deirdre
Senior Member
if you click that twitter link, the first response shows what the Mueller report says about it.
Russia's troll army?
- Thread starter MikeC
- Start date
- Status
Stefan Leahu
Member
As far as the russian trolls fueling conspiracy theories worldwide, I'm inclined to say yes. Of course, that's just done to muddy up the waters and as an exercise to see how many people are gullible to what kind of conspiracy theories. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...olls-spread-baseless-conspiracy-theories-like . I think BBC ran a report as well.
Thing is, as far as I can tell in Romania (eastern Europe), the facebook groups for flat earth, mud flood and other stuff like that seem to be organized and 'curated' by a handful of people and they have sprung up in a relatively short window of time of at most a few months. When you try debunking in those groups, it becomes clear early on that those guys are different from the usual tinfoil crowd. You can actually have logical discussions going in the group, but those guys will try to steer them away either using technobabble, or by starting the mudslinging to the point that it becomes a flame war and under no circumstance do they ever engage in scientific debunking. When approached by PM, they do not respond, which is very different from the 'normal' ones which are actually very passionate about discussing their pet theories. On the same part, you can have discussions that get way out of hand with insults, and no one gets banned, but you will almost instantly get banned for posting cold hard evidence that directly contradicts their narrative. Their time online is also dubious. It takes hours to days to get responses from the regular people. These guys never miss a posting, except if it's very late at night or something like that.
That's not necessarily to say that we're dealing with THE russian trolls, except that, as a former communist country, we have a long history of Russia trying to meddle in our politics and society and at the very least the leading Socialist Party (former communists) has a troll team, so it's hard to see how this may not be Russian interference.
Thing is, as far as I can tell in Romania (eastern Europe), the facebook groups for flat earth, mud flood and other stuff like that seem to be organized and 'curated' by a handful of people and they have sprung up in a relatively short window of time of at most a few months. When you try debunking in those groups, it becomes clear early on that those guys are different from the usual tinfoil crowd. You can actually have logical discussions going in the group, but those guys will try to steer them away either using technobabble, or by starting the mudslinging to the point that it becomes a flame war and under no circumstance do they ever engage in scientific debunking. When approached by PM, they do not respond, which is very different from the 'normal' ones which are actually very passionate about discussing their pet theories. On the same part, you can have discussions that get way out of hand with insults, and no one gets banned, but you will almost instantly get banned for posting cold hard evidence that directly contradicts their narrative. Their time online is also dubious. It takes hours to days to get responses from the regular people. These guys never miss a posting, except if it's very late at night or something like that.
That's not necessarily to say that we're dealing with THE russian trolls, except that, as a former communist country, we have a long history of Russia trying to meddle in our politics and society and at the very least the leading Socialist Party (former communists) has a troll team, so it's hard to see how this may not be Russian interference.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Seems like they had a (t)roll in pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy as well...
https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-th...acy-a-yahoo-news-investigation-100000831.htmlExternal Quote:
scombrid
Senior Member.
Zerohedge picked this up back in February:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...start-ku-klux-klan-and-its-still-party-racism
It is commentary trying to brand the Democrats as still being the kkk party, pointing at people like George Wallace and the distribution of the congressional vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It seems odd to me that a financial news outlet would engage in this kind of muck-raking distortion of history unless it has some other agenda.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...start-ku-klux-klan-and-its-still-party-racism
It is commentary trying to brand the Democrats as still being the kkk party, pointing at people like George Wallace and the distribution of the congressional vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It seems odd to me that a financial news outlet would engage in this kind of muck-raking distortion of history unless it has some other agenda.
Rational Wiki suggests that Zero Hedge is part of the problem:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge
External Quote:
Greylandra
Active Member
Not going to bother "debunking" the specific claims within the article itself? Just 3rd party ad hominem from rational wiki... "zerohedge is a batshit insane..." Personally, I couldn't debunk the article either. :/ it seems grounded in: dates, names, places and facts in general.
scombrid
Senior Member.
It wasn't the facts included that made the article bunk. It was the omission of 5-decades of facts in order to manufacture a conclusion that is bunk. It completely ignored the schism in the Democrat party that started at the 1948 convention and came to a boil in 1964 and ultimately resulted in >90% of the "George Wallaces" leaving the party by the 1980s. My question about why a financial periodical would re-post a political hit piece still stands.
Steve Shiply
New Member
I always show caution when one nation accuses another of spreading propaganda, as all humans share the same DNA and there is no reason peoples of one nation should be any more devious than that of any other nation, and the suggestion of such, could be considered also propaganda. So suspecting that the article is not quite dead centre, i decided to check the reliability of your source, and this graph below shows that Buzzfeed is regarded amongst the lowest of untrustworthy sources with only 6% of people trusting this source.
https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/...istrust-of-news-sources-by-ideological-group/
Buzzfeed is also regarded as being "left leaning".
