Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Rashida Tlaib Wins BIG Over Detroit City Council President" video.
-
5
-
4
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
That npr investigation explains some of the alleged "Russian interference in U.S. 2016 elections". (npr did not voice that obvious conclusion. To be fair the hysteria and obfuscation campaign had just started). The Russian intel services would not bother to have a half baked attempt with spending 50,000 USD on facebook or under 5000 on google ads * in order to "meddle with the presidential U.S. election".
And the more they would spend on social media to be relevant in the game where 1 candidate raised 1 billion USD and the other had 500 millions - the more likely it would be they will be found out.
* That is money that could be attributed to "Russians" spending it (that does not mean the intel services).
50,000 spent before and 50,000 spent AFTER the election for facebook ads.
under 5,000 spent on google ads - that was said in a hearing where a manager of google testified. CFO ? - he said they had done a thorough investigation, I do not remember the amount, I think around 4,000 USD. Certainly under 5k - so it is ridiculous to assume that the Russian government and their spooks had anything to do with it.
50,000 or 100,000 is small change for marketing campaigns. (but there can be actors that do click bait. They spend 4,000 to promote content, and hope they may make 10,000 off the ad revenue when they lure people to their site.).
Now troll farms that is another thing but a) the U.S., Israel, China, ... have them too never mind corporations or political ones like "Correct the Record" that was officially hired by the Clinton campaign (or the DNC - either one, they were closely cooperating anyway).
the 1000 people that allegedly work there have a quota of 100 post per day. Well then they can only post links or prefabricated comments. That is not vey effective (the links could be, it depends on the quality of the work behind it).
Now they are accused of moving the operation to Ghana.
Quoting from an article: https://www.cyberscoop.com/russia-ira-troll-farm-disinformation-outsourced/
The topics posted about primarily targeted the U.S., Facebook said, and although it wasn’t clearly mentioning elections or politics, the activity aligns with just the kind of division the Russians like to insert into U.S. politics. The narratives emphasized in this campaign — police brutality, oppression, injustice — are exactly those that the IRA propagated in 2016 as well.
In other words Russian paid trolls (now in Ghana) point out to the citizens that they are being screwed. - The Russian government is doing The People in the U.S. a major service (even if they have their won reasons for it - which btw must not be contrary to the intersts of regular U.s. citizens. No new cold War for instance).
Like I said, RT can kill if too with only telling the truth.
Correct the Record was an euphemism for paying people to pose online as organic support and "correcting" comments that they saw as negative for Clinton.
Which was not intended to counteract the alt right (they would not vote for any Democrat, so it would be a wast of money to appear on their forums). That money was spent to manipulate the potential D voters online.
And of course the trolls are not numerous enough to make a dent. The best money the Russians have ever invested is into RT - they kill it with telling the truth. (They have a bias. you just have to factor that in. Like you have the pro war, pro biz bias in the other large outlets.
Most relevant hosts working for RT are genuine lefties, they say that they have full editorial freedom (except for legal consideration), much more than with the other media in the U.S. or U.K. (and that is believeable - Chris Hedges, Thom Hartman, Ed Schultz, Abby Martin, the comedian that appears as Jonathan Pie, ....)
RT employs a lot of good people ! (some with high integrity, people I trust like Chris Hedges and I am quite cynical about the "free media" in general.. RT has interesting guests that I am sure would be glad to appear on the other outlets and the U.s. population would deserve to hear rom them - but the other outlets would never give them the airtime. Acutally they purge people that then show up at RT - so of course the views that are not convenient for the status quo are never ever allowed on mainstream media. (One of the remarkable pieces on finance / economics was The Finance Curse with guest Dr. Richard Werner. That was on RT UK)
RT does not have to do invest into recruiting, they just pick up the good people that are purged from the networks. Or in rare cases they hire emerging talent - like Abby Martin that carved out a little online niche with reporting on Occupy Wallstreet. People like her would never, ever be hired by any other news station. You have to be pro war, trade deals, and pro neoliberalism and incapable to understand how they do healthcare in other countries (or waht really caused the Great Financial Criss).
for people that fall in line with that agenda it is either one of the "liberal" outlets, Fox, or local media (which is bought up by rich people - so also to the right). Genuine lefties would never be hired or get dumped the minute they come out of the closet.
In a weird twist freedom of speech is secured with help of a media outlet that has heavy funding by the Russian government.
Freedom of speech is meaningless if you do not have a platform to reach people. primitive tyrannies suppress what people can say on an individual level. Sophisticated oligarchies that purport to be democracies have a mainstream media that falls in line and control public opinion more covertly (and it works spendidly because the tryranny is not so openly in your face).
The occasional dissenter does not make a dent (they give cover "see how free we are, people can say and write what they want - as long as it does not make a difference should be added !). How many people does he or she really reach with a book or a speech. Or now a youtube channel **
They rarely make a dent.
(** online media could make a difference, so the oligarchs and their friendly tech companies already have reacted).
The Civil Rights Movement did not cost big biz anything so the Northern media was supportive (The media in the South reflected societal bias of the South - but either way that was not going to cost the business community and the rich any money).
