
Tracking Political Manipulation Through Social Media - sajid
https://blog.ycombinator.com/tracking-political-manipulation-through-social-media-samantha-bradshaw/
======
gambler
I will start taking research like this seriously when authors will start
discussing media spin as part of the problem. If you think bots are a problem,
but news websites engaging in blatant, Orwellian language and fact bending are
not... you should at leas be able to back it up with comparative research on
effectiveness, which I've never seen being done. Online "discussions" of
political topics are saturated with links to traditional media.

Increasingly, I think giving up on "news" and social media altogether is the
best solution. I've quit most of it. HN is the closes thing to social media I
visit. I watch YouTube, but limit videos to specific educational content.

~~~
InternetUser
You honestly do not consume any news about current world events, whether
local, national, or international? Or do you just mean that you continually
and deliberately ignore political news? I mean, that's not exactly rare: 100
million eligible voters (42%) did not even care to vote in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election[0]; I suppose they either don't believe their vote would
matter, or that Hillary and Trump were the same enough. I would think there
are still easily tens of thousands of those people are still indifferent about
the electoral process. Anyway, to me, it's easy to see how sports, video
games, TV shows, porn, eating, alcohol, weed, and drugs can be seen as more
interesting than, for instance, the current "battle" about if, when, and where
the 2019 State of the Union address will take place.

[0] [http://archive.is/NDUkb](http://archive.is/NDUkb)

~~~
gambler
_> You honestly do not consume any news about current world events, whether
local, national, or international?_

Not intentionally. Information about big things still leaks through websites
like HN and Slashdot, through articles/interviews about "non-newsy" subjects,
as well as through people I know.

I've considered quitting HN and Slashdot too, but I need up-to-date technical
information to do my job effectively. Can't find a good alternative.

 _> 100 million eligible voters (42%) did not even care to vote in the 2016
U.S. presidential election_

When I need to vote these days, I approach it as buying a piece of
electronics. I dedicate time to research my options. As in, sit down and spend
several hours or days searching for relevant (to me) information on the
candidates. Obviously, this might include news articles if they are relevant,
but those have to be articles about something specific (e.g. some particular
thing a candidate did in relation to a particular social or economic issue I'm
interested in).

It's a tedious process, but I think it's better than passively and
continuously consuming whatever some media outlet cooks up to fill their air
time, print space or website home page.

------
rwhitman
This interview should be held up as a definitive educational material for
anyone working around social media platforms. Really shines an important
spotlight on how bad actors manipulate digital information, and how to adjust
business and mental models towards mitigating platform manipulation into the
future.

Really pleased to hear how much research and thought is being done in this
area now. Looking forward to hearing more from this team.

------
hnuser1234
Giant media corporations owned by billionaires, run by millionaires, and
overwhelmingly staffed by members/partisans of a single political party pump
out propaganda on all of their mediums 24/7 and totally dominate and saturate
public opinion but we are supposed to understand that "bots" are a threat to
democracy? As someone who has been deemed a "bot" by people who do not wish to
hear information they do not like on more occasions than I can recall, I note
an insidious aspect of this emphasis on "bots" is that it allows the ready
dismissal of any individual expressing heterodoxy and glorifies/sanctifies the
"official" media previously described. Yet we saw this past week that social
media users were able to win a rare victory in bringing the "official" media
to heel for their lies and manipulation in setting upon a group of innocent
schoolchildren. The official media hates it when their marks push back and
thus we get propaganda like this study.

~~~
CM30
Well we also had social media users falsely doxing some family because they
thought one of the kids was involved in the events in said video:

[https://www.dailywire.com/news/42442/leftist-mob-wrongly-
ide...](https://www.dailywire.com/news/42442/leftist-mob-wrongly-identifies-
student-covington-emily-zanotti)

And there have been attacks on media sites, blogs, etc that admit their
previous coverage was wrong and their attitudes towards the kids unwarranted.

So sometimes its the public bringing the media to heel, sometimes its the
other way around, and sometimes it both groups acting like idiots and not
doing any research whatsoever.

But yeah, there is definitely an undertone of disdain towards the internet,
freedom of expression, outsider journalists and news sources, etc from the
established corporate ones. And a lot of the 'initiatives' I've seen for
monetising news sources, tackling bots and 'fake news', etc definitely seem
very anti consumer/anti rights.

~~~
hnuser1234
Yes, the giant media corporations bleat about the importance of a "free and
independent press" out of one side of their mouths whilst simultaneously
shitting all over the mediums that are most accessible to the average person
and allow him or her to amplify his voice.

------
sudoaza
It's weird how when we talk about political manipulation we always talk about
bots and fake news as only fringe media, while we overlook the biggest
manipulation that comes from right wing concentrated multimedia like CNN,
CNBC, etc. They have been caught publishing made up stories, communicates,
fabricating witnesses multiple times. Like, dunno, Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction comes to mind.

~~~
juliangoldsmith
I don't think most people in the United States would consider CNN or CNBC
right-wing. That's more Fox's purview.

~~~
jessaustin
"Most people in the United States" haven't admitted to themselves that the
overriding purpose of all popular news media is constantly, insidiously to
advocate for more spending on armaments and war. Historically that would have
been considered rightist, but in the current context one could be forgiven
some confusion...

~~~
philwelch
I'm sure that's how it comes across to a far-left isolationist, just like the
popular news media probably comes across as "insidiously advocating for
greater globalization and surrendering American sovereignty" to a John
Bircher, but that's probably because the commentators who say these things are
extremists, not because the vaguely-centrist media has an appreciable agenda.

~~~
neetdeth
That's what it looks like to a "far-right" isolationist, too. If you hadn't
noticed, Trump has been trying to extricate the US from conflict in Syria,
with the media nearly unanimous in opposing this goal.