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/buzzfeed-media-bias
External Quote:
All this is. Is denying conspiracy theory when it is regarding our own government, and asking for sceptism and rationality and reliable sources on matters regards our own, but then getting involved in conspiracy theory ourselves when it comes to accusations against other governments, and just accepting any source, regardless of how well known it is for one sided far left of centre unreliable journalism aka conspiracy theory. Only 27% of Buzzfeeds audience are dead centre, like myself. So this is a source for wingers and those that like to entertain political extremes, or involve themselves in propaganda war .
And yes, i am well aware there is a possiblility i could end up accused of being one of those trolls, or a Russian shill.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member
You are allowed on Metabunk to voice an opinion as long as you back it up with decent sources. So it doesn't really matter if you are a Russian troll or not. but fyi, "people" is plural so you don't need to add the s.
Steve Shiply
New Member
Yes. Ntrepid
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
Also according to wikipedia, operation earnest voice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Voice
According to the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
Last edited:
Steve Shiply
New Member
Also another source for the operation. I have not checked what it say's as it was handed to me by a reliable and trustworthy source from this site, but will post a brief description
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/operation-earnest-voice/
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member
a bit o' context
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
External Quote:
Steve Shiply
New Member
It is still sockpuppetry, as this link taken from wikipedia should reveal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Voice#cite_note-georgemonbiot-1
And sockpuppetry is deception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
deirdre
Senior Member
not saying it isn't. but I personally am not sold that it is the same thing as "us citizens being recruited to do the same thing". I guess if Putin/some Russians sees America as "Jihadists", it would be the same thing. kinda.
Steve Shiply
New Member
I am sure in Russia, like in most countries, outwith Britain and USA, they are more multi-linguistic than US and British citizens, and have a better understanding of English, than US citizens have of Russian.
Also, were those Russians in the emails all speaking to eachother in English? Why? Or was a translater used? translations conducted by non multi-linguists can be unreliable
Steve Shiply
New Member
"Troll army" is just an unofficial word to describe what they officially are.
They are a "web brigade".
Russias Web Brigade, may pack more punch than others, as they are a huge country, but a lot of countries have them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_web_brigades
But does it really amount to the psychological controlled warfare operation with the pro-putin propaganda? And what is intrinsically wrong with being pro-putin? Surely being pro-putin could only be considered offensive, and worthy of an "accusation" to someone that is intrinsically anti-putin.
There is infact actually no hidious crime in being pro-putin, though admittedly, the opinion could be regarded as trollery, when argued on a website which is frequented by mostly pro-us, or pro-boris commenters.
But the word "troll" is in itself informal and urban, when used to describe "Web Brigades".
Steve Shiply
New Member
Your guardian links main accusation is the spread of pro-putin propaganda
Is this really revelational, or even worthy of news, that the Kremlins youth groups goals are pro-russian?
Do we expect the Russian youth group to be pro-USA anymore than US youth groups are pro Russian?
And does this Guardian article aim to shine Putin in a positive light?
But i personally do not see the crime that has been committed here, appart from Hackers exposed that Putin is quite a popular Prime-minister, Russians appear to be pro-russian, and a small minority of them also work in the PR department.
Steve Shiply
New Member
I think the article which starts off eloquently, shows it's true colours in the last section
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maxseddon/documents-show-how-russias-troll-army-hit-america
It is not that what this article is stating is not true.
I think it is more, that it is trying to point to some atrocity.
But actually no crime has been committed.
There is nothing wrong with nationals supporting, or working for their own nation.
But the article from Buzzfeed which contains profanity and becomes borderline offensive towards people of other languages, is touching on Bigotry
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
I think one of the major issues here is that sites, like Buzzfeed, are perpetuating a myth. Anytime someone posts a comment thats contrary to the established narrative in the piece or the tweet, or the Reddit Post etc, they're automatically declared to be russian trolls, russian bots or belonging to the Alt Right so it makes the issue seem a lot larger than it actually is AND/OR obfuscates the actual trolls because the attack comments bury the post. Yes, there ARE trolls, and yes there are Russian Trolls but what the Russian Trolls are after is data and money. They intentionally post inflammatory statements and add links that redirect to a website that either pays them for the number of hits they get, or records the ISP/Meta Data of the incoming connection or both because they know people are emotional and give in to Knee Jerk responses.
