, Moscow’s attempts to justify its naked aggression against Ukraine are positively hilarious.

Russia watchers in publications like POLITICO Magazine, The Daily Beast, Interpreter Mag and, of course, Russia Today have complied examples of some of the best pro-Russian propaganda available (though that last outlet is not aiming for irony).

Here are a few of the best samples:


Pro-European Protesters Were Shooting Themselves
prev
next

Russia Today (or, RT, as the network prefers to be known these days) demonstrated its total independence from Moscow on Thursday when it published audio of a telephone call between Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and The European Union’s High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton. The call, which was randomly intercepted by highly capable but unidentified intelligence operatives, purports to reveal that Paet had informed Ashton that the EuroMaidan protesters hired snipers to shoot at EuroMaidan protesters, presumably to cause a pretext to topple the government (which eventually fell when Yanukovich fled and ordered local security guards to abandon government buildings). But the bombshell call removed the context of Paet’s comments. "I was talking on the theories there were about what happened...from both sides - among policemen and the people from the streets - that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” he later said. “It is extremely regrettable that phone calls are being intercepted,” Paet added. “The fact that this phone call has been leaked is not a coincidence.” [Photo via Sergei Supinsky/AFP]

Content from external source

It's not an extraordinary claim.

It's not an extraordinary claim; neither are a lot made here on this very site about the US, but they are framed as such. But regardless, claims require evidence. Not just 'some hacked emails' from 'some Russian hacker.'

From your source:
[bunk]The call, which was randomly intercepted by highly capable but unidentified intelligence operatives[/bunk]
How incredibly convenient, aye?

 

[Mick West]

Let's look at the emails then. That's the claim of evidence. What's the provenance? What do they contain?

 

[Mick West]

The question here is if there are a lot of people employed to spread pro-Russian propaganda on the Internet, and if these emails are evidence of such.

The question is NOT if pro-Russian propaganda exists, or does not exist.

The question is NOT if it would be justified or not.

It's just about the claims of evidence made in this article:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/documents-show-how-russias-troll-army-hit-america

 

[Pete Tar]

How incredibly convenient, aye?

Yes, for Russian interests, which was the point.

Let's look at the emails then. That's claim of evidence. What's the provenance? What do they contain?

From the 2012 guardian article.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/07/nashi-emails-insight-kremlin-groups-priorities
Several emails sent to Potupchik give accounts of the group's monthly work and expenses. One account of the St Petersburg branch's work in October includes a detailed list of the blogs attacked by Nashi commenters.

It said 10 activists, via 50 accounts on LiveJournal, Russia's blogging platform of choice, and 50 Twitter accounts, could "regularly monitor LiveJournal publications" of bloggers and activists, such as Navalny and his fellow opposition opposition leaders, Boris Nemtsov and Ilya Yashin.

"More than 1,200 comments were left," it says. "Twelve publications on social-political themes and in support of the prime minister were written, and reposted more than 200 times," noting that only half the allotted budget of R300,000 was spent.

Another email lists the exact amounts paid to people posting online comments between 27 June and 31 July, with the amounts running from R13,000 paid to one blogger for 145 comments, to R50,000 to another for 651 comments. The number of LiveJournal and Twitter followers each Nashi blogger has is closely monitored and remunerated accordingly.

A similar email for September shows that the youth group spent R7.4million to maintain groups on social networking sites backing Russia's ruling tandem, as well as other internet projects.

Content from external source

 

[Mick West]

Yeah, but is there evidence beyond the contents of the emails that indicates they are genuine? Or are the contents sufficient?

 

[Josh Heuer]

The question here is if there are a lot of people employed to spread pro-Russian propaganda on the Internet, and if these emails are evidence of such.

The question is NOT if pro-Russian propaganda exists, or does not exist.

The question is NOT if it would be justified or not.

It's just about the claims of evidence made in this article:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/documents-show-how-russias-troll-army-hit-america

Right, and there is only speculation based on hacked emails from some Russian hacker.

You just asked me if it was reasonable to assume Russian propaganda existed. Now you're saying it's not about that. I guess your last post was aimed at...yourself.

No, not at all. Governments have propaganda department. Do you think that this type of thing is not likely? I seems reasonably likely to me. The question here is if the evidence supports it.

So it's ok to posit your opinion but not expect a response? Why?

 

[Mick West]

Right, and there is only speculation based on hacked emails from some Russian hacker.

You just asked me if it was reasonable to assume Russian propaganda existed. Now you're saying it's not about that. I guess your last post was aimed at...yourself.

I asked you rhetorically in response to your question "Quite a huge leap, isn't it?"
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/russias-troll-army.3761/#post-108782

It's not about if Russian propaganda exists, because it very obviously does. We don't need examples of it, nor do we need counterexamples of Western propaganda, which also obviously exists. That's not the issue here.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Ok, so you're asking that question rhetorically as if it is proof that these allegations are legit?