Letting black people vote and eat in the same restaurant as white people was a cultural thing, it had no economic impact.
The Vietnam war was the last time where free speech made a difference and forced the hand of the ruling class. That is what the ruling class fears: free speech that rouses citizens into action, mass protests or published information that leads to actual prosecution in scandals.
But that happens very rarely.
The oppressive Soviets with their open ! censorship were amateurs .....
1
-
Troll farms (by the CIA, Russians, China) can amplify a mood (to a degree, but it is limited what they can do online because of the sheer volume) what already exists - U.S. citizens had it with the war mongering and the neoliberalism, and bailing out the banks. Fox had openly polarized the U.S. population. all networks support economic policies that create tensions.
The CIA and friendly Transatlantic thinktanks had the much better approach - the captured the "free media" (incl. the publicly funded ones) in the West for decades. They had ongoing influence campaigns on the journalists of respected outlets. That is well known, one such program is called Operation Mockingbird. It is also well known how pro NATO anchors on publicly financed TV in Germany are.
Or the activieties of the Transatlantic Council.
Before the internet there was a bottleneck for information, relatively few actors determined what was "newsworthy" and from what angle reporting would be. Of course the U.S. captured that process. Now they have the problem to herd the cats (aka controlling the flow of information on the internet).
Trolls cannot throw an election. Not even much better funded operations than the Russians have.
Besides the Russians do not have nearly enough trolls to make a difference. They need to be good in English. And posting pre canned statements does not change minds.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/11/25/131832/russia-disinformation-twitter-internet-research-agency-social-media-politics/ - MIT refering to a study confirming what I know from browsing the comment sections.
I see many remarks that are random and negative. Could be paid trolls, could be people that have nothing worthwhile to do, but and they do it for tribal reasons, but from conviction and w/o pay or being leveraged by an institution (owning the libs). Or these posters think it makes a difference for their side winning. Or more likely they just enjoy the negativity to to show the libs.
Which is foolish: If anything - the number of comments, negative or positive helpa video.
Example: The TYT comment section is so heavily trolled. That infestation must be organized in some way I suspect some think tank. Interestingly these (paid or unpaid) trolls do not dislike the video, although they abound in the comment section. I think youtube does not care about comments, but they monitor organized efforts for likes and dislikes. And might shut down accounts and even IP adresses that manipulate the like / dislike ratio.
So that is organically earned, but the comments are overwhelmingly negative.
Example: random remarks (that have nothing to do with the video content, other than that they go in general against the leaning of the channel) Now about violent riots, pro police - or the classic is about how Sanders is a commie, how he never had a "real" job and is a lazy bum. Demoncrats are crazy, they will ruin the country, Trump 2020, etc. Or that left economics and single payer healthcare would ruin the U.S. 'cause Venezuela.
Typcially that looks like a copy and paste job. Maybe a private citizen, maybe something organized.
Guess what - they trigger contradiction (maybe it is meant to soak up time of progressives online, by engaging them). But these random generic comments (often insulting or negative) do not change minds. For that you would need a polite and individual conversation, and even then people usually cordially agree to disagree w/o either side changing their view. It might make a slight dent and help against the polarization. I do not contradict such contents in order to persuade such dommenters. I try to provide the counterbalance for readers that have no fixed view either way and might be opeen to facts.
professional trolling / manipulation of opinions online needs a LOT of resources. Ask the companies doing it (covertly) to elevate their brands and counteract criticism.
So I am highly sceptical about the usefulness of trolls (they might work for companies, but those trolls need to be more sophisticated than just doing a copy and paste job. in other word: budgets. Nuance and often only a domestic workforce will do to create the right vibe, language, cultural knowledge).
Private citizens from Russia or other nations making money OFF the polarization - That is plausible.
Division that was caused by the politicians, by trade deals, war mongering, .... bailing out the banksters and throwing the (lower income) people under the bus under Obama.
Divions was created - by U.S. actors:
Directly (Fox) and indirectly (all of them pushing for policies that are bad for the U.S. citizens). The polarization stems from mass incarceration, the war on drugs, the intense racism, increasing inequality, the permanent underclass that has been casually accepted for decades.
Those for-profit click baiters have no political interest, the elections are a big game with a lot of money involved, and a population with a free floating resentment or anger only waiting for a funnel. The reasonable people may get politically active, while others engage in conspiracy theories (birtherism, pizzagate, or now anti-maskers).
the electorate was polarized already, and that had nothing to do with Russian propagance. There was no fertile grounds and it had been prepared for decades. The neoliberal policies of sellout Obama and Biden (and HRC) just finished it off. People lose faith in the ruling class, in the institutations, and sadly that is very justified.
Both candidates (Trump, Hillary Clinton) had historic record level negative polling. For a click bait online ad revenue business model the alt right is a good and gullible target group and they don't do even primitive fact checking (online). So anti HRC postings were the red meat to get the clicks. (this explains why some of the ads were anti Trump or about Sanders. Whatever got them clicks. And trashy or tabloid sells, so it was like that.)
1
-
1