The myth of the Russian Troll being out there just to BE a troll is rooted in reality... and there ARE still a few, ,like the ones that call politicians pretending to be Greta Thunberg, but its become a huge money maker for the most part. If the Russian Govt was behind trying to mess with politics, Id expect them to hack voting machines or hijack webcasts etc... things that are harder to trace and much MUCH less noticeable by the general public.
The myth of the Russian Troll being out there just to BE a troll is rooted in reality... and there ARE still a few, ,like the ones that call politicians pretending to be Greta Thunberg, but its become a huge money maker for the most part. If the Russian Govt was behind trying to mess with politics, Id expect them to hack voting machines or hijack webcasts etc... things that are harder to trace and much MUCH less noticeable by the general public.
deirdre
Senior Member
feeling the Bern?
I think it is plausible that some of the bots/ trolling is a Russia gov dept trying to cause discord in America. (and they are succeeding). I mean we beat them at everything, it must be so frustrating.
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
feeling the Bern?
Oh, yeah totally agree. Im just saying that the Russian Govt wouldnt be using trolls to sew discord is all. The KGB and the Russian Govt are experts at covert ops. With Putin being former KGB he'd understand the benefit of plausible deniability. They wouldnt want to show that they're -actively- messing about with US Politics. As for bots etc, I absolutely agree.
P
Pheonix3082
Guest
The group you are referring to is "Apt28". Specifically part of the GRU. It's a little bit more than just a troll farm. Their operations reach to many different countries. Considering the annexation of the Crimea, and their general belligerence in regards to western nations, it would appear that they have aggressive expansionist ideas. One example is the Bündestag in Germany. Hacker Dmitry Badin thought to be an agent of sorts is wanted by the FBI.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/202...indicted-by-germany-over-the-bundestag-hacks/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APT_28
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/202...indicted-by-germany-over-the-bundestag-hacks/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APT_28
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent K
Senior Member
What are you responding to? This thread is about troll farms like the Internet Research Agency, not hackers like Fancy Bear.
P
Pheonix3082
Guest
Apt28 are part of those "troll farms".
Under the heading personas in this link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent K
Senior Member
There were some personas who took credit for the hacks, but that's not part of the troll farm operation.
maircas_olfanahbra
New Member
For the last six years I have found it absolutely unbelievable that "Russia tries to influence US elections using _____" is news or needs debunking. It has been going on for over 100 years and was only brought up by the democratic elite so that they wouldn't have to look within their own organization or evaluate their own policies after losing to a game show host.
Mendel
Senior Member.
What is your best example of Russian influence on the US election in the last century (before 2000)?
maircas_olfanahbra
New Member
I would start by stating that between the US and Russia, according to Wikipedia
According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36. A 2018 study by Levin found that the electoral interventions determined in "many cases" the identity of the winner.
Simply using logic, as wells the facts that the two superpowers at the heart of the Cold War were each interested in the other's destruction and possessed enormous resources to do so, it would follow that they attempted to interfere in each others elections at the very least, quite often.
However, there's plenty of evidence of it actually happening. That same Wikipedia article mentions 1960 & 1984, this article tells of the USSR's active measures in trying to subvert both Nixon's and Reagan's bids to become president and in Reagan's case be reelected.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Sure, let's go with that.
1960 (boldface mine):
Article: On 1 July 1960 a Soviet MiG-19 shot down an American RB-47H reconnaissance aircraft in the international airspace over the Barents Sea with four of the crew being killed and two captured by the Soviets: John R. McKone and Freeman B. Olmstead. The Soviets held on to those two prisoners, in order to avoid giving Nixon (who was the incumbent Vice-President of the United States) an opportunity to boast about his ability to work with the Soviets, and the two Air Force officers were released just days after Kennedy's inauguration, on 25 January 1961. [..] Kennedy doubting whether the Soviet support made a difference: "I don't think it affected the elections in any way."
It is something that the Russians did on their own territory, and it may have influenced how successful Nixon was seen with regard to foreign policy.
Article: 1984 election (by Soviet Union)
When Ronald Reagan was running for reelection as president, the Soviet Union opposed his candidacy and took active measures against it.[113] Soviet intelligence reportedly attempted to infiltrate both the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee.[113]
The single source cited in that paragraph is this (boldface mine):
Article: According to extensive notes made by Vasili Mitrokhin, a high-ranking K.G.B. officer and archivist who later defected to Great Britain, Soviet intelligence tried to infiltrate the headquarters of the Republican and Democratic National Committees, popularize the slogan "Reagan Means War!," and discredit the President as a corrupt servant of the military-industrial complex. The effort had no evident effect.
You're comparing two efforts that had little to no effect to the subject of this thread, successfully targetting the US population directly through social media and amplifying/spreading misinformation. I think that's a new quality that bears investigating.
- Status