If not, what was the point of that question?

 

[Pete Tar]

Or are the contents sufficient?

That seems to depend on personal preference. It seems highly likely to me given what we know about cold-war Russia and the current trend towards the old ways and I'm content with that, but if someone digs further and finds evidence to indicate otherwise or call it into doubt then I'd have to revise.

Josh, do you have any evidence or reasons to think that the claim is not true?

 

[Josh Heuer]

That seems to depend on personal preference. It seems highly likely to me given what we know about cold-war Russia and the current trend towards the old ways and I'm content with that, but if someone digs further and finds evidence to indicate otherwise or call it into doubt then I'd have to revise.

Josh, do you have any evidence or reasons to think that the claim is not true?

It's a claim...why is the burden of proof on me?
I'm just wondering why certain people are latching on. Seems odd to me.

Seems like people are playing 'connect the dots' here.

 

[Mick West]

Ok, so you're asking that question rhetorically as if it is proof that these allegations are legit?

If not, what was the point of that question?

Slow down Josh. This isn't a semantic game.

Rhetorical questions illustrate a point. I ask you if Russian might be engaged in propaganda because its obvious to everyone that they do, as do the US.

You asked me if it was "quite a leap". I assumed you mean that it was a leap to believe that these emails were genuine. I said it seemed reasonably likely. I'd give it 50%, based on my limited knowledge.

How much of a leap do you think it is? Put it into numbers, what is your degree of confidence (as a percentage) that the emails are fake?

 

[Josh Heuer]

Given that we don't know the source (once again, some hacker), and America is just as likely to put out propaganda...less than your 50%.
I think you need to slow down. Can you follow?

 

[Mick West]

Given that we don't know the source, and America is just as likely to up out propaganda...less than your 50%.
I think you need to slow down. Can you follow?

How much less?

 

[Josh Heuer]

How much less?

5%. 10 times less than your 50%.

 

[Josh Heuer]

You seem to be giving this anonymous source too much credit.

 

[Mick West]

You you think there's a 1 in 20 chance that this is real. Seems significant enough to look into then. Maybe you should read some of the emails? Some of the surrounding discussion?

You also think there's a 19 in 20 chance it's an elaborate fake. Either way it's a very interesting story.

 

[Mick West]

You seem to be giving this anonymous source too much credit.

Did you read the Guardian story? There's a lot of corroborating evidence.

And anecdotally, I've notice a strong pro-Russian trend in Alternative media that does not seem to be justified by reality. A lot of RT regurgitation, and a lot of defending Putin. I've been noticing this for the last year. Too speculative to mention, but now we have some evidence to discuss. I think it's a little hasty to just throw it away with "oh, it's anonymous".

 

[Pete Tar]

Given that we don't know the source (once again, some hacker)

(OP)
The group that hacked the emails, which were shared with BuzzFeed last week and later uploaded online, is a new collective that calls itself the Anonymous International, apparently unrelated to the global Anonymous hacker movement. In the last few months, the group has shot to notoriety after posting internal Kremlin files such as plans for the Crimean independence referendum, the list of pro-Kremlin journalists whom Putin gave awards for their Crimea coverage, and the personal email of eastern Ukrainian rebel commander Igor Strelkov. None of the group’s leaks have been proven false.

Content from external source

and America is just as likely to put out propaganda...less than your 50%.

So that's it, because America is 'just as likely' to put out propaganda, this story is probably false? That's not a reason.
And if you're saying America is just as likely to put out propaganda as Russia, then by your own logic, it's likely.

 

[Josh Heuer]

You you think there's a 1 in 20 chance that this is real. Seems significant enough to look into then. Maybe you should read some of the emails? Some of the surrounding discussion?

You also think there's a 19 in 20 chance it's an elaborate fake. Either way it's a very interesting story.

You diss conspiracy, but (for some reason) you hitch onto this one?

The guardian article (from 2012) is more speculation! More talk of 'hacked emails!'

(OP)
The group that hacked the emails, which were shared with BuzzFeed last week and later uploaded online, is a new collective that calls itself the Anonymous International, apparently unrelated to the global Anonymous hacker movement. In the last few months, the group has shot to notoriety after posting internal Kremlin files such as plans for the Crimean independence referendum, the list of pro-Kremlin journalists whom Putin gave awards for their Crimea coverage, and the personal email of eastern Ukrainian rebel commander Igor Strelkov. None of the group’s leaks have been proven false.

Content from external source

So that's it, because America is 'just as likely' to put out propaganda, this story is probably false? That's not a reason.
And if you're saying America is just as likely to put out propaganda as Russia, then by your own logic, it's likely.