US news media is in fact generally pro-war and pro-globalization, and these
are appreciable agendas which are only deemed "centrist" because they are
shared by the two major parties. Outlets like CNN closely reflect the
consensus of the governing elite, even when it is quite markedly out of step
with the prevailing opinion of the public on any given issue.

Labeling positions which don't enjoy the endorsement of state-affiliated
institutions as "extremist" is a common tactic to solidify control of the
discourse. This comment reads to me as nothing more than naked worship of
power.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Trump has been trying to extricate the US from conflict in Syria, with the
> media nearly unanimous in opposing this goal.

The media, the left, and the remotely sane parts of the right are largely
opposed to the specific mechanism; very few are opposed to the (purported)
goal of extricating the US from the conflict in Syria.

~~~
neetdeth
The specific mechanism of withdrawing US forces from the area? I seem to
recall a lot of hand-wringing from neocons about specific withdrawal
strategies from Iraq, but the bottom line was that Americans would remain in
Iraq.

You can't say oh, I'd like to extricate myself from this conflict, but also
force a specific outcome. That's having your cake and eating it.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The specific mechanism of withdrawing US forces from the area?

The timing, manner, and surrounding supporting activity (or lack thereof) of
that withdrawal, yes.

> You can't say oh, I'd like to extricate myself from this conflict, but also
> force a specific outcome.

Perhaps, but you absolutely can choose the manner in which you attempt to
extricate yourself from a conflict with an eye toward the likely impacts of
that extrication.

~~~
neetdeth
We could quite literally reparent your comment under a discussion about Iraq
circa 2007 and it would not look out of place coming from a neoconservative.
And no wonder -- those are the same people who now form the "remotely sane
parts of the right," according to the so-called left.

> The timing, manner, and surrounding supporting activity

Presumably the timing is too soon, the supporting activity not vigorous
enough, etc, etc. Let's kick the can down the road another year, surely our
underspecified war aims will be closer to fruition.

~~~
dragonwriter
> We could quite literally reparent your comment under a discussion about Iraq
> circa 2007 and it would not look out of place coming from a neoconservative.

No one had a plan to criticize in 2007. If you mean 2009-11, sure. Or, earlier
in the same conflict, in 2004 from much of the Left and non-neocon Right
against the Bush Admin in discussing how the neoconservatives desire to
disentangle rapidly after the defeat of Iraq was leading them to ignore the
lessons of defeats of past regimes stretching back at least to WWII.

And there's plenty of historical evidence (including the conflict that drew us
back into Iraq and Syria) that there was merit to both of those objections,
despite them coming from very different, largely opposed, ideological
factions.

~~~
neetdeth
I'll admit I just plucked a year at random there and it was a poor example.
You've aptly demonstrated your grasp of history but think it's a case of
refusing to see the forest for the trees. The question in my mind is whether
you've soured on the entire imperial project or not. Were the American
objectives there ever realistic? Did the war ever make sense?

The Syrian conflict itself is far too big a can of worms to open here. We
probably disagree on the ground truth of what precipitated the conflict there
and who's fighting whom and for what reasons. Regardless, it's very hard to
convince the average American that whatever geopolitical maneuvering is
happening there is worth caring about - despite very hard propaganda push
campaigns in support of it.

Back to the start of the thread, it was my observation that media outlets such
as CNN, Fox etc are broadly pro-war... you're basically getting the range of
perspectives between State and DoD and that's about it. The broad heuristic
you can use to predict their editorial slant on any issue is use-of-force
maximization. And that's definitely a discernible agenda.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The question in my mind is whether you've soured on the entire imperial
> project or not.

That presupposes that at one time I supported the “imperial project”; as
someone who repeatedly argued that it was an example of the crime of
aggression for which we rightly hung a bunch of people after WWII, I don't
think that is a valid premise.

OTOH, I don't think the illegality of how you got into a position does
anything to.absolve you of responsibility for the consequences of the manner
of your exttication; quite the opposite.

> Were the American objectives there ever realistic? Did the war ever make
> sense?

No, and no. But, unless we are in a sci-fi scenario where we get to rewind
time and attempt to alter the past, those are entirely irrelevant questions—as
they address only _should we have intervened_ (and actually address some of
the _less_ important factors of that question, as prospexts for success are
only relevant when provocation is established) but are largely irrelevant to
the question of “given that we are there now, what is the most appropriate
manner for extricating ourselves from that situation.”

~~~
neetdeth
What I intended there was not to accuse you of anything. I still think the
question _is_ relevant, because it may be that the political objectives were
never realistic, and thus the effort is Doomed with a capital D, and dogged
persistence can only result in perpetual war.

It's also possible that, given the political, religious/sectarian, and
economic factors at play, the region is likely to "relax into a minimum energy
state," so to speak, which is unlikely to be much perturbed by the specifics
of withdrawal.

There are always better and worse ways to do something. The hazard of holding
out for the optimal withdrawal strategy is that it aligns you with
disingenuous people who don't _really_ want an end to the thing at all. They
will poke holes incessantly in any proposal because either they still think
the thing is winnable, or prolonging it advances their personal or
institutional interests.

I'm still curious to know what precisely is so complicated about US withdrawal
in Syria, what the counter-proposal is, and what objective it's supposed to
achieve. This thread is going to get depth-limited at some point though, so I
may not find out.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I still think the question is relevant, because it may be that the political
> objectives were never realistic, and thus the effort is Doomed with a
> capital D, and dogged persistence can only result in perpetual war.

I think that your equation of my argument about the need for care in
extrication with something dependent on the viability of the original war aims
is misguided; the concerns are almost entirely unrelated.