Great. Some anonymous group. Lies as far as I'm concerned. I'm saying if you're going to claim the US and Russia can put out propaganda, why believe it's russian and not the US? Why pick either? Unless you have a bias.

 

[Pete Tar]

Lies as far as I'm concerned.

Why?

I'm saying if you're going to claim the US and Russia can put out propaganda, why believe it's russian and not the US?

Do you mean you think it's American shills pretending to be pro-Russian commentators to create anti-Russian sentiment?

 

[Josh Heuer]

Why?

I don't believe everything I read on the Internet. Especially baseless assertions from news sites, obtained from emails from anonymous hacker groups.

Do you mean you think it's American shills pretending to be pro-Russian commentators to create anti-Russian sentiment?

It's one possibility of many. None of which should be jumped to as a conclusion. Not without facts. I see enough speculation to make my head spin, but nothing can be seriously verified.

 

[Josh Heuer]

I guess I better sleep on it.

I just can't jump to conclusions over some (supposedly) anonymous hacked emails, that's all.

 

[Pete Tar]

What about the claim of rival groups of commentators, is that just as much a baseless assertion or do you give that any more or less credence?

Opposition web brigades
Tatyana Korchevnaya, a former candidate to the Deputy of the State Duma from the Other Russia list,[11] a former United Civil Front coordinator of the Primorsky Krai,[12] participant of protest demonstrations,[13][14] an author of the top tenth political blog of 2008 [15] claimed in February 2009 in her blog that she was a member of an organization of Russia's "discontented", aimed to run a mass Internet campaign to discredit the authorities.[16][17][18]

The project was allegedly coordinated by a Moscow-based manager, whose name Tatyana did not reveal.[17] The goal of the participants was massive Internet campaigning, disputing those who were contented with their living in Russia, advertising Garry Kasparov and Dissenters Marches, and talking about atrocities of the "bloody regime".[17] The participants used multiple nicknames to combat their opponents.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades

Content from external source

Do you give this any more or less credence, or is it just another baseless assertion?

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=100&story_id=38052
Local News

Internet Troll Operation Uncovered in St. Petersburg
By Sergey Chernov

The St. Petersburg Times


Sergey Chernov / SPT


Local reporters have infiltrated a covert organization that hired young people as “Internet operators” near St. Petersburg and discovered that the employees are being paid to write pro-Kremlin postings and comments on the Internet, smearing opposition leader Alexei Navalny and U.S. politics and culture.

Content from external source

 

[Hevach]

What if they are trying to influence opinion by generating antagonism and controversy?
Semantics, but if you look at RT, they rarely say "Russia is great", instead they stir things up by discussing American involvement in things, even suggesting 9/11 was "an inside job"

It's more effective and less obvious than open shilling. Remember last year or the year before when news came out about China's internet commenter "farms" that the government used to generate positive internet postings? They were always nothing but glowing praise for China and everything it did, often to the point of absurdity. It made them ineffective to the point of comedy, and a joke among other Chinese internet users.

During the last days of the rebellion and around the Crimean annexation, there were claims Russia was doing this. I saw some screencaptures of suspected shills, and they were a throwback to the, "What tanks? I see no tanks!" denial you saw back during the invasion of Czechoslovakia. It was the sort of thing that didn't seem to work even in pro-annexation echo chambers.

 

[Joe]

Cheeky bugger.
Come on, try and be constructive.

"ATS has been infiltrated and infested with western establishment-paid shills", sparked a lot of attention, flags, and replies over the last few days. The core premise being that, among other online sources of political discussion, ATS was pre-populated with "shills" prior to the Russian invasion of Crimea. - See more at: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1010651/pg1#sthash.Iz1YqUuc.dpuf

Content from external source

 

[deirdre]

It's a claim...why is the burden of proof on me?

because its a debunking site. if you think the claim of evidence is bunk. it's your job to debunk it.

 

[Josh Heuer]

because its a debunking site. if you think the claim of evidence is bunk. it's your job to debunk it.

I'm not here to debunk propaganda; I'm also not here to promote it.

 

[Svartbjørn]

I'm not here to debunk propaganda; I'm also not here to promote it.

They're not asking you to debunk Propaganda Josh, they're asking you to provide evidence that you believe their claim is bunk or false.. thats all. Personal incredulity isnt going to do it.. and while I agree with some of what you're saying, I havent seen evidence other than what's been provided here so far. Dont take this as Mick and the others baiting you, or trying to push you.. they're just asking for you to provide any evidence you have to the contrary of their own.. thats all.

 

[Josh Heuer]

I'm respectfully backing out of this one for now. I just don't trust this hacker source, that's all.

I'll dig up some emails from a hacker claiming there's trolls paid by the US government posting on metabunk. Then we'll see the total opposite response. Even though many people have made this claim before and the evidence would support that claim, it would be the absolute opposite, a denial that it's real.

But you'll trust this Russian source because it fits your own preconceived notion! It looks like confirmation bias from where I'm sitting. I don't trust this case or the hypothetical one I made up.

They're not asking you to debunk Propaganda Josh, they're asking you to provide evidence that you believe their claim is bunk or false.. thats all. Personal incredulity isnt going to do it.. and while I agree with some of what you're saying, I havent seen evidence other than what's been provided here so far. Dont take this as Mick and the others baiting you, or trying to push you.. they're just asking for you to provide any evidence you have to the contrary of their own.. thats all.

There's no incredulity here; it's not 'I don't believe it,' it's more like 'I haven't been given a reason to believe it based on what's been presented.' It's not up to me to prove why I don't believe it; it's up to the source to prove it's true.

 

[Mick West]

I don't trust anonymous information. I'm not saying any of this is true. I'm saying it does not seems unreasonable.

The thread partly falls under the meta debunking exemption - as the presence of paid shills on the internet around particular topics has implications for debunking. Is it real? How much? How can you deal with it? How can you avoid being accused of it? Can you detect it? Is there any here?

I think it's also going to be significant for the future of discussion on the internet - especially when AI chatbots start getting in on the act.

 

[Josh Heuer]

I don't trust anonymous information.

I would trust anonymous information, under the premise that the information can be verified in some way.

I'm not saying any of this is true. I'm saying it does not seems unreasonable.

Good! We're on the same boat.

The thread partly falls under the meta debunking exemption - as the presence of paid shills on the internet around particular topics has implications for debunking. Is it real? How much? How can you deal with it? How can you avoid being accused of it? Can you detect it? Is there any here?

How can we find out? FOIA requests? How could we find out about programs without some whistleblower or in this case, hacker, bringing things to light? I've always been curious. Even in the late '90s when I first started using the internet, I remember occasionally thinking "why wouldn't a government have people on the Internet, spying and swaying opinion?" It seems reasonable, but I never had real evidence of it.

I think it's also going to be significant for the future of discussion on the internet - especially when AI chatbots start getting in on the act.

So you don't think they already are out there?

 

[deirdre]

So you don't think they already are out there?

I feel sorry for the little chatbots already. their lil logical computer brains will explode once they get into a conversation ; /

 

[Stevan Gvozdenovic]

The article in the OP sems to mainly discuss actual Russians, with their bad English. Is there any evidence of US citizens being recruited to do similar things?

there are many Russians that know proper English, so why paying anyone who doesn't have basic language skills? It just doesn't add up.

The thing is Russia has 150 million people (or so) and there are many of those with nothing to do but troll american news sites(especially with recent hysteria about Ukraine), no need to pay them...

 

[Gib]

Interesting to look at this thread 5 years later, now that we know how comprehensive the Russian troll activity was in attempting to influence the 2016 US presidential election.

 

[Bruno D.]

...
What if they are trying to influence opinion by generating antagonism and controversy?
...

Spot on

 

[sharpnfuzzy]

She did not directly name check Trump but I think it's clear who the FEC chair is aiming this tweet at.



Source: https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1139309394968096768

 

[Gib]

What's more, Trump is now saying that he will take campaign assistance from Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/politics/trump-russia-fbi.html?module=inline

“It’s not an interference,” he said in an interview with ABC News, describing it as “opposition research.” “They have information — I think I’d take it.” He would call the F.B.I. only “if I thought there was something wrong.”

[On Thursday, Mr. Trump equated taking dirt from Russia with presidential diplomacy.][/I]

 

[Agent K]

She did not directly name check Trump but I think it's clear who the FEC chair is aiming this tweet at.

Source: https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1139309394968096768

"Anything of value from a foreign national", that's awfully broad, conflating foreign nationals with foreign governments. Is there a problem with the Russian or Belarusian national Vitali Shkliarov advising the campaigns of Bernie Sanders, Obama, and other Democrats?

A Bernie Sanders Campaign Adviser Was a Russian. Now He’s Speaking Out.
Glenn Greenwald
April 19 2017, 5:26 a.m.
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/19...er-was-a-russian-vitali-shkliarov-speaks-out/
A HIGH-LEVEL ADVISER and operative for the 2016 Sanders campaign was Vitali Shkliarov, a Soviet-born citizen of Belarus. Shkliarov, who had previously worked on the 2012 Obama re-election campaign and for several other successful Democratic Party campaigns, has also become increasingly in demand as a political adviser and campaign manager in Russia, working for liberal candidates in opposition to President Vladimir Putin.

Content from external source